Natural Resources Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with Mr. Trost's motion, I would just like to remind you of something. I am not satisfied with the response from the Department of Natural Resources. This department does not seem to take our request seriously. We asked for two documents on ecoENERGY when the deputy minister, Ms. Doyle, appeared. Furthermore, Mr. Bigras had asked for an environmental strategic analysis when he replaced Mr. Ouellet. I think that we have been patient. Almost two months have gone by and I am wondering what the obstacle is. Perhaps Mr. Anderson could answer this. I do not believe that the clerk has had any news either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Anderson, have you anything to say on that?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

My first question is whether we decided not to have a meeting on Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, there seems to be agreement to that, so I think I can say we will go ahead with your proposal on Thursday.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

If they'll give me the specifics of what they've asked for, I'm willing to take that request forward and just see what's going on with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It is the second time she has requested this, so we will pursue it, for sure.

Mr. Anderson, thank you for that.

Mr. St. Amand.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I just wondered, in terms of the completion of the study by the analysts, where we are with that.

[Jean-Luc Bourdages, Committee Researcher]

Mr. Chair, we have all received the chronology of the events that would be part of that report and we are still working on a draft, ideally waiting for some instructions about where we would go. We have a fairly detailed draft at this point, but we would still need to include everything we've heard over the last two weeks or so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lockyer, you are certainly free to go. I thought I had indicated that, but maybe it was not clear enough. Have a good day.

You've heard the answer from the analyst. Is there anything further on that, or can we get to the motion now?

On the motion, could you start by reading the motion into the record, Mr. Trost? Then we'll have any discussion on that and possibly get to a vote on it.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

The motion is that the committee report the following to the House at the earliest opportunity:

A carbon tax is a trick. It will raise the price of everything, including food, electricity, home heating, and gas at the pumps. It will devastate young families, seniors, and people on a fixed income; destroy jobs; and in this time of global economic uncertainty it will have a negative impact on Canada's traditional industries, like forestry, and will eliminate jobs. The committee recommends, therefore, that the federal government reject any plans for new carbon taxes.

Mr. Chair, I am more than willing to amend it to eliminate a lot of the more flowery language in the centre. I would be more than willing if the committee would see fit to amend it so that it says that the committee report the following to the House at the earliest opportunity—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Trost, you can't amend your own motion.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'm noting what my amendment would be and what I would be willing to accept.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You can certainly do that in the discussion.

You're allowed to speak to your motion first. Go ahead and speak to your motion, Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

That's what I'm doing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Excellent.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

I'm just saying that on further reflection, I think that if I were to word it again, it would say that the committee report the following to the House at the earliest opportunity:

A carbon tax will have a negative impact on Canada's traditional industries, like forestry, and will eliminate jobs. The committee therefore recommends that the federal government reject any plans for new carbon taxes.

Basically, the reason for the motion, very simply, Mr. Chair, is that this is a committee of natural resources. We deal with industries that are very energy-intensive in Canada. We all know that putting taxes on any of these industries will make them less competitive, and will make it more difficult for them to promote well-being to Canada's economy. Therefore, I would like it to be put on record that this committee is opposed to a carbon tax.

My understanding is that the agriculture committee today, with support from three different parties, voted to support a similar motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

The motion is in order. Proper notice has been given.

The members have heard the discussion from Mr. Trost. We do have a list. We have Mr. Alghabra, Mr. Boshcoff, Ms. Bell, and Monsieur Ouellet so far.

Unless you want to go directly to a vote on this, Mr. Alghabra, go ahead, please.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

As much as I want to go to a vote, Mr. Chair, I can't resist offering my reflections, as the member has done himself.

Obviously the member is having some remorse about how he worded the original motion, but he still has not been able to save himself. Look, this is ridiculous, especially the first sentence--“A carbon tax is a trick”.

First, Mr. Chair, let me clarify something he said, which was wrong. The agriculture committee did not pass a similar motion. The agriculture committee amended the motion and voted to conduct a study on carbon tax. The PMO and the Conservative Party are spreading lies, because they were not aware that the motion was amended. I want to help Mr. Trost so he doesn't commit the same mistake again.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, this motion is a trick on its own. If the member is saying pricing carbon is the wrong way to go, I want to advise him to speak to the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance, and the Prime Minister, who, under their environmental plan, are putting a carbon price up to $65 a tonne. It's in their economic forecasting. So if he wants to go through this motion, he needs to know he's actually condemning his government and its policy.

That being said, this motion is part of the style of this government. Initially they went after Ontario. Now they're going after British Columbia, which, by the way, has implemented a neutral carbon tax, which was complimented by the Minister of the Environment. Now this member of his party is saying it should be condemned.

The Conservative Party appears to be completely confused and not sure what to do about this issue, and I'm not surprised. But that being said, it goes without saying that this motion is inaccurate; it is ridiculous, over-the-top partisan, and I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Just about an hour and a half ago we went through a very similar motion. I know that there's a cross-committee campaign with similar types of motions all across the parliamentary structure. I voted against the resolution because I was appalled at the process and the very nature. So I essentially had a protest vote that these types of things would be coming forward.

I have just learned that there has been a media release saying that somehow we are divided. I can only emphasize that if you wanted to make me angry, you really have, because this is an abuse of democracy. It's outrageously false. I guess we could have done the same thing that we did to the Prime Minister when Mr. Harris issued his release about how he was the hero of the forest industry and thought of something that none of us had done and convinced the Prime Minister and the minister to conduct a study into the forest industry. If it wasn't so laughable, we probably would have pursued it.

Can anybody here tell me why all of these types of resolutions were received or sent out within a 36-hour process? Is it the most absolutely amazing set of coincidences or not? In the previous committee, natural resources, the NDP member made some very good points in speaking against this, as did the Bloc. They were much more direct in terms of the understanding of campaigning on political policy and trying to distort. I find that the resolution before us.... I guess Mr. Trost really understands how childish it looks now that he sees it in print.

Mr. Chair, I think this is another attempt to disrupt the work of the committee, to slow down the committee work in general. We know that just like Mr. Poilievre's comments on Wednesday with regard to first nations, this is probably directed by the Prime Minister. This isn't an isolated case. There is certainly enough evidence, and it was confirmed yesterday in the House by the member from Peterborough that in the finance committee a similar resolution had come forward.

This is a dishonouring of the committee process that this is happening across committees and that these are being adapted. So I feel quite offended by it all, especially this recent media release. I just want you to know you can try to dance around it in terms of trying to fix this thing up, but it's a pure embarrassment for you and your party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Now to Ms. Bell.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my understanding that this motion has come up at other committees, specifically finance and transport. I think the way it's worded would be ruled out of order because it's argumentative. In an effort to save Mr. Trost, I'm going to propose an amendment. I'll read it slowly so that it can be translated. Delete everything after “opportunity” and replace with:

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.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, that clearly has to be ruled out of order. That takes us in a completely different direction from the original motion. The content of it is completely different from what we had in the other motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'm considering that right now, Mr. Anderson. That's a point I have to have a close look at, for sure.

Ms. Bell, do you have that written down so we can have a look at it?

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Yes.