Evidence of meeting #39 for Natural Resources in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was binder.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Ms. Bell, I believe, as Mr. Anderson has noted, that this is out of order. It entirely changes the direction and the intent of the motion. I'm going to disallow that.
I'm going to continue with the debate on—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay. We now go directly to a vote.
The question is that the decision of the chair be sustained.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
The Clerk
The proposal would be to delete all the words after “opportunity” and replace them with the following:
This committee recognizes that we are living in a world where carbon must be constrained and priced, and further recognizes that the rising price of gas and energy impacts middle-income and lower-income Canadians and makes life less affordable. Therefore the committee recommends that the government put a price on carbon, based on the polluter-pay principle, and invest in programs and develop innovative technologies to help Canadians reduce their carbon footprint and their energy bills.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Chairman, could I please be given an explanation about this?
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
I simply wanted to say that this is completely different—
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have to put the question now, because the chair's decision has been challenged.
The question is whether the decision of the chair shall be sustained. We will go directly to a vote on that.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could deal with that and then deal with the other motion afterwards. It is so different. Personally, I would like to talk about that one.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christian Ouellet Bloc Brome—Missisquoi, QC
This motion talks about devastating effects. It says that the tax would devastate people. I question that statement because I believe that it is climate change, rather, that would be devastating.
The carbon tax, whether it would be right or wrong, is simply a way to deal with, or not, climate change. I think that it is completely misleading to claim that a carbon tax would be devastating. It does not say that climate change would be devastating.
It says that the tax would be devastating for families, seniors and people on a fixed income but there is no mention of the environment. There will be huge and devastating effects on the environment. Why is that not mentioned? It makes no sense. The environment will be the first to suffer. If jobs are lost, a carbon tax will not be a significant factor.
This morning, Air Canada said that it wants to lay off 2,000 people. There is no carbon tax, this is simply due to fuel and oil prices. A carbon tax will not eliminate jobs, but the fact that we are moving towards a change in our society will have consequences. There is climate change, and the cost of oil, for the many reasons we are aware of, is beyond the government's control.
If most countries see a carbon tax as being a solution, then why don't we? I am throwing out the question. What will make prices go up: climate change, or the carbon tax? Is it better to collectively invest in order to change the attitudes of consumers or to wait for the collapse of a part of our society, a part of the economy, because of a severe lack of fuel or because of huge storms? Should we start assessing how we can change this or should we just allow climate change, storms and fuel prices to happen? We aren't dealing with the true problem, which is greenhouse gases. It makes perfect sense to speak about this here. It is not the carbon tax that is going to change this situation. The situation is deteriorating. A carbon tax can help change people's attitudes or not. We will have to see, that is another topic.
I refuse to say that a carbon tax will be devastating and will eliminate jobs. That is false, absolutely false.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, Monsieur Ouellet.
We go now to Ms. Gallant, and we have Mr. Anderson and Madame DeBellefeuille on the list.
Ms. Gallant.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with Mr. Alghabra that the carbon tax is ridiculous, but I do wish to correct the record, in that the Standing Committee on Agriculture put forth the motion that they study the negative effects of a carbon tax or a broad-based environment tax.
Despite the election promise by the Ontario premier to close coal-fired plants for electricity, their lives have actually been extended as a consequence of more than a decade of darkness in the previous Liberal government, whereby they starved the nuclear industry. Consequently, the electrical--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd St. Amand Liberal Brant, ON
We're now delving into the area of provincial jurisdiction. I'm not immediately seeing the relevance of these comments to the issue at hand.
