Environment Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The motion we have is not debatable, the clerk advises me.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My point of order is, and I ask you, Chair, did we have a reduced quorum at that time? Your decision was on the motion I made at the end of those speakers, but that is not what I'm talking about.

The point of order I'm bringing up is one resulting from last Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Last Thursday, the chair ruled we did have reduced quorum.

[An hon. member]

We did have reduced quorum?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

Now we need to vote on whether we move on to this. I would like to do that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, if we indeed had a quorum, which we did, then according to Marleau and Montpetit....

I do have the floor, do I not, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You do right now. Be quick, though.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm going as quickly as I can, Chair.

Let me just read this again:

Usually, quorum is quickly restored so that the House may proceed with the business before it. Should the House be required to adjourn for lack of quorum....

That didn't happen, as we had quorum—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, I'm going to rule that we have a non-debatable motion and that we need to vote on whether we move on to....

Could you just repeat your motion, please, Mr. Bigras?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Today it is a pleasure for me to table a motion that reads as follows:

It is proposed that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, through its Chair, write to the Environment Minister to express the committee's desire to see him, on the occasion of the 13th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, make a commitment to ensure an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and accept Europe's invitation to cut emissions by 30% if the other developed countries also accept.

I am therefore tabling this motion because, in recent months, scientific evidence has been presented to the international community. First, the intergovernmental group—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Chair, can I have the floor for a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I'm going to suspend this session.

We'll come back after the vote. That's all we can do.

We'll hear the rest of your arguments and the point of order, and we'll carry on after the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I hereby reconvene the meeting of the environment committee. And this is being televised, just so members don't....

Let's listen to Mr. Bigras with the first speech. Then I'll come back to you, Mr. Vellacott, to your point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm introducing this motion today simply because the 13th Conference of the Parties began on climate change in Bali on December 3, yesterday. The purpose of that conference is to establish mandatory reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions. We know that the minister announced to us that he intended to leave Canada for Bali with his plan for fighting climate change in his suitcase, the purpose of which, he said, was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But what is the actual situation? The actual situation is that the government has made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions relative to 2006 by 20% in 2020, on the basis of emissions intensity.

First, that means that all those businesses that have previously made efforts will be penalized by the minister's plans because he has taken 2006 as a benchmark. A lot of those businesses are in Quebec. I'm thinking of the Quebec industrial sectors that have managed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 7% since 1990.

Then the government announced to us that these targets won't be absolute targets. Instead they will be intensity targets where greenhouse gas emissions reductions will be conditional on production. So reductions by unit of production are anticipated. In absolute terms, that means increases in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

For the first time, the WWF has established figures for the greenhouse gas emissions represented under the introduction of the Environment Minister's plan. It refers to greenhouse gas emissions increases of 179%. They could even rise to 219%.

We must not, we cannot allow the minister to leave for Bali in a few hours with this plan, which, contrary to what the minister will attempt to lead the international community to believe, will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He must make commitments to absolute reductions of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020.

The reports of the scientific groups are eloquent and demonstrate that, to ensure that climate change does not have dangerous economic and environmental impact—the word “dangerous” is important—we must limit the increase in average temperatures to 2^oC over the pre-industrial period.

That requires a considerable effort on our part, and that's what this motion talks about. It also asks Canada to join the umbrella of Europe, which has decided to exceed this 20% reduction commitment by inviting the industrial countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 30% relative to 1990.

Mr. Chair, we expect the minister to stand up in Bali and to propose real targets for mandatory absolute reductions. We also hope that he will send a clear message to the developing and emerging countries, recalling the importance of clean development mechanisms. That is a powerful instrument of the Kyoto Protocol which enables Quebec and Canadian businesses that have environmental technology to make a technology transfer to those emerging countries. Those countries would thus be able to contribute to the global greenhouse gas reduction effort, and businesses that have sustainable development technologies would be able to do business.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government has not yet paid its minimum fees of $1.5 million. This non-compliance with its financial commitments shows that the government does not believe in the instruments contained in the Kyoto Protocol, including the Clean Development Mechanism.

In addition, the minister must send a clear message in Bali that he believes in the emissions credit trading system. That is fundamentally important; it is another powerful tool enabling us to meet our international commitments. If Canada does not make mandatory commitments to absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions, what message will the Canadian government be sending to the business community? What will be the impact on the carbon market? Isn't there a risk that that market, which enables businesses that have previously made efforts to make profits, collapse, as Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, stated in Asia a few weeks ago.

In our opinion, the minister has no other choice: he must send a clear message; make a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in absolute terms; reiterate Canada's support, clearly stated in Kyoto and confirmed in Marrakesh, for the Clean Development Mechanism; and clearly tell the international community that he believes in an emissions trading market system. That, Mr. Chair, is how Canada can regain leadership on the international stage.

Just today, Germany has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% in absolute terms by 2020, starting from 1990 levels. Canada is increasingly isolated. While we have a prime minister who believes that the Kyoto Protocol was a mistake, Australia only yesterday stated its intention to ratify it.

Canada can no longer remain isolated from the international community. That is the gist of the motion introduced today. I know that the government has previously used all kinds of dilatory manoeuvres to engage in systematic obstruction in the committees. Today I won't afford the government the opportunity to use dilatory manoeuvres and obstruction to ensure that we, on this side of the committee, lose face, when we want to see firm measures in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. That is why I am introducing a motion to adjourn the committee's proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So we have a non-debatable--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, may I inquire as to what happens to the other order of business? I realize that the Bloc got to their business, but there's another order of business. It happens to be a private member's bill in the name of the leader of the Canadian NDP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

That's not a point of order. It's basically a question. We have a motion to adjourn, which is non-debatable.

Could you read the motion again, please?

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

It's an adjournment motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The motion is that the committee adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The meeting is adjourned.