Environment Committee on April 7th, 2008

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Microphone off: thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McGuinty should know, Mr. Chair, that the reason we're vigorously opposing this bill is precisely because it purports to put auto workers out. That's why I'm at the microphone. I'm fighting for my constituents. This is a bad bill. It's a deeply flawed bill. It's bad for auto workers. It's extremely bad for auto workers.

Mr. McGuinty can sit over there and carp all he wants about how much time I've had at the microphone, but it's only been just over an hour. I'm going to make my points here. This is extremely important. I'm going to lay out the full case on behalf of my auto workers, because this is extremely important.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I've worked with these people on the line, and I'm proud to be at the microphone to fight for my auto workers. Mr. McGuinty may not care about the auto workers, but I do, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

There's a point of order. Get yourself under control, please.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, we have to respect Mr. Watson's time. The committee is on the verge of being deemed in disorder.

[An hon. member]

Who says that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm suggesting that to you, Chair. I'd ask that there be order and that Mr. Watson be given a fair opportunity to speak.

We've had applause and disruptions from members of the committee and also people observing. We have to respect Mr. Watson's time. Otherwise we're in disorder, and the only option then left to you is to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, I sort of take example from our Speaker in the House. Of course he constantly attempts to keep order, and that would be my intention as well, to try to keep order.

Mr. Watson has brought up some interesting points certainly on behalf of his constituents. He has talked to this transition problem, and I think he should be allowed to continue. He hasn't had the floor for as much time as Mr. McGuinty has suggested; it's been other members. I think it's time we listened to Mr. Watson and his constituents.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'd like to respond to the point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't think I need a response, Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

We have a debatable point of order here. He's raised a point of order, and I'd like to respond to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think all members here would like to have order.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have just two short points, Mr. Chair. First of all, I don't think the parliamentary secretary's in any position to tell us whether this committee is in disorder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, Mr. McGuinty, I really would like....

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Second, Mr. Chair, if I could, I never implied that this member has been speaking for fifteen hours. Only the Conservative members have been speaking for fifteen hours--all four of them. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Correct. That point's been made, Mr. McGuinty.

I'd like Mr. Watson to carry on, on behalf of his constituents, and talk about the auto industry.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Had Mr. McGuinty been patient, I'm actually about to wrap up my comments.

As I was saying, I know that the opposition wants to ignore the testimony before this committee, Mr. Chair, in its attempt to push through this bad bill, this deeply flawed bill and all its provisions, including clause 10. This is what Mr. Thomas d'Aquino--I hope I don't massacre his name--president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, said on Wednesday, February 6, 2008. Mr. Chair, we were talking about the importance of making investments in technology that will not only benefit our environment but will move our jobs forward in this country. That is not the type of unjust transition where you just callously and cold-heartedly kick workers out of their jobs into an uncertain future. That's what the opposition is all about, Mr. Chair. That is what they're here for. I'm here to stand up.

The reason I'm opposing this particular clause and the bill, more broadly speaking, Mr. Chair, is because it's bad. It's absolutely bad for workers, and I'm not ashamed to say that. I'm not ashamed to sit here at committee and make my case about why this is bad. I'm not ashamed at all, and I will use my full privileges as a member of Parliament--they're the privileges of every member of Parliament--to come here and stand up for their constituents, make their views known, and mount a very vigorous defence of their welfare.

Mr. Chair, I worked for six and a half years with these families. I know a lot of them by name. I know their children, Mr. Chair. These are very important people. I'm talking about clause 10 here, with this unjust transition they want. They just want to toss them out of work. I worked with these people. I know what it's like in this industry. I know how tough it is, looking to the future.

That's why our plan is the right one. We're not only going to try to move forward our environmental goals, which are to have a cleaner environment, we're going to move these families forward. We're not just going to kick them out and leave them to the wolves, as the opposition wants to do, Mr. Chair.

Back to the point, here's the testimony of Mr. d'Aquino, talking about the need for technological investments, on February 6, 2008. This is on page 2. Here's what he says. This, of course, is their submission. They agree with some of the points we're talking about here. He talks about their proposal. He says, “Another key element of our proposal is to recognize the absolutely fundamental role of technology”. This isn't peripheral to the discussion here, Mr. Chair. This isn't peripheral for Canadians who are watching. This is absolutely the crux and the heart of the issue here.

It's not kick them out and maybe have some income replacement or maybe train them or who knows what. No, this is about making the critical investments now. I was talking about the accelerated capital cost writeoffs being very significant at this particular juncture. They were structured the way they were by this government in declining fashion in years four and five, precisely to ensure that the technology investments are made today. That is vital. Recognize the absolutely fundamental role of technology. That's the quote from Mr. d'Aquino.

He goes on to say, “There is simply no way to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without massive investments in new technologies. Business leaders in the council see this as a tremendous opportunity”.

We agree. That's why we have the accelerated capital cost allowance writeoffs for these industries, and we've made them more generous, too, in terms of the amount that can be written off.

He says:

Business leaders in the council see this as a tremendous opportunity, since Canada has the natural resources and the technical, financial, and skills capability to be a leader in next-generation technologies such as clean coal, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, hydro, wind, biofuels, and other alternative energies.

I'd go on and add to that list the types of automotive components and parts in vehicles that can address the need for significant and deep reductions in greenhouse gases on the transportation side of the equation, not just on the industry side. Our regulations address that particular issue.

Mr. d'Aquino goes on, talking about his proposals and where we have some common ground. This government does, anyway; the opposition doesn't. He says:

A third element of our paper recognizes the importance of targets as a spur to environmental progress. We support the ultimate goal of achieving a substantial, absolute reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases, both in Canada and globally. At the same time, it is important that any target applied to Canadian industry recognize competitive realities and be set within an overall policy framework that allows profitable firms to increase their investment in new technologies.

Of course, clause 10 speaks about targets and their effects.

This is how we're going to move forward, Mr. Chair. It's how the auto industry is going to move forward. The opposition may not want the auto industry to move forward. They have the rhetoric, but when it comes time to where the actual policies get put into place and the dollars get put behind them in budgets, what do they do? They either sit on their hands if they're not allowed to vote in the Liberal Party, or the few that are allowed vote against these measures. Or the Bloc--they don't even wait to see what's in budgets, they just go ahead saying they are against it and forget it, especially if it's the auto industry. I don't know how many times I've sat in this committee, Mr. Chair, and listened to the Bloc Québécois kick the auto industry in the shins at every opportunity. They don't care. They used to build the Camaro in their province, Mr. Chair; they had an investment at one time, and they've lost it . Now they just don't seem to care any more: they'll kick the shins of the auto industry. I've heard it time and time again.

But we're looking at measures--

[An hon. member]

Point d'ordre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Watson, there is a point of order, but I think you're better to keep on talking about clause 10 if you can and try not to get into the politics of it.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you have a duty to ensure that the debate focusses on Bill C-377. If the member doesn't know what to say anymore, he should cede the floor to his colleague. Mr. Watson should focus on Bill C-377. I have the sense he is straying from it more and more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

Again, Mr. Watson, I would ask you to try to keep to what we're talking about. I don't think it's necessary to talk about other parties or their positions. It's your position that really matters, and I ask you to keep to that and certainly not go after the parties, please.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been speaking about the unjust transition they want to force; this is what clause 10 is about. I'm talking about investments in new technology as a tool, Mr. Chair. We're talking about tools in clause 10. I've been very much to the point with that as well as I've been very much to the point about talking about these being tools we support and they don't support. I think that's fair for Canadians to understand that as we talk about why certain tools are being used and why certain tools are not necessarily to be used, Mr. Chair. That's very germane to the point. I've been very much on that one.

Back to Mr. d'Aquino and his testimony. We can't ignore the testimony at this committee when we're studying bills like these. It's very important, Mr. Chair. Mr. d'Aquino says, and I quote:

A fourth necessity is to ensure that globally we have an effective and long-term plan that commits all major emitting countries to do more to constrain the growth of emissions around the world.

Another very valuable tool is how we negotiate with other countries, and they agree with us, Mr. Chair. A further quote on page 2:

There are ways to design our policies so that they do not place unfair burdens on vulnerable regions, sectors, or individuals, but we should not pretend that the cost is insignificant or that the policies need to focus only on driving reductions in Canadian industry.

There are some very important comments for us to consider here when we're talking about tools in clause 10, the tools the government is choosing to employ, Mr. Chair. I look at clause 10 and I think the government is doing a far better job in terms of assessing its tools.

Mr. Chair, I would bring this conversation back to a summary, and then we'll bring it to an end.

The opposition wants to force an unjust transition on workers, particularly in the auto industry, leaving it up to the government to design a just transition fund. They don't even know how much it costs. They don't care how much it costs. They don't even care that the transition will be unjust to workers. It's just go ahead, here's a tool, go ahead and use it; you guys deal with the wreckage this bill will impose on those industries in transition. It's very significant.

Mr. Chair, the approach of the government is a sound one. I am opposing clause 10 as amended. And further, broadly speaking, I am opposing Bill C-377.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

I have had a request from Mr. Harvey, who is on CPAC, to switch his spot with Mr. Warawa, because the order that I have is Mr. Harvey, Mr. Regan, and Mr. Warawa. He did request that, and I said I would ask the committee.

I see Mr. Bigras is not agreeing. So I will go to Mr. Regan.

I did tell Mr. Harvey that I would mention it to you and ask that we switch.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, who is after me on the speakers list?