Evidence of meeting #24 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Again, Mr. Harvey, we've discussed clause 10 as being extremely broad in its focus on climate change and its effects. There are any number of areas, and contamination isn't one of them. Obviously the member has a point.
I would ask you to simply look at that clause and try to stick to it. It's a very broad clause, and lots of areas can be covered.
Go ahead, Mr. Harvey, please.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i) talks about regulated greenhouse gas emission limits and performance standards. They say I'm talking about mercury, but I spent exactly 15 seconds talking about that, simply to say that it is a side effect of hydroelectricity. I wish to point out that I did not talk about mercury for two hours, or even 10 minutes. I said it was a side effect of building a power plant. If my Opposition colleagues are intent on focussing on one word out of everything that I have said, well, perhaps they should put on their headset. Then we can understand each other.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
By the way, I was talking to the Chair.
I would like to raise another very good example, which is biofuel. In fact, when I talked about regulated emission limits and performance standards… More than $2 billion has been invested in biofuels, but we still know very little about their direct and indirect effects. The advantage of biofuels is that their carbon cycle is much shorter than for fossil fuels. With fossil fuels, we find carbon that was discarded several thousand years ago, possibly even several million years ago. The biofuel carbon cycle is a year or two—no more. But, ultimately, it is the exact same carbon that is emitted during combustion.
I want to talk about the cost or effects of Bill C-377, and especially clause 10, so that we are clear on the consequences of clause 10 for the Canadian economy, the people of Canada and the entire North American continent. In terms of biofuels, we are told that grains and plant material produced by farmers are now more expensive. Farmers are obviously happy about that. Recently, I was watching the news feature on Third World countries…
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The member is clearly off topic. His comments are not particularly relevant. If that continues to be the case, the Committee will not be able to continue for very long. The member will have to show some discipline and focus on clause 10 and its repercussions. I would ask him to come back to the purpose of the bill. It is perfectly obvious, Mr. Chairman, that these are nothing but delaying tactics intended to slow down the work of the Committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Harvey, please summarize now and wrap on the various sections of clause 10. Address them in your remarks and do not stray into those examples.
Mr. Warawa is our next speaker.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Wallace is substituting for Mr. Petit and has asked to be on the speaking list.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am talking about subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i) which has to do with regulated emission limits and performance standards. So, I would ask that my colleagues pay attention to what I am saying or wait until I make the connection. The example I have given is perfect. To what extent should we be assessing performance? What are appropriate performance factors? How does one go about assessing performance in order to determine whether it is positive or negative? The example I gave is a perfect example. Canada decided to work with biofuels, but one of their side effects is increased grain prices. International aid is far more costly and this makes for greater challenges in Third World countries.
Biofuels require increasing amounts of reserve or groundwater, which is very often used to irrigate huge grain fields. That affects the groundwater. Should the extensive use of groundwater be considered in these kinds of evaluations? There is no such mention of it.
We want more and more land to be set aside for agriculture, which means that we are cutting down forests that also capture carbon. The clearcutting of forests has an additional side effect. Not only are we cutting down trees, but when there is a lot of rain, rather than remaining in the forest for longer periods, where it is captured, filtered and slowly released into nature, this water is causing significant flooding. The fact is that there is nothing there to stop the flow of water. Should that be part of our performance standards? Should we assess that? Clause 10 makes no mention of it, Mr. Chairman.
We are using even more fertilizers now to grow all that grass. Is the proliferation of blue algae a direct effect of that? As the algae develops, it uses the oxygen in the water, and fewer fish develop as a result. In addition to that, some known types of algae, such as blue algae, emit particularly problematic toxins.
Should performance of evaluations and standards reflect that sort of thing?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. Harvey, please address the chair and not Mr. Bigras. I'd really appreciate it.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Harvey is now speaking about fish farming, blue-green algae, and anything that pops into his little head, frankly. It has nothing to do with this bill and is just further evidence, as we are just under seventeen hours, of the government's filibustering.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
Mr. McGuinty, I've been trying to follow the debate as clearly and closely as I possibly can.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
He has talked about emission limits and standards, and those are in clause 10. He has referred to them and been very broad in his explanation.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Can you reign him in for the committee so we can do some positive work now?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I've asked him to summarize. I believe he's pretty well finished. We're going on to Mr. Warawa, who is the next speaker on my list.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Will you be reigning in Mr. Warawa and keeping him on point?
Conservative