Evidence of meeting #29 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was targets.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So we agreed to five or six meetings on climate change in order to try to ascertain where we are, because we don't know where we are. Parliamentarians don't know where this country is going, as a sovereign nation state, on climate change. The really good news and, I think, the good faith behind Bill C-311 is helping to prompt a timely debate of where we're going in advance of the important Copenhagen negotiation.
But that being said, Ms. Duncan, my challenge and our challenge as a committee is that in many respects the bill presupposes and prejudges outcome.
I've already asked a series of questions in my only intervention. I'd just like to state a few that I think have to be heard in the context of this motion and in the context of hearing witnesses on Bill C-311. I'd like to know whether the government has costed out their plan. I'd like to know, first of all, what their plan is. They keep demanding costing. I'd like to know if the government, in costing, if they've done any at all, are going to tell Canadians whether the price of carbon per tonne, under their proposed cap-and-trade system, is going to be the $64 a tonne announced by the Prime Minister in London, England, a year and a half ago or whether it's going to be another number.
I'd like to know whether the government has done any assessment or any evaluation on the economic stimulus that lowering greenhouse gases will deliver for the Canadian economy. I'd like to know what the other G17 states and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate are doing. I'd like to know what Canada is saying to the United States right now, what it's saying to the Chinese. I'd like to know whether in fact Minister Prentice, for example, is still holding fast to intensity targets or whether he's going to be forced to admit that the world can only move forward on absolute cuts.
I'd like to know what the real state of dialogue is between Canada and the United States. We're told we have a new dialogue as of President Obama's visit, but we know there has been a dialogue on energy since 2001. It was killed in 2006 by the incoming government, and then resurrected as the only announceable—the only announceable—on the climate change crisis when Obama came to visit.
I'd like to know what Japan and other industrialized countries are taking on targets pre-Copenhagen. I'd like to know what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its negotiators are contemplating as outcome for Copenhagen. I'd like to know what Canada's position is right now with respect to Copenhagen. I'd like to know what the United States is going to do for targets, number one. Secondly, will Capitol Hill deliver up a cap-and-trade system, as requested by the administration? Or will President Obama be forced to use his regulatory powers under the EPA to actually price carbon and bring in a cap-and-trade system?
There are so many questions here to ask in order to do this right that I can't possibly, personally and I think on behalf of the official opposition, support this motion. It's not because we don't want to see the country move forward on climate change, it's not because we don't want to see a coherent position taken at Copenhagen, but we have to do this responsibly. Unfortunately, the government has been irresponsible in the last three years and three months, because nobody in this room can tell us—nobody in this room can tell us—where the hell we're at.
I really think it's important to have a very intensive set of hearings in the fall. I would suggest that you may want to reconsider calling for an immediate clause-by-clause examination of this bill, because I think this bill can be vastly improved. But we need to hear. This a moving target, and things have changed. Things have changed dramatically since the arrival of a Democratic administration in the United States that takes climate change seriously. That's the big difference.
I'm not finished.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'd like to conclude by saying that we're not in a position to support this motion as drafted. If you want to go forward and change it to reflect the fact that we should take into account all of the good testimony that was heard in the last round, we agree. But we need to come back in the fall and we need to start asking these questions that I've raised and getting answers before we can move forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just to follow up on Mr. McGuinty's reference to the previous motion we passed on June 2, it said that the committee shall study Bill C-311 for at least the first five meetings of the fall session.
Mr. Bigras.
Bloc
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before moving to the motion, I would like to mention that something has changed down south in the United States, they have new leadership. In Canada, on the other hand, the change has been that, since they got their new leader, the Liberals' ardour for the fight against climate change has cooled. I remember the debates that we had on Pablo Rodriguez's Bill C-288. It wanted us to agree to Kyoto objectives and it set out a plan. Since the new leader has arrived, things have changed.
That said, I think that the timeframe that we have to keep in mind as we study Bill C-311 is Copenhagen. We cannot study climate change for ever and ever amen; the climate change conference is taking place in December. The negotiators need a clear message from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. With a minority government, the mandate also should express the will of Parliament, as a principle. The longer the study of Bill C-311 drags on, the less clear will be the mandate that the government will have to come up with.
In my opinion, we would not be setting a precedent if we took under advisement the evidence we heard when we studied the old Bill C-377 and then moved directly to clause-by-clause consideration. The climate change conference is taking place in December. The message has to be clear: either we are in favour of a reduction of 25% below 1990 levels or we are not.
My sense is that the will of the government and of the official opposition is that they do not want to discuss Canada's future commitments. How else do we explain the fact that the Liberal party is going to vote against the NDP motion today?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I have to say that I'm completely befuddled by Mr. McGuinty's comments. His motion must have been raised when I was at the international climate change conferences, so I wasn't actually aware of it. His motion appears to support the very motion I've raised to expedite the review of Bill C-311. In other words, in my absence the committee agreed to move to it.
That's expediting it, in lieu of the fact that the review of this bill has been continuously deferred by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have swayed from the traditional practice of all committees, which is that review of legislation and estimates is given first. This bill is being given short shrift and has been put at the bottom of the pile. Instead of completing a review by now, we are only going to start it in September. I remind the committee that we have to report back to Parliament by October 22.
We are also reviewing Bill C-311. We're not reviewing whatever the Liberal new climate change plan might be. We're not reviewing “Turning the Corner”. We are reviewing a bill that has been tabled before this committee by Parliament. So I think it's incumbent upon us.... Certainly everybody can have full rights and propose whatever witnesses they want to bring in. I am simply again, as I have continuously done in this committee, trying to suggest an efficient review.
I have already agreed, at the request of Mr. Warawa, to take out the clause-by-clause. That may have been my mistake as a new member. I know he was suggesting that we preclude amendments. I'm not even excluding that there be additional witnesses. I'm simply suggesting that my motion, on review of past testimony, certainly helped inform me who would be additional witnesses. There's a lot of pressure by outside forces, by members of my own party, about all kinds of witnesses who should be brought forward.
I am trying to balance the interests of this committee, because I feel responsible for proceeding with all the matters that are before us--and there are a number of other matters. The committee can choose to vote against it. I would accept a friendly amendment to take out the clause-by-clause. I'm in no way excluding that there be additional witnesses. I will certainly be objecting, as a member of the steering committee, to an endless list of topics, witnesses, and so forth, that do not directly speak to Bill C-311.
I would like to thank Mr. Bigras for his comments. There is something new in Bill C-311 that was not in Bill C-377: there are actually less than three months until Copenhagen. In fact, the negotiation position of this country is being made right now, not six months from now.
We were asked by Parliament to seriously review this bill. It puts forward targets to be considered to take to Copenhagen. So I think it's incumbent on us to move forward. If we only have that number of meetings we will have to seriously decide, as a steering committee and as a committee, how to constrain that review. That's all there is to it. This is simply my suggestion on how we constrain that review.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just for clarification, the committee already has a motion instructing us that the first five meetings when we come back in the fall session will be dedicated to Bill C-311. With that in mind, Mr. Warawa's suggestion was to remove the last two lines after “Bill C-311”, because we already have direction to--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Do you agree to the friendly amendment, Mr. Warawa? Are you happy with taking that out?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have the friendly amended motion. The last two lines after “Bill C-311” are dropped.
Mr. McGuinty.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
You said it would be after the words “Bill C-311”. It's in the second last line twice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
It shall read:
That, in order to ensure a timely and efficient review of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, the Committee agrees to accept information, testimony, and materials considered during hearings conducted by the Committee in the 2nd Session, 39th Parliament on Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as supporting documentation for review of Bill C-311.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
I just want to confirm that this will officially put in the testimony--
Conservative
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
--but it does not preclude any of these witnesses from being recalled, and it's just a housekeeping and really meaningless motion. We all have access to this information.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
It is unnecessary to insult me. I thought it was rather meaningful.