Debates of Oct. 8th, 2009

Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my friend. I think he knows full well that the—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Debate.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I am on a point of order. I have not even said anything yet.

The House leader for the NDP quickly rose on the very subject the member is talking about. She came into the House immediately because it was an inadvertent admission as to what had happened at the subcommittee. It does not provide the House any benefit to return to something that has already been addressed by the House. It is unfortunate that the member chooses this as his line of argument on this bill today.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to note that when one makes a mistake, one owns up to it and apologizes. However, that does not correct the record in the protocol and what actually took place. It also does not give other parties carte blanche to continue to do that and then stand and apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I believe that members have entered into debate. This does not appear to me to be a point of order.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis may resume his speech.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my response to my hon. colleague's objection is the following.

I sit on the environment committee and I make a point of working hard to promote environmental issues. Now I will be faced with letters from constituents. Some of them will be from British Columbia because I received many phone calls from British Columbia late last week about Bill C-311. It was obviously part of a lobby campaign but I am not sure exactly where it originated. However, I will be receiving phone calls and letters from people who will ask me why I voted against Bill C-311.

Even if I am speaking in support of Bill C-311 today, it will be very hard for me to respond to those criticisms because I will not be able to tell these people what happened during committee. I will not even be able to tell people who call my office or who write to me how I voted because it is an in camera meeting and to do that would be a breach of Parliament. Now I have been put in a compromised situation.

I accept the apology of the hon. House leader of the NDP. However, I wish to use this opportunity to set the record straight. I am in support of setting objectives that will guide the government, hopefully, toward action on climate change, but I have very little faith in the ability of the government to actually take this issue seriously.

If we look at the United States, as part of its stimulus package the United States will be spending 14 times more per capita on renewable energy than we in Canada today. The government can try to say that it is waiting for the United States to act before it knows what to do because obviously it is at a loss and does not know what to do. Four years later, after being elected in 2006, it still has not figured out the climate change issue. It can hide behind the excuse that it must wait for our neighbours to the south to act, but they are already spending 14 times more per capita on renewable energies than we are.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it has to wait on the one hand for action and then say that it is taking action but that it still cannot act on renewable energy.

Here is what I fear in the government's approach and what I fear if we do not prod and push the obstinate, stubborn government to take meaningful action on climate change. I fear Canada will fall behind.

The United States has the most dynamic economy in the world. It may not be performing as strongly as other economies at the moment but it is one of the most dynamic, creative and innovative countries in the world, and it is already working on the technologies of tomorrow and on the solutions to climate change. it may not have passed a bill yet in Congress or taken a position vis-à-vis Copenhagen yet, but it is working on it on the ground while we sit back and twiddle our thumbs waiting for the Americans to issue a press release.

Maybe that is a reflex of a government that governs by press releases. Maybe a press release is the only reality the government knows. I would suggest that the government should not wait for a press release from the White House. It should start investing now in the technologies of tomorrow, in the technologies that will allow us to save energy and be more competitive on the world markets. It should act now if it wants Canada to be at the forefront of economic development moving forward into the 21st century.

It is not enough to say, “Let us wait on the Americans”. Otherwise we can use that argument all the way down the line. We could say that before we take any action on health care, we will wait for the Americans to sort out their problems.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

There goes our sovereignty.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

There goes our sovereignty.

It is time for the government to start acting and that is one of the reasons that this party, the official opposition, has lost confidence in the government.

It is very important that we set targets. Despite what happened earlier this week, I know the committee will continue to work hard on this bill and that we will push the government to set targets and to take action on climate change.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. The former chief of staff to former Prime Minister Chrétien, Eddie Goldenberg, did make the statement in his book that when the Liberals were in power they never intended to implement environmental change through Kyoto. It was only a topic of discussion to raise awareness. In fact, the 6% below the rates previously was only to one-up the Americans when they had put in 5%.

On the other hand, this Conservative government has set firm targets with fixed measuring dates, achievable targets, and we will reduce pollution.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, all I can say is what I believe as a Liberal and as a member of Parliament. I believe we need to take strong action against climate change.

However, I would go back to the hon. member's point about raising awareness. If the hon. member understood how democracy works, how consensus building in a society works, she would understand that democracy does not work by decree. We do not decide Monday that we will tackle climate change and then on Tuesday all the measures are implemented. This is not a dictatorship in which we live. We need to have debate and we need to create consensus. It takes time to turn the ship of state around.

It has taken a number of years for societies, including the United States, Canada and the world, to really understand the severity of the problem and to become committed at the grassroots to solving the problem. It is not pejorative to say that a government is stimulating debate or discussion on an issue as important as climate change and that it requires the cooperation of many segments of civil society. This is not changed by decree. It is not changed by--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, regarding Bill C-311 and this particular topic in general, it should be no surprise to the member or anyone in the House that the Conservative government would be in the pockets of the oil industry.

In fact, the government has ignored its own member, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , who supports an east-west power grid, which he has spoken about before, which would send Manitoba's clean electrical power to Ontario to retire the coal plants in Ontario. The government even ignores its own member and prefers to promote a nuclear alternative which it knows could take years and years to get approval.

Why does the government not deal in concrete matters on this issue and promote the east-west power grid as a start to help push this file along?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is the $64,000 question. I have been scratching my head now for four years trying to figure out what is motivating the government. Why does the government not act on so many important issues? One of the reasons, which relates to the issue of promoting an east-west power grid, is that foremost in the mind of the government is that it does not want to take any concrete action that may create a potential debate or conflict around an issue because it shuns any kind of controversy, even creative controversy aimed at finding the solution to problems.

We sit in the House and have debates all the time. It is creative conflict, but the government is so afraid of provoking the ire of this person or that person that it will not take any action on anything. That is not leadership.

The government's approach to many issues, including water because it still has not come out with a national water strategy, is that if nobody moves, nobody gets hurt and then maybe the Conservatives can sail through the polls perhaps to electoral victory. Canadians, however, do not think that way and that is why they should really rethink their whole approach to tackling these important issues.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: Rideau HallOttawaOctober 8, 2009Mr. Speaker:I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the schedule to this letter on the 8th day of October, 2009 at 11:51 a.m.Yours sincerely,Sheila-Marie CookThe Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to make some remarks today with regard to Bill C-311.

Based on the debate we have had so far today and what I have been able to listen to and participate in, it would suggest to me that everyone has their own vision or view of what history might have been or what history was. I would like to take a brief moment to discuss some of that before moving into my comments, and I will make them relevant to the topic we are discussing.

I found it interesting that members opposite have presented Canadians with two different environmental packages over the last several years. They signed the Kyoto agreement, which they had no intention of doing. It was a last minute thought. Then, just to confirm what one of my hon. colleagues said, it was reported by a man who was very close to those discussions and to that debate, that in reality it was to present a signature of agreement to something they had actually no intention of following through with and no intention of implementing.

We only need to look back at the history to find out that is actually true. After signing the Kyoto accord, the government of that day did nothing to move the ball forward. The Liberals talk today about plans and directions. I recognize and our government recognizes that it takes a lot of discussion and a lot of understanding but what happened during that period was merely lip service paid to the public and to the environmentalists with actually no plan or no outcomes set to measure the success.

The Liberals also talked about plans that were presented. I can think of the Kelowna accord. They talked about an agreement they had with our aboriginal communities but there was no plan. They proposed it as a plan but it was only a news release at the last minute on the dying bed of the government of that day. We knew, and I believe the Canadian public knew, that there would be no plan or no direction following that agreement. It was just merely window dressing prior to an election call.

The member opposite talked about an environmental plan that the Liberals put forward in the last election, 2008. Again, the people of Canada rejected that plan. Why did they reject it? They rejected because they saw it purely as a tax on consumers at a time when consumers were starting to face an economic recession that the world was going through and that was moving its way slowly to Canada. It was rejected simply because it was merely an idea with no meat on the bones, no structure to what they were actually trying to do and it made it very difficult. I would challenge all the members opposite who were fortunate enough to be elected to stand up and say that they could actually explain it to the people they talked to when they were door knocking. That became their biggest issue as far as the campaign.

I do want to talk mostly today in relation to Canada's relationship with the United States. It is very easy to say that Canada can move forward on these types of international agreements without working closely with our neighbours. It needs to be understood that with over 80% of the trade that now takes place between Canada and the United States, everything that we do impacts another industry, another part of our country, just as when the Americans implement something to effect change in one area of their industry, it flows back to Canada and impacts us, not always negatively but in a lot of cases the implications are not what we anticipated or thought about. Therefore, at times we need to go back and review what was introduced, review how it was proposed and then massage it to make it work. It is important to have negotiations and it is important that we share the same economic space.

We are, in my mind, a North American economy. I have had the great pleasure of living within 20 minutes of the United States border. I grew up where the people in North Dakota were my neighbours and my friends. The only difference that we actually had was the difference in a dollar and a border that said this is where our country begins and the other one ends.

Therefore, I think it is very important that we pay attention. I think the members of the Bloc have raised the issue. We cannot move forward without the co-operation and participation of every province. That again takes time.

I think we have all come to the conclusion that it is important and necessary that we move on climate change, and that we accept the facts that we all have to pull in the same direction to make it move forward. If we do not do that, people may feel better about their achievements but the actual accomplishment by the collective group is just not there. That is why we need those negotiations to take place. That is why we have spent a lot of time participating in those negotiations.

The opposition talks about the new President of the United States. I think we are all prepared to give him the time that is required to put the people whom he needs in place to move the ball forward on this particular issue but also to create and establish that relationship with their neighbours.

I would suspect that this same type of discussion is taking place within their chambers, in the sense that, “What we do we have to do as an economic partnership with Canada. We share the same environmental spaces so what we do is going to impact their economy and their environment. So why would we not sit down, make some decisions together, make some decisions and a plan that we can move forward with, develop together, and present it when the time comes to the rest of the world”.

We know our dependence on each other for trade and financial markets. Again, it is something that we all have to be aware of. We have seen in this global economic recession where some economies are starting to move forward, although very slowly and very cautiously, but in the same breath, to impose something on any of these countries at this particular time, Canada along with the U.S. must be very careful about what those outcomes would bring.

Yes, we can stand up, as we have seen members opposite, and announce grandiose plans as to what we are going to do or what they would suggest we do with the environment. Even with a plan that they say they will bring forward at some point in time, we have to look at what the impacts are going to be on our economy and on our country at this particular point in time. If we do not do that we are wearing blinders and we are going to wake up a few years from now and wonder what decisions we actually took on this day and how it is impacting us into the future.

On the supply chains of food, of product and of manufactured goods back and forth with the American economy, no one knows better than I the difficulties we have with supply chains and getting them moving north and south. We have almost the same types of challenges moving them east and west in Canada with trade barriers set up by the provinces, but collectively they have started as individuals and now as groups of provinces. They have started to recognize that the benefits and the outcomes will be better simply because there is an agreement that they want to move forward with, not one moving forward and trying to drag the others through or one denying that they should not move forward and holding everyone back.

I think we have seen that very well, particularly in the western provinces. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan have now eliminated the labour barriers for trade. People can now move from one province to the other without having any special provincial designation. I think that creates an opportunity in the economy for our workers who in certain parts of the country are under great duress through no fault of their own. It would allow them, if they choose, to move to an area where there is opportunity right now and a chance for other opportunities in their careers.

On regulation, there should be a balance in what we do to regulate Canadians and what our friends to the south do. There should be an agreement to work within certain parameters, so that one country's movements do not impact the other country's movements, particularly on environmental issues, in a negative way.

Within the climate change strategy, the economic reality is that we just simply cannot ignore our American neighbours. We must look at it as a North American economy, and we must ensure that it is integrated in many of the aspects of our communities, and particularly in the environmental issues that we are discussing today.

We must harmonize our principles. We all have to have a set of principles that we would agree to and work within. We would have to have a policy design that we can actually understand and have input in to changing and updating as things move together, but we cannot do that independent of the Americans, just as I suspect they are not trying to do it independent of us.

If members opposite choose to look at all of the discussions that have taken place on this issue, including the years before that were mentioned, the years of planning that I would say did not produce the results that Canadians wanted, we can see results starting to move froward. I think over time we are going to see a very unified position come forward under the North American banner. It will be Canada and U.S. leading the way, and being the example for other countries to follow.

Members opposite have criticized the government for choosing one area of the environment over the other. I do not believe that is true, but it certainly makes good fodder for the media and it certainly makes good politics. At the end of the day, the engine that drives our economy right now, although suffering as many industries are in the global economic recession, is still the engine that is driving our economy right now. We would be foolish to think that we could move forward strictly on an environmental policy that would impact it in the drastic way that the members opposite would suggest.

We must develop a policy of climate change that facilitates the move across every sector and every region. I think we are all in agreement that we are heading toward a low carbon economy. We have obviously seen that with the investments that many countries in the world, not just in North America, have moved to with more fuel efficient vehicles and more fuel efficient appliances. Everything we do now is geared to being more energy efficient and in the same breath that is the benefit for the economy.

Now, if we had a policy that was North American, it would broaden the ability of countries to become more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly in a very quick way.

I would like to point out that a comment was made about the homeowners tax plan in the sense that if an investment is made in the home, where would that fit into the environmental policy. In my communities many people are making their homes more efficient, therefore using less energy to heat them, less energy to light them. They are benefiting from it by putting value back into their homes, but they are also benefiting all of us here and I would say all Canadians.

We can talk about the big picture and all the great things that we could do but if we all did just a little bit, it might help move that ball forward quicker. When I think of growing up, the best environmentalists I can remember were my grandparents and my aunts and uncles. They used everything to the nth degree. We have kind of fallen away from that. We have become consumers as opposed to people who perhaps should look at what they are buying, how they are using it, and what they do with it when they are finished using it. Not so long ago, and I would suggest as little as 30 years ago, very little got thrown out. Most things got used for one purpose or another in the home until it had no value. I think we can only look back sometimes to find the real leaders in protecting our environment.

The calls for greenhouse gas emission reductions and related measures that weigh out evenly with economic growth and prosperity is what we are all trying to do. We want to balance opportunities for economic growth and I believe there is tremendous opportunity in the economic field on environmental issues. We have seen that. We have seen organizations and companies looking at Canada and the message they get or that we have to sell them is the fact that Canada believes and is moving forward on improving our environment, and the fact that it would be a great place for them to invest and a great place to move their businesses.

Our government believes that the harmonized policy between Canada and the United States offers us, and I say that selfishly, but I mean all Canadians, the best opportunity to meet, in a consolidated and uniform way, the economic environmental challenges of our times. We all know and we all recognize that these are not simple issues.

Where Canada is concerned, we are particularly challenged because of our size. Obviously, we have a vast amount of land to cover and, traditionally, our climate plays a big role. As they say in Manitoba, we have nine months of winter and three months of construction. It is close to the truth in a lot of cases.

We talk about things that work in other countries and things that other countries are doing. While I think that is admirable and I think that is something that we should always be doing and trying to measure our successes based on others, we must recognize that there are some obstacles in our place that do not allow us to move quite as quickly or in quite the same manner as other countries might. We must also realize that because of that, our reliance on energy production and natural resources is very great.

Members opposite had talked about an electrical hydro grid east and west. While I support that, I think that we have to look at the economics and the benefits of it, and all those have to be weighed into the outcome of what we should or should not do at a particular time.

We, in Canada, account for 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are also the seventh largest emitter. I think that is something that we have to always be aware of and always be working to lower that number. It is simply because we are a commodity-based economy and arguably the most energy consumptive of any society in the world. I think that is obviously an opportunity for us to do things better. It is not a knock; it is just simply a reality of where we live and the geographical circumstances that we live within. Canada is large and Canada is cold. Those are two things that we just cannot change.

However, what we can do is concentrate on what we can change; that is, the key link between Canada and the United States environmental and economic policies, the supply and the use of energy. We have made great strides in working with our neighbours to the south in coming to those solutions.

Again, it has been said by everyone here, and everyone would agree, that energy is the key driver of our economies, and our future prosperity and growth depends upon it. What that energy will be, I think, has to be debated, but nonetheless, because of our size, because of our climate, it is important that our integrated economies result in energy flows across Canada and the U.S. That fact alone means that having cleaner sources of energy is imperative when it comes to taming as complex an issue as climate change.

I have many more things to suggest, but I understand that my time is wrapping up. I would just like to end by pointing out a few that we have done.

We certainly support the renewable energy technologies. We are looking at all sorts of fuels, wind and water energies. I think it is important to always keep in mind, though, that things that we do in Canada only double or grow in size if we work collectively with our neighbours to the south in developing a policy that works for North America.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for trying to give as much consideration as possible to the effects of man-made climate change. Being the critic for the north, I want to use this time to ask a question related to the north.

I am sure the member knows that climate change affects the north of Canada more than anywhere else in the world. There has been a far greater change in temperature degrees than anywhere else. Does he acknowledge that? That is having dramatic effects on the people, species and economy in the north.

Because of the shifting of the permafrost, the melting of ice bridges and the moving of species, we need significant funds and programs for adaptation. We have a small tax base and we cannot bear these large costs on our own. Would the member join me in supporting a call for significant program funds for adaptation to the effects of climate change in the north?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that everybody here has made those comments in the sense that it is a very important issue and everyone is aware of it. Obviously, the steps that this government has taken in the past months and years recognize that fact.

As for what is needed and how much, that is going to be determined by people far more advanced in environmental policies. I would still go back to the point that when one is talking about a country as large as Canada, all things have to be taken into consideration.

Obviously, the impacts in the north are going to be great, simply because of the changes. We have to be aware of that and we have to be in an understanding and consultative mood when we are dealing with it. I take the member's comments at full value.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the government actions over the past three and a half years and their results.

The government was very big on ethanol production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It invested billions of dollars of Canadians' money. There was a real boondoggle when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a nice subsidy for farmers, but it should not be called greenhouse gas reductions. That has been clearly outlined. The use of corn ethanol is simply not viable as a greenhouse gas reduction technique.

The next boondoggle of the government was its choice to take the path and direction of carbon capture and storage in greenhouse gas reductions. Once again, it is a nice subsidy for oil and gas. Perhaps it will be used for enhanced oil recovery, but it is not a solution in the short, medium or long term for proper greenhouse gas reductions.

We can look at the budget that came out in January and its home renovation tax credit. There was money available for all measure of things. It was great for the home renovation business, but it was not directed toward any reductions of greenhouse gases or any improvements in energy efficiency for homes. People may have used it for those reasons, but it was certainly not directed toward those purposes.

There was no consideration for green projects within the infrastructure program. There was no consideration for greenhouse gas reductions in the direction of the investment of billions of dollars in this year's budget.

Where is the hon. member's analysis of the work the government has done so far to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Canadian taxpayers' dollars were spent ostensibly for that purpose and very little has been accomplished.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member packed a lot of questions into a very short comment.

I would point out to the member opposite that the NDP government in Manitoba has embraced the homeowners tax credit. It has made addendums through Manitoba Hydro to encourage more people to use it. Why? It creates a better environment and more efficiencies. It adds value to people's homes.

The member talked about there being no green projects in our building Canada fund. If he would check the site, he would find that many communities are improving their environment with better water systems, better sewage treatment systems.

I had the pleasure of announcing a sewage upgrade in the community of Brandon. The NDP premier of Manitoba bragged greatly--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You mean the U.S. ambassador-designate.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

The U.S. ambassador-designate, Madam Speaker, spoke highly of the fact that the water that was going through the plant was drinkable when it came out of the plant.

These are the kinds of improvements we are talking about with our building Canada fund. These are the kinds of projects we are supporting. The member opposite has not been able to find his way to vote for these kinds of things which would support ordinary Canadians, but I would encourage him to continue to look at them and hopefully he will.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Madam Speaker, may I applaud the member for Brandon—Souris for his excellent balanced approach.

What a refreshing change from the days when the Liberals were in power when in 2006 the Auditor General said there was no plan to target greenhouse gas emissions.

It is laughable to hear the NDP member talk about a lack of funds for climate change when his party voted against $4.5 billion to combat climate change.

Could the hon. member for Brandon—Souris share with the House how this incredible investment in the environment and in energy is helping his home province of Manitoba?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the objective of programs like the building Canada fund and the green fund is to improve the quality of life for Canadians and at the same time to improve the environment.

As an example, Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba has a tremendous problem with algae in the summertime. By improving the water that moves down the streams and into that lake, that lake is going to have a better chance to improve and to survive.

These are incremental things, but at the end of the day when we add them together they make a big difference.

There are communities in my riding that have been on boiled water for years but they are now going to get a water system put in. Their environment will improve overnight. Communities will improve. Home life will improve. Imagine, having no drinkable water in our homes. This is 2009 and there are still communities that do not have clean drinking water in their homes. This is happening not only in Manitoba. It is a challenge across Canada.

We are taking steps and we are moving forward. I would hope members opposite would support that.