Environment Committee on April 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

Just so everybody understands, Mr. Harvey is next. Mr. Harvey had to be away for ten minutes, so he asked me if he could switch places with Mr. Warawa. We'll let Mr. Warawa go, then Mr. Regan, then Mr. Harvey, in the speaking list.

That was a simple request that normally I would grant, and that would just be fine. But I've put it to you because this is somewhat contentious.

Mr. McGuinty, go ahead.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, in the spirit of cooperation, could the parliamentary secretary commit to this committee and let Canadians know that if he were to pick up the baton now and speak in Mr. Harvey's stead, who's on television, he will end this filibuster by a defined time?

Perhaps that would be useful, in the spirit of cooperation, if he could tell Canadians and committee members when the government intends to stop filibustering a private member's bill. Perhaps in the interest of making the order flow smoothly, we could get on to actually working on the amendments that we've got tabled here on a clause-by-clause basis, given that we're close to fourteen hours of filibuster now. Could the parliamentary secretary then commit to giving us a time by which this will end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty, as your chair, I'll certainly put that question to Mr. Warawa--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That would be very useful. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

--but I doubt very much that he can answer that question.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let's ask him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Because I'm sure he's got points that he wishes to raise about clause 10.

Mr. Warawa, do you care to answer that question? Certainly there's no onus on you to answer it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate the question. I have a lot I'd like to say on Bill C-377.

Is it my turn to speak, or would it be Mr. Regan's?

Also, Mr. Harvey wanted to speak--he's now on CPAC with the panel--and he wants to be on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would drop him in after yourself.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So whoever is the speaker now, if it's Mr. Regan--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Regan is the next speaker. Well, Mr. Harvey is, but he's not here.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm fine. If Mr. Regan wanted to speak now, that's fine, and I can speak after Mr. Regan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. I think we have an answer. Certainly Mr. Bigras objects.

Mr. Regan, you have the floor.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief, because I certainly don't want to add to the filibuster here.

I think it's very clear and becoming clearer to Canadians that what this demonstrates is that this government--the same government that talked about so-called global warming gases, so-called climate change and so forth--is once again showing its true colours by acting in this way, filibustering this bill, trying to oppose and delay and delay and delay as long as possible any real action on climate change.

Canadians are increasingly concerned. They see increasing evidence, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson has a point of order.

I was going to ask Mr. Regan to please talk to clause 10.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, I was hoping the member could at least mention clause 10. He hasn't even mentioned it yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

He's getting there.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I was getting there. Thank you, Chair.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I just wanted to make sure he was getting there, Mr. Chairman.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I think that clause 10 is an important part of this bill, and that we should support it. I am disappointed that Mr. Warawa, who's already spoken at extensive length--and when I say length, I'm talking about hours and hours and hours--which is a remarkable feat, but not one that's added much to our knowledge about climate change, or our knowledge about this bill, or any of its articles.

Mr. Chairman, I think that these members should be ashamed of themselves. They do not demonstrate any real interest in moving or in taking real action on the greatest challenge facing this planet. It's embarrassing to sit here on the same committee as them, when they know full well what they're doing. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Mr. Warawa is our next speaker, and again I urge everyone to stay on clause 10. The amended clause 10 is what we're here for.

We are waiting to vote on clause 10 so we can move on to clause 11.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor on amended clause 10.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Amended clause 10 says:

10. (1) On or before May 31 of each year, the Minister shall prepare a statement setting out

(a) the measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including measures taken in respect of

(i) regulated emission limits and performance standards,

(ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets,

(iii) spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry, and

My colleague Mr. Watson spoke on that at length, and I want to thank him for what he shared with this committee.

(iv) cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments; and

(b) the Canadian greenhouse gas emission reductions that are reasonably expected to result from each of those measures in each of the next ten years; and

(c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

Mr. Watson was speaking on Bill C-377, clause 10, and talking about what Bill C-377 will do to the auto industry. We've heard parables told to our children and grandchildren. Maybe each of us has read little stories and parables. We learn a basic truth or principle as we read parables. They're quite instructive and helpful. So as we consider Bill C-377, clause 10, and hear Mr. Watson sharing how this can impact the auto industry, I'd like to share a little parable.

Let's think about going into an auto store in Canada and being shown a beautiful vehicle with good fuel economy. Let's assume it's a hybrid, with leather seats, a sun roof, and new technology, but the salesperson does not allow you to look under the hood. They promise that this vehicle gets 100 miles per litre. It's phenomenal. Mr. Watson spoke of new technology. They're not going to tell you what that new technology is, but they tell you it's incredible. You say you'd like to take it around the block. They say you can't take it around the block. You can't drive it, but it will deliver these incredible 100...let's say 200 kilometres per litre. It's phenomenal. You can't drive it, but it is actually incredible.

What's likely the next question somebody is going to ask? It will be available next year or the year after, but what will it cost? What is the price tag on this technology that is supported by lots of promises? They say “You can sit in this, but I can't start it up for you yet. It's in the showroom. It has leather seats but you can't look under the hood. We're not going to tell you what it's going to cost.”

How many people would buy that? It's all based on rhetoric and promises.

What we're seeing here with Bill C-377 is exactly that. It's not based on science; it's based on scientific targets, with no evidence that they are achievable. That's what we heard from each of the witness groups. There is no way they know whether it's going to achieve anything. It's all based on a dream. That's the analogy Mr. Layton used when he came to this committee.

He talked about his dream, his dream of the railway, and they had no idea how they were going to pay for this, but it was a dream that he had that Bill C-377 would move forward with these international targets.

Now, he knew about what was happening in Parliament and that the government had a notice of intent to regulate. The Turning the Corner plan was already moving forward. There were already positive signals in the marketplace that the Turning the Corner plan was already having positive results. We've even seen that recently with the Montreal carbon exchange, climate exchange. This is moving forward, and this would not be happening without a plan that has credibility, credibility that people are buying into.

Now, are people buying into the rhetoric of Bill C-377? The expert witnesses who came to this committee did not buy in. We didn't have anybody who was saying “Yes, I would be willing to pay whatever it costs for your dream”--not one.

So as we look at Bill C-377, clause 10, as Mr. Watson aptly warned us, built into this is a disclaimer. The disclaimer is that we have a transition fund, and the transition fund is for all the Canadians we're going to put out of work, because we're such big-hearted people--the NDP.

Well, that is morally reprehensible: to mislead Canadians by presenting a bill in the House--you don't know anything about it--just to make you look like you care about the environment. That's very serious to play with Canadians' emotions like that, because Canadians have a commitment, and we all know that--they have a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's why we're having a healthy debate here around this table. It's very concerning when we have members of the opposition, and it's every member of the opposition, it's the Liberal Party that has a legacy of lots of pomp, lots of announcements, but never getting anything done. And it's not that they just didn't get it done; it's that everything got worse under their lack of plans. All it was was announcements, and we heard that from the commissioner. That's what we see in Bill C-377, clause 10: announcements but no substance.

So I think it is morally reprehensible for the NDP to present something, and then to shout and huff and puff and say this has to go forward for the environment, when there's nothing there. It's as phony as a $3 bill. Maybe that's why it's called Bill C-377. It's as phony as a $7 bill. It's phony right to its core, because there's no substance. It is that car with lots of promises, nice leather seats,and it even has a sun roof, but you can't start it, and there's no proof it will ever.... But just send us all your money and hopefully one day we will have something that will work.

But they don't have a track record. Has the NDP ever given Parliament a bill that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Not once. They do not have a track record that is to be trusted. They're great at buying birthday cakes or celebration cakes, making the announcements when they crack deals with the Liberals. But they do not have a legacy of substance; it's also a legacy of announcements.

Now, they know they're not very likely ever to be government, so they can come up with a bill that doesn't have substance. It's a lot of rhetoric. So that's why as government we have a responsibility to protect Canadians, to make sure that what Canadians have is something that will really work. And that's the legacy of this government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper; it's a legacy of keeping his promises and getting it done.

Referring to Bill C-377, clause 10, we had a comment. And I believe that every member of this committee has a passion for the environment. I really do. I believe personally that Mr. Cullen, who is lobbying for this bill and for his leader, Mr. Layton, does have a passion for the environment. I believe every one of us--Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Regan, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Scarpaleggia, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Lussier--has a passion, but each of us is following the direction to some extent.

Mr. Chair, you are doing a great job, and you are a neutral party, and we all want to thank you for putting up with what's happening in this committee, which is consideration of Bill C-377, a phony bill right to its core.

Further evidence of the genuine desire of Mr. Cullen to see something happen in the environment while lamenting the lack of action on it, and of how excited opposition members, including him, get when the government fails, was heard on March 12, when Mr. Cullen, speaking to the environment commissioner, said, “I suppose that as opposition members we should be excited when there are reports in the Auditor General's office, the commissioner's office, that show government failure.”

Well, Chair, it's nothing to be excited about when we see growing emissions. Every witness group has said it will not support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through Bill C-377 because we don't know what that will cost. Now we have a glimpse at what those costs would be, and that glimpse comes from experience when we attend international meetings.

Mr. Godfrey was at an international meeting in Germany with me, at the G8 + 5, along with Mr. Cullen, and we heard how important it is to have a plan that's realistic. And I have shared before with the committee that the plan has to have a realistic timeframe with realistic targets, and that each country is unique and different.

That's why we asked Mr. Bramley, when he was here as a witness just after Mr. Layton on Bill C-377, whether Canada's unique circumstances had been considered in Bill C-377, whether it had been costed. And his response was that Canada's unique circumstances hadn't been considered, it hadn't been costed, and it should be considered. That's why I've asked every one of these committee members here in the environment committee to please cost the bill. Do an impact analysis. Stop this phoniness, and do what Canadians want.

Now they're refusing to cost this bill, as recommended by the witness groups, and why would that be? Well, I think Mr. Watson hit the nail on the head, Chair. When you look at the measures under Bill C-377, clause 10, they are so vague and meaningless and nondescript that you end up with nothing. And you end up again with their making these promises that this vehicle is going to go 200 kilometres on a litre of fuel, with no substance. The bottom line is they want to be able to get good announcements out there, and they are afraid to tell Canadians what this will really cost.

My concern is that we're looking at possibly doubling the cost of energy to Canadians with Bill C-377. Doing what Bill C-377 is asking to do in a short period of time will have dramatic costs to Canadians--direct costs--and energy costs will be going up dramatically. That means energy costs to heat your home.

Canada has a unique situation. We're in the north. We have a colder climate. The climate is colder than in the United States, because we're quite a bit north. That's why a lot of Canadians fly to the United States, where it's warmer during the winter. They call them snowbirds.

We have a colder climate. It takes a lot of energy to keep our homes comfortable and warm. There are some practical things we can do. As a government, we have provided the tools in our Turning the Corner plan to help Canadians upgrade their homes so they use less energy and are still comfortable.

You have to have a reasonable amount of time that Canadians can do that. You can't say to all Canadians that they must reduce the amount of energy they're going to be using in half within a few years. It's not possible to do that. You can't say that every Canadian has to drive a hybrid vehicle; not all hybrids have incredible fuel economy. You can't say that all Canadians have to buy a vehicle that gets 100 kilometres per litre. We don't have that technology yet. You have to be realistic in your expectations, and you have to provide a realistic timeframe. That's what we heard when we were at the international conference in Germany.

You have to create the tools too, including a domestic carbon market. That's what we have in Canada now: the genesis of a domestic carbon market. That's exactly what we were told in Germany needs to happen. And it is happening.

Canadians want an action plan that is realistic and that will see absolute results--not phoney announcement, but results. That's the legacy this government provides to Canadians. It's not like clause 10 in Bill C-377--vague, no direction, no substance. Canadians want action, and that's what they get in the Turning the Corner plan.

How is that Turning the Corner plan achieving that, and will our plan hurt the economy? There will be an impact, but it's over a realistic timeframe. In the end, it will result in absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. That's 150 megatonnes. If we were to continue to see emissions grow--

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

On a point of order, Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

We've heard ad nauseam from the parliamentary secretary about the so-called Turning the Corner plan. I'll remind him again that we're talking about the accountability section of Bill C-377, the open and transparent reporting of effort for Canadians.

He can go on and on as much as he wants in his own time about this so-called Turning the Corner plan, which is not supported by a single group anywhere in this country, or in any other country, but he cannot continue to waste the time of this committee.

We're looking at Bill C-377, Mr. Layton's bill, and clause 10, which talks very clearly about finally being truthful to Canadians about what is happening and not happening on the environment. The complete washout that is his government's own initiative is for him to account for in some other place. We're here to talk about clause 10 and to finish this bill.

I would encourage him to finish his comments so we can get on with it. It's disgraceful that this continues day after day. It has to stop.