EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development NUMBER 022 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Monday, March 31, 2008 Le lundi 31 mars 2008 Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE March 31, 2008 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 022 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 022 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 022 (Version officielle) 22 31 03 2008 2008/03/31 15:40:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de l'environnement et du développement durable Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development ENVI Chair Mr. Bob Mills 39 2

(1540) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)) : I call our meeting to order. Our first item of business will be to look at the report of the steering committee. Everybody should have a copy of that in front of them. That report was from our meeting of March 12. You can see who attended and the subcommittee's report, and also a calendar of events that was agreed to by the steering committee. Mr. Cullen. Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as a brief explanation to committee members who weren't present, the tone and meter of the meeting were quite good.

We were able to establish a way forward. We were able to make concessions and have agreement. I think our offer of an olive branch to the parliamentary secretary to attend the subcommittee and be a part of that conversation and bring the intelligence of what the government is about and up to was beneficial, and we were able to establish what I think committee members can see here is a reasonable schedule. with some very interesting and important topics. I think it is essential for us to get into the substance of Mr.

Layton's bill as quickly as possible and hear the comments and arguments so that we can move on and realize these other ambitions that I hope all committee members share, which is to delve into the issues of the environment that are gripping this country today--consistently some of the most important issues that Canadians face and that they tell us, as parliamentarians, they want represented here in the House.

I'm sure all members have seen the minutes of the meeting, have seen the results of the meeting, which I think was quite productive, and that we can bring it to a vote and carry on with the business we are all elected to do. The Chair : Are there any other comments? Everybody's had a chance to look at these proceedings. Are there any comments? Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa (Langley, CPC) : Thank you, Chair. I too found the meeting very productive, which was a pleasant surprise. I appreciated the willingness of everyone at that meeting to work together to come up with an agenda.

From that meeting, the Minutes of Proceedings that we each have lists a recommended

schedule of meetings, and today's listing there is completing clause-by-clause of Bill C-377 . Then starting April 2, this Wednesday, we'd be starting on Bill C-474 . It would be nice if we could do it that quickly. I'm not optimistic that we will be able to complete Bill C-377 today. Now, if we do, that would be great, but at this point it might be a little bit of a tight push. We could possibly have April 2 also for clause-by-clause on Bill C-377 and then, starting April 7, beginning the process of Bill C-474.

So that would just be moving everything back one meeting, and I hope there would be agreement by committee to do that. We'd just delay everything by one meeting, so we would start Bill C-474 on April 7, and today and on April 2 we would have clause-by-clause for Bill C-377 . That's my suggestion, and I hope there will be acceptance of that. The Chair : Are there any comments? Mr. Bigras. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ) : Mr.

Chairman, until now, it seems to me that the opposition has acted in good faith toward the government, so much so that it has agreed to involve the Parlimaentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment in its work leading up to the study of bills. We discussed the matter and the aim of involving the parliamentary secretary was precisely to avoid discussions. I honestly believed that adopting this new

schedule today would be a mere formality, but I see that this is not the case. I will refrain from getting into the gist of the matter right now. Instead, I will ask my colleagues Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Cullen to state their positions, since we are talking about major changes to the study of Nathan's bill. Indeed, if we alter our course of action, the two bills will be directly affected. I thought that the approach we agreed upon would make our job easier. However, I get the feeling that it is complicating matters quite a bit. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Godfrey. Hon.

John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.) : One of the great advantages of having the parliamentary secretary on the steering committee is that he can convey to the committee the government's reaction to certain pieces of legislation, as well as how much time they wish to spend on them. So having him here helps us to know what the government's intentions are. If the parliamentary secretary is saying that we may require extra time to discuss Bill C-377 and we can't do that today, an alternative strategy would be to

schedule an extra meeting tomorrow to complete the task. That way we can maintain the

schedule the steering committee agreed to. We may not even get to that point, because we don't know what's going to happen today, but we could use that as our safety valve and keep to the

schedule for witnesses who have been lined up.

(1545) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Godfrey. I can let you know that the clerk, with my instructions, has gone ahead and planned according to this, and we do have witnesses lined up. That has been done. That, of course, can be undone, but I'm just letting you know that is the case. Mr. Cullen. Mr. Nathan Cullen : I appreciate the comments so far. I think the decisions we made regarding timing have built in Mr. Warawa's concerns already. We agreed to finish this bill first because--let's be frank--this bill has been delayed and talked out and the clock has run out, and we don't want to return to that.

There has to be a re-establishment of trust in order for us to establish any kind of calendar. That was the element of trust that I and, I think, other members at the subcommittee required: that we not keep delaying the bill at committee meeting after committee meeting. We want to actually see the bill done. The parliamentary secretary's concerns are actually satisfied in what we decided to do in--I think--our best collective intelligence, which was to see the

article today. I remind committee members that we're almost done. The bill is on the edge of being finished. We've moved through most of the substantive clauses. We've worked hard on amendments, and there are only a few to go. I think it would behoove us to start into this and accept what the subcommittee has already offered us. If at the end of the meeting there are real substantive problems that people still want to work through, negotiate, and deliberate on regarding amendments, then we'll be open to that conversation. But I think we've already taken into consideration any unforseeable problems.

We've been with this bill for months. This bill is not new to us. I think that anything else will be a breaking of that trust rather than a re-establishment of it. The Chair : Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you. I appreciate the comments that have been made. I believe goodwill was established at our meeting on March 12, and I appreciate being involved with that. Mr. Godfrey's suggestion is, I think, quite wise. If we proceed and we do not complete today—though we might—then we could meet tomorrow to keep the

schedule intact. Then on Wednesday we would begin Bill C-474. I think that's a good suggestion. And we could meet for as long as we would deem necessary on Tuesday. I have a question for you, Chair. Would we have access to a meeting room? The Chair : I expect that we could find a meeting room if we needed one tomorrow. Mr. Mark Warawa : That looks like a good suggestion. The Chair : I think probably we should go to a vote. We've had the suggestion. I believe, Mr. Godfrey, you've made that suggestion. Hon. John Godfrey : Sure. I have one other suggestion that might help.

I know we are all are implicated in a vote at 6:30 tonight. I don't know if other people have commitments at 5:30, but if we get to 5:30 and find that other people are able to stay on until 6:30, then that would be an additional proposal. So I think there are two different ways in which we could deal with this problem if indeed it occurred. The Chair : I think we should vote on this steering committee report and then be prepared to move on and get started with Bill C-377. At 5:30, we'll see where we are, and then one or the other of our two alternatives will be available to us. Mr.

Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC) : Is that a formal motion? The Chair : No, not a formal motion, a suggestion that we re-evaluate at 5:25. I think I interpreted that correctly. Mr. Warawa.

(1550) Mr. Mark Warawa : I'm okay with that. Going tonight won't work for me, but my day is somewhat flexible tomorrow. If necessary, we might tomorrow, but maybe we'll wait and evaluate it as we're closer. The Chair : Let's vote on this and then at 5:25 we'll re-examine where we're at, if we've not finished, and move from there. (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ]) The Chair : We will proceed with Bill C-377 . Just to bring us up to date, I believe we are on clause 10. Mr. Cullen, I think you moved NDP amendment 5 on page 16. Is there any further debate on Mr. Cullen's motion, NDP-5? Mr. Cullen. Mr.

Nathan Cullen : Thank you, Chair. This clause seeks to have the minister make a clear and transparent statement to Canadians. It establishes the correct baseline, and the minister has to be transparent about that baseline. We've talked about this issue before. Too much of the discussion and debate in Canada around climate change has been government trying to massage or obscure numbers. Therefore we seek clarity through this amendment. It's very straightforward, and we look forward to its passage. The Chair : Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you, Chair. We're speaking to Mr.

Cullen's amendment on clause 10, is that correct? The Chair : Yes, NDP-5 on page 16. Mr. Mark Warawa : I believe the NDP had six amendments. Basically what we have seen in the amendments is a rewriting of the bill. It reads: (

c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b). I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I think it's important that we focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We heard from the witnesses that there's not enough policy attached to this that will actually see reductions. There's no mechanism to make sure this is happening, and I don't believe Bill C-377--and this is just one part of it--will accomplish this.

In the end, Canada needs a plan that will actually see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We also need to cost the plan. We have that in Canada's Turning the Corner plan. We don't see that in Bill C-377 , and we heard that from witness after witness. So that will end my comments on this amendment. Again, I have some serious concerns about Bill C-377 . Canada has a plan, and Bill C-377 will not accomplish anything. We heard that from the witnesses too. I will not be supporting this amendment. The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Vellacott. Mr.

Maurice Vellacott : I was going to remark that in respect to some of the comments I was going to make, they were actually said by Mr. Warawa. But I think some of the things we see in this one and in the subsequent clauses as well are things that are actually covered off by our government--actually, fairly well--and that's the important thing. A number of the clauses that are coming up now were in our Turning the Corner plan. We've actually dealt with that. We've made the kinds of commitments to deal with this stuff.

In our Turning the Corner plan we're delivering some of those measures, those very things that were requested by Mr. Cullen and that I guess others from the NGO communities have suggested as well. Regarding the polluter-pay principle, our plan recognizes that all Canadians, not just businesses but individuals, have to fight against climate change, and that, without question, industry has to do its part. So for some of the things we're moving into now, where we are proposing some things that are already being done or will be done in days ahead, I don't see the point of it. I think Mr.

Cullen, in reading more carefully some of the details of the Turning the Corner plan, would recognize that too. That's what I would submit to him and ask him to look at some more. Some of the very things he aspires to do, through his leader here, are issues that are already covered off. Those are my remarks at present on this bill.

(1555) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Vellacott. Mr. Watson. Mr. Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to belabour the point on this one, but I'm looking at clause 10. The mention of “spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry”--I think I know where that comes from. I think it comes from a Canadian Labour Congress proposal. But there's not a lot there that discusses what the just transition fund in fact will be, what it will look like, how it will be used.

I do recall that it was a just transition fund for workers, not for industry specifically as well, so the language is exclusive to that. At our meeting of Wednesday, February 6, we had economists here. We not only had the Canadian Council of Chief Executives represented, but the Canadian Gas Association was here. The one who was actually an economist, Mr. David Sawyer with EnviroEconomics, talked about significant economic dislocations, and he modelled some costs for the benefit of the committee. I think he said that Bill C-377 would be somewhere around $200 a tonne in terms of the price of carbon.

I did ask some questions about some of the fiscal incentives, though, some of the other things that were not present in the economic analysis. I asked about income replacement costs, which is what I suspect the just transition fund is all about, and whether or not the cost of that was addressed in the carbon price he had set. He said, “We don't have numbers for lost income, but you could look at the burden on households, and you could look at the burden on the various income strata”, and then policy could be used to address that. I just want a clarification.

Is the just transition fund intended to address income replacement? Is it for capital investment? I'm not entirely sure what he means by “just transition fund”. It's the only one of the fiscal incentives that's actually specifically mentioned. I'd like him to be specific about what that would entail with respect to the government. It's more of a question than a.... The Chair : Mr. Cullen, do you wish to comment on that? Mr. Nathan Cullen : The measure Mr. Watson is referring to is one of the options put forward to the government.

Just transition measures have been used by governments in the past consistently when allowing transition from one type of work to another. Governments have cited them in resource-based economies that have made the shift. The government's own billion-dollar announcement for primary resource economies mentions just transition funds. It's a common use. It's not prescribed in the bill, and I'll remind government members that if they're looking for prescriptive details of what each portion of the reduction should be, this bill never sought to do that.

The criticisms are unwarranted, because the bill never sought to do that. The bill sets the framework for the targets and the establishment of those targets and offers government the use of its own intelligence, resources, and knowledge, a portion of which will be adjusted by this. So the just transition fund is mentioned as a mechanism that government may or may not choose to use. There's no prescription in it. It's relying on a great wealth of intelligence within this government.

(1600) The Chair : Mr. Watson, is that acceptable? Mr. Jeff Watson : Thank you very much. The Chair : You heard your answer. Mr. Harvey, please. [ Translation ] Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC) : We've been at this for two years. Last year, we really focused on CO2 and emissions. We dealt with Bill C-30, and now we're dealing with C-377. Last week, the governments of Alberta and Ontario announced major initiatives aimed at dramatically reducing GHG emissions. For the first time since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, provincial governments are taking concrete steps to reduce GHG emissions.

For now our efforts are focused on CO2 emissions, but it is also important that we do some studies on CH4, or methane, and on gases such as S03 and S04. When I think about water quality and the presence of blue algae, I can't help thinking that despite our spirited efforts, we are missing the boat to some extent. We have asked the leader of the NDP to cost out his bill, but he has yet to give us any figures. We're told that this is similar to the Grand Trunk project in that it cannot be costed. Yet, the figure mentioned in some studies is 99% of the GDP of certain provinces.

I am not talking about 9% or 10%, but about 99%. That would not have just the effect of a recession, but the effect of an atomic bomb. The NDP continues to shy away from examining the costs and maintains that this initiative is similar to the Grand Trunk project. I am sorry, but I think we have a very serious problem on our hands. All of the proposals that have been put forward during the study of this bill deserve to be considered. Asking how much it will cost to implement this bill is not asking too much. The cost should factor into the decision that each party and each member will have to make.

It is all well and good to draft a bill that is feasible in principle, but its provisions must be realistic. We have repeatedly requested a cost estimate, but each time, we are told that it would take too long to provide one. Yet, we think this step is absolutely necessary. Even if we do act very quickly, expenses now being incurred in Alberta will not apply before 2017, since the feasibility studies still need to be done. Even if we already have an idea of what it would cost to build a nuclear power plant, it will still take four years to carry out these studies.

This bill not only affects energy production, but the manufacturing sector, heavy industry and the automobile industry as well. It is all well and good to want to get 35 miles to the gallon, but the reality is that Canada is not about to develop its own automobile engine. Once again, it will depend on efforts at the global level. We will not be the solution, but merely a part of the solution. We are fooling ourselves with theoretical ideas that are not practicable.

On numerous occasions, we have asked to see the plan and to know the costs associated with implementing this bill, but all we received were vague answers. It's getting out of hand. I am trying to keep an open mind and to convince myself that we are promoting environmental issues, but the reality is that I am not at all convinced that this is our objective. I do not think that we are really trying to resolve the problem. Instead, I think we are looking for an opportunity to say that others have failed to achieve these targets.

(1605) Last month, an

article on climate change appeared in Science & Vie . The

article was neither left-leaning nor right-leaning, but rather more scientific in nature. Some interesting broad principles may be expounded, but when the time comes to examine the ramifications of a decision, we realize that these may go against stated aims. A good example of this is methanol produced from corn or other grains. In some Third World countries, the cost of grain has doubled or even tripled. As a result, famines have occurred. Where this type of farming has been carried out, blue or green algae has become a problem.

Water table levels have fallen sharply due to the higher volume of water needed to grow these grain crops. What are the overall repercussions? While 10% of the crops are used for ethanol production, serious famine conditions have been created in certain countries. It is important to weigh the situation, Mr. Cullen. This may not be an important principle to your way of thinking, but I see that you are paying close attention to what I am saying. The important thing here is to know what direction we want to take. It is not simply a matter of saying that we will reduce emission levels.

We need to have a clear picture of the costs and repercussions. Before tabling this bill, the NDP should have made sure that what is was proposing was feasible and should have had the supporting figures in hand. It has asked the government to do studies on its own bill and subsequently, it has pressured the government to pass the bill even before these studies have been completed. The NDP and the other opposition parties may still have some work to do in this area. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you. I believe, Mr. Warawa, you are next. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you, Chair.

I have, through you, a couple of questions for Mr. Cullen. Mr. Harvey touched on the costing. The concern we've heard from the Conservative members is that this hasn't been costed. The fact is that the first meeting of Bill C-377 was with Mr. Layton, the sponsor of the bill. The first question I asked was whether they had costed the plan. He said it was up to the government to cost the plan. My question, through you, Chair, is to Mr. Cullen. Mr. Layton wants the government to cost the plan. As every witness group has recommended, it should be costed.

When does the NDP want this to be costed--before this bill is adopted or after the bill is adopted? When in the process would he support having it costed before it moves on from this committee?

(1610) The Chair : Mr. Cullen, did you get the gist of the question? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Yes. As I mentioned earlier in our conversation today, to clarify for the government members--because it doesn't seem to be getting through yet--the objective and essence of Bill C-377 are to lay out the framework, to allow for greater accountability, in terms of what the government plans to do and what the government has actually performed on. I know that when these members were in opposition, this was a great concern they had.

As far as the planning and the actual costing of the measures taken by government go, we hope the government would do so in the most efficient way, because they claim to be one of accountability and efficiency. The bill was never presented as having within it the actual detailed plan. The parliamentary secretary continues to talk about the costing of the planning in Bill C-377 when he has heard time and time again that Bill C-377 never attempts to seek that.

But Bill C-377 very clearly lays out finally in law...so that governments cannot weasel out, can't change baselines, can't misreport to Canadians, must tell the truth about climate change, and must tell the truth about what their plans are with respect to climate change. This is the effort. Mr. Mark Warawa : Unfortunately, Mr. Cullen didn't answer my question. I'll change the terminology and maybe we can get an answer from Mr. Cullen. Every group was asked if the plan should be costed, and every witness group, and Mr. Layton, said yes. Maybe now Mr. Layton is reconsidering.

The last group of witnesses we heard from used the term “impact analysis”, and they said, yes, Bill C-377 should have an impact analysis. They recommended that Bill C-377 not go forward until an impact analysis is done. I'm looking for a report that I had here, or actually a statement, from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas. She was referring to previous failures on the environment and she was referring to the Kyoto target.

She said: We expected that the federal Liberal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 [...] we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses. This is the Commissioner of the Environment, and she is warning indirectly in her words, if we heed her wise words, that it didn't work before. What Mr. Cullen is proposing didn't work before, and it won't work with Bill C-377.

We've heard every witness group say that Bill C-377 needs to have this impact analysis, just as the former Commissioner of the Environment recommended should have happened before but didn't. My question again, through you, Chair, to Mr. Cullen, is why is the NDP resisting what the witness groups are saying, that we need to have an impact analysis? If he doesn't want to use the term “cost analysis”, the term “impact analysis” is much greater, much more in-depth. Why is he resisting having that done? The Chair : Mr. Cullen. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This criticism has been raised by the government members time and time again. We've answered it time and time again. They are unsatisfied with the response. That's fine. All four government members have now spoken to this particular amendment. I suggest that we move on. There is no suggestion of any amendment brought forward by government. They clearly don't like this particular clause. They don't like the bill. That's fine. That's their choice and purview, and they will express that, I imagine, in their vote. I've answered the question. Mr. Mark Warawa : I have a follow-up question for Mr. Cullen.

I wish he would answer the question, because again, he's suggesting that Bill C-377 proceed without the impact analysis, which is against every bit of advice we've been hearing. We heard from witnesses some serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-377 . The bill would give sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces. There were these jurisdictional issues. They said there was no meat on the bones, so to speak. There were targets set without any costing, without any plan. I believe it was a Bloc member who said that Bill C-377 needed to be rewritten.

If wasn't the Bloc, then it was some member of the opposition who said, when we were hearing from the witnesses on, I believe, the jurisdictional issues, that Bill C-377 basically needed to be totally rewritten. Now, if the sweeping amendments that we're seeing are all passed and we have a new, rewritten Bill C-377 , would Mr. Cullen be willing to have the witnesses come back and share with this committee whether or not Bill C-377 addresses their concerns, particularly on the jurisdictional issues?

The NDP is resisting doing any costing or impact analysis, but would they be willing to have the constitutional experts come back and say whether or not, with the amendments being proposed, their concerns with regard to jurisdictional issues have been dealt with? Would he accept that?

(1615) The Chair : Mr. Cullen. Mr. Nathan Cullen : The parliamentary secretary knows better. He understands how the committee process actually works. The order is as follows: we hear the bill; we hear witnesses to the bill; committee members do their homework; they create amendments based upon the evidence to address the concerns raised by witnesses, as the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc have done but the government has chosen not to do; and then we vote upon those amendments. That is the process. Mr. Mark Warawa : Mr. Chair-- Mr. Nathan Cullen : Chair, he has chosen not to bring a single amendment to the table.

He has this long list of concerns that do more to run out the clock than they do to actually improve the bill. As they have chosen not to do the homework, I would suggest to the government members that they express their concerns, repeat them as they do, and that we then move to the vote. Otherwise, it is breaking and eroding that simple trust factor that we had. If the work is serious, if the intention is serious, then I would imagine there'd be some papers with the words “Conservative amendment” written on them here today, and there are not.

To go back and revisit witnesses and prescribe some new process of how to deal with legislation, while perhaps novel, is not instructive. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Cullen. Mr. Warawa, I think your point has been made. There are several other speakers, so could you just get right to it? Mr. Mark Warawa : I have a closing comment. It's unfortunate, and I'm disappointed with the response from Mr. Cullen. I believe he was elected at the same time I was, so we've been around these tables a similar amount of time.

I've never heard witnesses say, as they did in critiquing Bill C-377, that there was a bill so poorly written that it would not stand a constitutional challenge. The same people who wrote the bill in the first place have now written amendments, but he does not want to hear from the witnesses again to say whether or they got it right. He wants to have it move on from this committee and go to the House and then, if passed in the House, go to the Senate without any sober second thought, without any critique. It's unfortunate. I don't believe in Bill C-377. I think it's a poorly written bill.

But it would be necessary to take a different look or a different approach to Bill C-377 if the witnesses were coming back and saying it was now a good bill. So we now have Bill C-377, a poorly written bill, rewritten by the opposition, and they don't want it critiqued. They don't want anybody to look at this new and rewritten bill, which is disappointing. Again, I believe it's a bill doomed to not succeed. Thank you. The Chair : Mr. Vellacott. Mr. Maurice Vellacott : Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we have from Mr. Cullen --or I guess more indirectly on Bill C-377 it's from Mr.

Layton , his leader--in asking the implication basically.... I think our main concern with the amendment, if he's not quite understood that yet, is that by way of what he has here, measured progress would be tied to a projection based on a set of assumptions that have quite an impact on the actual level of greenhouse gas emissions projected. What this is doing is working off projections rather than what we would suggest, which is that they should be measured against actual emissions recorded in the national inventory report. Our plan uses the 2006 baseline. The international standard is 1990. Ours is different.

The fact is that there really is, in some sense, no international standard, because some countries have used 1990, others have used 2000, others use 2003, others use 2005. So there's no agreed-upon baseline there. When our government, the Conservative government, came into office back in 2006, we were really not able to take responsibility for the inaction and failure of the previous government, the Liberals, to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the previous regime.

But we have to take responsibility from this point on, so that means using an actual baseline as opposed to the projections that are included in the clause we have before us now. I know some have criticized us and have chastised us, so to speak, for talking about an intensity-based plan, this kind of rhetoric, that it allows emissions to grow forever. But we made very clear our commitment to Canadians to cut those greenhouse gases and to do it by an absolute 20% by the year 2020. Those are absolute targets based on the baseline of 2006.

It's not something rather vague; they're actual targets, not intensity based, and regulations that actually—as in fact Mr. Cullen would know—will force industries to massively reduce the greenhouse gases they release for each unit of production. That's part of the plan for meeting that goal, and our plan forces industry to get more efficient each year, as the years go on, so that greenhouse gases go down even as the economy grows.

As opposed to this particular baseline requested here, our plan actually forces industry to get more efficient each year, so that those greenhouse gases go down, and it will even, at the same time as the economy is allowed to grow, require industry to get significantly more efficient: 18% more by the year 2010 and then 2% more efficient each and every year after that. So the math is really pretty straightforward. The math is quite simple here. The Canadian economy, in terms of a pattern here, grows by 2% to 3% a year.

If we require industry to get 18% more efficient, total emissions will go down even as the economy grows. That's just how the math works out. As Mr. Cullen would know, Canada's total emissions under our plan will go down as early as 2010 and no later than 2012, even as the economy grows. So we don't believe that our country, our environment, is well served by simply closing factories down and by shipping jobs off to countries like China and India that have lower environmental standards than we do.

That would actually mean that Canadians would lose jobs and that we would end up importing products, bringing products in from abroad, produced in dirtier factories that pollute the world with even more greenhouse gases. So the kind of baseline here, where we're actually measuring against projections instead of actual solid figures as reported in the national inventory report there, is the concern we have. Our plan is actually going to do something fairly significant in terms of the oil sands projects. It will allow some 38 new oil sands projects to proceed.

They're really one of Canada's greatest resources out in provinces in the west, but they're a major engine for our economy, and as a government we do have a great responsibility to the generations ahead to ensure that they are developed in an environmentally sound way.

(1620) We have that plan. We have that tougher regime for the existing oil sands projects and for oil sands projects under construction, as was clear in our budget--tough measures for planned oil sands projects as well. They'll have some very tough regulations. Existing ones will have tough regulations to reduce their emissions by 18% by 2020 with an additional improvement of 2% every year after that. Oil sands projects under construction between 2004 and 2011 will not only have to meet the tough standard of 18% and 2%, but additional tougher emission standards to drive adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies.

Those new oil sands projects will have the toughest standards of all. Oil sands projects built in 2012 and later will have to use carbon capture and storage or other green technology to cut their emissions. Those three measures are some of the toughest regulations in the industrial world. We're basing it on actual figures, as opposed to the projected baseline Mr. Cullen is suggesting in the clause that's before us now. We don't believe, as some appear to, in a moratorium on new construction. We believe it would be possible, and that it's irresponsible to shut the door on the creation of more good jobs in Canada.

We have made that commitment to Canadians to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020, and the Turning the Corner plan is very specific in terms of how we go about doing that, using tough measures to put us on a path to meet those commitments. Also, I think what's important to know--and members across the way would be somewhat aware of this, or should be--is that we believe in the polluter-pay principle. Our plan recognizes that all Canadians have to fight climate change and that industry has to do its part; and it will, as things stand.

Our regulations will apply to all big industry, as we said, the oil sands and any of the other oil projects as well, in terms of a solid baseline from 2006. All the way from smelters to pulp and paper mills, all industry has to do its fair share, because oil sands and dirty coal are two of the biggest emitting industries. Electricity plants have requirements to meet. They're going to carry the brunt of this. That plan requires, as we said, banning the construction of new dirty-coal electricity plants and requires all those new ones to use carbon capture and storage or other green technology.

And that's happening in my own province. So again, using the 2006 baseline, by these means and by carbon sequestration, we will meet those goals and we will maintain very tough regulations with respect to that. Companies will have to choose. They'll have to find the most cost-effective way to meet their emission reduction targets from a whole range of options. These include in-house reductions. They can make contributions to a technology fund or domestic emissions trading.

Companies that have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2006 will have access to a limited one-time credit for early action. But we have to keep coming back and emphasizing the point of using 2006 as a baseline. I think it's much more realistic to start there, and we will press forward on that basis, unlike the failed approach of the previous government. We're taking a more balanced approach. I think that's what the economy requires, and it's what the Canadian public requires, because making the reductions is practical and gets the job done.

It's a focused approach toward an absolute reduction in greenhouse gases of 20% by the year 2020. It protects our environment while growing our economy at the same time. It moves Canadians forward on a low-carbon economy, using a proper baseline instead of the one that's proposed here, where we've got these projections instead. It's a challenge, admittedly. Canadians have to share, and there will be a cost, but we believe that together, as we partner and join hands on that, the cost is manageable. Industry will do a significant part of it, but as individuals, we can as well.

(1625) What is significant, and what we should all note today and have on the record in respect of this bill, in respect of this clause, is that our plan includes some real tools--practical tools, I might add--to help Canada cut its greenhouse gas emissions. These include more than $9 billion in ecoACTION initiatives for home retrofit grants, for renewable power, for biofuels, and for public transit.

We've also delivered other means, such as a carbon market, an offset system, and most importantly, some tough regulations to force industry to cut its emissions, again based not on projections, as in clause 10, but on using 2006 as the baseline. We know that Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party didn't get it done when it came to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. But we really are moving forward with some practical plans here. Some people have said that our plan gives a free pass to some of these areas. Some have said that our plan would hurt the economy.

Actually, by cutting emissions to the extent we are, our plan is in fact going to impose some real costs on Canadians. We believe, however, in the commitment, the ingenuity, and the willingness of Canadians and Canadian industry to tackle that climate change challenge. Our plan works by getting industry cleaner and more efficient so we release less greenhouse gas for every item we produce down the road. It's realistic. Again, using that 2006 baseline, it'll allow us to cut by an absolute 20% by 2020. This is not intensity-based so much as it is absolute, and that's what I think Canadians want.

Due to the inaction, unfortunately, of the previous government--they had lots of time to get at this--Canada is 33% above Kyoto targets now. That's why we have to use a 2006 baseline. The Liberals talked and talked. There was a lot of hot air, if you will, about cutting our greenhouse gases, but they allowed them to soar. So we have to be realistic as we approach it now. We can't allow projections, as in clause 10; rather, we need to use something more realistic by way of 2006, which is the commitment we have. That's what we'll follow through on. We're already into the target period of 2008 to 2012.

Meeting those targets by 2012, something virtually every Liberal environment minister admitted we could not do, would take Canada into a pretty deep recession, with major job losses and a significant decline in incomes for Canadians. Taking that kind of drastic reaction, using the wrong baselines, would create some real problems for our country. It would be irresponsible at the best of times. In the uncertain economic times in which we live--we're all watching it carefully and seeing what the subprime real estate stuff does to Canada--we have to be prudent about it.

It would be irresponsible to take some of the measures being suggested by members opposite. In particular, the Liberal lack of action in the past has exacerbated that. So we pursue, as we've said here in respect of the baseline and in respect of the practical actions, a balanced plan that stops the increase in Canada's greenhouse emissions and cuts them by about 20% by the year 2020. We hope to get industry to be significantly more efficient, as we said: 18% more efficient by 2010 and 2% more efficient each and every year after that.

We will, as a result--you do the math, you do the calculation--become 18% more efficient. Thereafter, total emissions will be going down, even as the economy is growing at its average rate. In fact, Canada's total emissions, using the 2006 baseline and the practical parts of Turning the Corner , will go down as early as 2010 and no later than 2012, even as the economy grows for us.

(1630) Our plan, make no mistake--Mr. Cullen will possibly be pleased to hear this--will impose real costs on the Canadian economy. But we believe that as Canadians together, we can jointly do that. I guess there are some other myths that come up over time. I know this because out in my part of the country, in Saskatchewan, on the border and over toward Alberta, and so on, some people are clearly negative. They use the rhetoric in terms of the oil sands projects out there.

But surely some creativity, innovativeness, and new technology can take care of that, get at that, and help us to actually get some good results in that area. Some have said that our plan gives a free pass to the oil sands by allowing emissions to double, but that's absolutely not true. If we did not take action, emissions from the oil sands would quadruple by 2020, and that's not acceptable. We cannot allow that to occur. Our plan imposes the toughest environmental regulations for the oil sands in our history.

New oil sands facilities will be required to use carbon capture and storage, or other green technology as well, to massively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. So you use that 2006 baseline as opposed to--

(1635) The Chair : Mr. Cullen has a point of order. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Thank you, Chair. The point of order I raise is that we heard from the government at the beginning of this meeting that we were to enter into the substance of this work and do our collective best to achieve results. It is coming up on 50 minutes of talking about the first clause, with no substance or amendments moved by the government whatsoever.

It is very difficult to believe the government's prerogative when they tell us they are sincere and wish to book more meetings to accomplish the work this committee has been commended to do, when after 50 minutes the government has continued to filibuster this bill, after a number of days of filibustering this bill. There is no coherent logic to the government's tactics or approach, and there is no willingness on the government's part to formally demonstrate to the opposition, particularly us, that trust can be re-established at this committee.

If on the very day that the government brought forward a commitment and a plan was agreed to that we all voted on together to get work done, and then 50 minutes of filibustering presented no sincere options and not a single amendment...this is a ridiculous waste of taxpayers' dollars. The government knows they're doing it and must explain to Canadians why they resist any progress on climate change, any progress on the work this committee's been commended to do.

It's ridiculous that the government members present themselves seriously at this table without having one slip of paper--not one amendment to their criticisms in the month we've had this bill--and then pretend some serious concern with the legislation. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Cullen. I think he has certainly expressed his point of view and everyone has heard it. Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa : I'm replying to the point of order. I asked Mr. Cullen if he would be willing to have his plan costed or have an impact analysis done, and he said no.

We also asked if he would be willing to have some of the witnesses come back to deal with just the jurisdictional issue, because the bill was severely criticized for that. Amendments were made, presented by him and others, and we have a poorly written bill. I'm not going to fix up his poorly written bill, but he's refusing to have it critiqued. We have a number of members speaking, and we have some serious concerns about the bill. As for his wanting to move forward, we want to move forward with Bill C-377 . I hope we can finish with this amendment, vote on it, and go to the main motion.

But he's refusing to have his bill critiqued. Those are the facts. The Chair : As we all know, this bill will go back to the House. We'll have report stage, and amendments can be made and debated. Of course, it will go to third reading and be debated and ultimately voted on. So there are other opportunities for many members to have input. Mr. McGuinty can speak very briefly to this point of order. Then I'd like to move on to finish this. I will certainly take Mr. Warawa's suggestion, after Mr. Harvey, that we vote on the clause 10 amendment, vote on clause 10, and get on to clause 11.

That would be a delightful thing to do.

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Definitely. I think the government members should come clean and tell the Canadians who are watching this committee today whether they've been instructed to deliberately filibuster this bill. I think they should stop betraying their responsibilities here. If they intend to filibuster this bill for weeks on end, Mr. Chair, then why don't they just have the courage to tell Canadians the truth? Why are they wasting our time and taxpayers' money, and why are they acting as if they had a majority government when they don't?

If you want me to go to the merits of the two tests Mr. Warawa has just put to this committee--the first being that there's no costing--I have asked this government and these members to table the economic modelling that they used for their own plan, the government's plan. I've asked for the econometric modelling. Not a single piece of analysis has been put to this committee that we can apply to this bill. It is a facade. It's a ruse, Mr. Chair. Secondly, with respect to this question of constitutional aspects, why didn't the government put forward a single constitutional expert to deal with this issue earlier?

Where are their constitutional amendments? It is so transparent as to be laughable. I think the government members should have the courage to tell Canadians what they're up to. If they're trying to block this bill from arriving back at the House of Commons, if they're trying to block this committee from doing its job, then just say so. Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting my constituents' time. Tell us the truth, and if that's the case, let's move on to other business. If that's exactly what's at play here--well, come on, we're not children--we need to know. If you have amendments, put them forward.

If you don't, then get to the merits of the bill. Get to the amendments we want to deal with. Let's get down to business and do some work. If somebody else is calling the shots--and I feel for my colleagues if a minister's office is telling you what to do--then you should say so. As far as I'm concerned, you're individual members of Parliament, and if you want to deal with business and get on with something positive for the country, we're here. That's my only reaction, Mr. Chair. We're all waiting here to get down to business. All of us here are waiting to get down to the amendments.

We have all the text ready to go. We've pre-negotiated much of it. These members of the government agreed to the work plan right here that we signed off on just two weeks ago, saying we would dispose of this bill expeditiously and responsibly. But if you're going to do this, just tell us the truth so we can get on to other business. Then you can take it to the Canadian people and tell the Canadian people why you're doing this, and we will govern ourselves accordingly. But stop wasting our time.

(1640) The Chair : Thank you, Mr. McGuinty. My only comment would be that we do have a list of witnesses who've accepted. Some of them are very notable people, and I was surprised that the clerk was able to get them nailed down. I really do hate to see that abandoned and our possibly not getting these excellent witnesses for Bill C-474. I advise all members that this has been done in good faith. Norm has put a lot of work into this, and hopefully we can get on with this. Is this about the same point of order? It's the longest point of order, I think, probably-- Mr. Jeff Watson : Mr. Chair, I'll be very brief.

The Chair : Mr. Harvey, you're speaking to the amendment. This is a point of order that we're still dealing with. I think everyone's had their say, and hopefully we can then move on and ultimately get to vote. Go ahead very briefly, Mr. Watson. Mr. Jeff Watson : I'll keep this very brief, Mr. Chair. First of all, Mr. McGuinty is not the only member of Parliament with privileges here. We will exercise our privileges accordingly, and one of those is to debate. That's what the rules facilitate.

Secondly, more to the point of this whole exercise in terms of the point of order, I don't believe that a point of order was actually raised here, and Mr. Vellacott should have the floor back. The Chair : It's actually Mr. Harvey's turn, I believe. Mr. Jeff Watson : I think he was finished. The Chair : You were finished, were you not? No? I'm sorry, Mr. Vellacott. Mr. Maurice Vellacott : You seemed to accept that as a point of order. The Chair : Go ahead, yes. Mr. Maurice Vellacott : Exactly.

I'll be fairly brief here, because I think, for most of us around this table and even the members on the opposite side were the roles to have shifted here and they were to be unfortunately on this side, it's quite possible to actually look at a bill and say that it's just irredeemable, it's unsalvageable. So why would it be incumbent upon any member around this table to figure that then they have to rectify it and put together something that's just so shoddy, from the NDP?

I was talking to another member today who has bought a cabin up at a lakeside property, and his dilemma these days, considering that the construction is faulty and it's problematic in terms of the design and so on, is whether to go ahead and try to renovate, try to improve that, whether it's worth doing that. Are you going to build and, at great expense, add these different things and features on something that is fundamentally flawed from the get-go, from the very beginning? That's the dilemma we are faced with. So I don't take any chiding from Mr.

Cullen, because he put something pretty shoddy, an old ramshackle kind of cabin, here on the floor, and we're supposed to help in his renovation project. That hardly makes sense. In fact, most people know, in those cases, you have it set aside, you bulldoze it, you do whatever you need to do, but then you start afresh with something from the ground up in terms of soundness from an engineering point of view, from a construction point of view, in terms of the materials that you use to build, that meets your present-day zoning code, and so on. So I don't take any chiding from Mr.

Cullen in terms of actually having great obligation or onus, and the Canadian public understands that too. With something that's shoddy and flawed, sometimes it's just not possible to redeem it and bring it back to anything of coherence, anything that's cohesive for the Canadian public. So we'll make those choices. He can have his suggestions, of course, and we will act accordingly, based on a very flawed bill. They have to recommend to this committee all kinds of amendments to their very own bill, to change it. So they didn't do the homework to begin with.

I mean, sometimes you get amendments from the other parties, but in my almost eleven years now I've never seen this kind of thing happen, where somebody brings a bill forward and then has to amend their own bill in a major way. This is somewhat unprecedented, and I think it speaks to the nature of the bill that's before us, as well.

(1645) The Chair : Mr. Harvey, and then Mr. Bigras. We're beyond our point of order, Mr. Bigras. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Bigras : Is that a point of order? [ English ] The Chair : He was just finishing his comments. So I'm going to go to Mr. Harvey quickly, and then to Mr. Bigras, and then hopefully we could vote on the— [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Bigras : I want to speak to the point of order, while Mr. Harvey would like to speak to the substance of the amendment. May I speak to the point of order? [ English ] The Chair : Okay, go ahead. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Bigras : I'll make it quick.

I disagree with my colleague Mr. Vellacott. I too have been a Member of Parliament and a member of this committee for 11 years. Often bills are poorly drafted. They are amended at length in committee. In essence, they are rewritten. You may recall Bill C-30 which was virtually rewritten by a parliamentary committee at the time. Yet, it went on to be endorsed by the committee. If we were able to accomplish that feat with Bill C-30, then we can certainly do the same with Bill C-377 . I am disappointed by the government's attitude.

I felt that in the days leading up to our Easter break, we had extended an olive branch to the government by inviting the parliamentary secretary to sit on the steering committee, so that we could get off on the right foot, and work and plan our agenda for the sake of greater efficiency. We were also acting in good faith during the discussion that just took place. I was surprised to see that the government is prepared to

schedule an additional meeting tomorrow to dispense with this bill as quickly as possible. As I see it, the government is stalling to disrupt the committee's business, when in fact we have other matters to attend to. The government still has 45 minutes to refocus on the basic principles at issue her so that we can move forward and improve the bill. If it has any amendments to propose, then it should do so, by all means. I had some reservations about the bill. I acted as a parliamentarian and proposed these amendments. We debated them and voted on them. Mr.

Chairman, I therefore invite the government to show a little more civility, to stop resorting to stalling tactics and to focus instead on studying the bill. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Bigras. Mr. Harvey. [ Translation ] Mr. Luc Harvey : I think we can all agree that when Mr. Layton presented his bill to the committee, he stated that a cost study needed to be done. My question will be short and to the point. A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr. Cullen. Should a cost study be done in the case of the bill now before the committee? Mr. Nathan Cullen : That is not a question. Mr.

Luc Harvey : I can repeat the question for you. Mr. Nathan Cullen : I refuse to answer a stupid question. A bill is before the committee, Mr. Harvey. If you table an amendment, or something substantive, then I am prepared to listen to you. Mr. Luc Harvey : Should a cost study be done, yes or no? Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Chairman, I am not here as a witness, but rather as an MP defending proposed legislation.

(1650) Mr. Luc Harvey : This is your party's bill. Mr. Nathan Cullen : I am prepared to discuss an amendment or an initiative. If there are no amendments, then let's get on with it. Mr. Luc Harvey : Should a study be done before or after the bill now before us is adopted? [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Harvey, could you address your questions through the chair, please. [ Translation ] Mr. Luc Harvey : It is a simple question. Does the NDP, the party that tabled this bill, feel that a cost study should be carried out before or after the bill has been adopted?

Can the NDP spokesperson answer that question? [ English ] The Chair : I do believe he's given that answer at least once. [ Translation ] Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harvey's question may have something to do with clause 10. The focus of this discussion is amendment NDP-5. If Mr. Harvey wishes to move a subamendment to an amendment, then I'm prepared to hear what he has to say. Mr. Luc Harvey : Moving along then, that means there will not be any study, either before or after the fact.

It seems then that we will be taking a similar course of action as was taken during the study of the Grand Trunk railway initiative during the 1850s. In your opinion, is the study that Ms. Donnelley presented to the committee sound, yes or no? Clause 10 and all of the resolutions passed are based on that study. Mr. Chairman, I'd like the NDP spokesperson to answer the question, that is, of course, if he can. [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Cullen. Mr. Nathan Cullen : Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Harvey has created his own measure of fiction and fantasy as to how this process actually works. If Mr.

Harvey would like to show up at committee having done his homework, having presented any amendments that he wishes to discuss with the committee or any observations, that would be welcome. He is participating in a filibuster on behalf of his government, for reasons he knows not. That is his choice. I will not aid or abet this waste of taxpayer dollars and assist Mr. Harvey in some fantastical discussion that he would like to embark upon. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Cullen. Mr. Harvey, if you wish to continue, I think you've had the answer or non-answer, however you want to interpret it.

Just carry on. [ Translation ] Mr. Luc Harvey : I am being accused of filibustering when in fact all I've done is ask some very brief questions. My turn to ask questions came up about three minutes ago. I had five questions in mind, and I've already asked four of them. They were the type of questions that required answers such as “yes”, “no”, “before” or “after”. Is putting a simple question to the party sponsoring the bill a case of filibustering? I did not put the question to my Liberal or Bloc colleagues, but to my colleague who represents the party that sponsored the bill now before the committee.

Certain statements were also made by his party's leader. I asked him whether or not he agreed with what his leader said. If he does not want to answer the question... This is looking more and more like the bill tabled by the Liberals around the time of the Kyoto Protocol. They have since admitted publicly that they drafted the bill on a paper napkin while on an airplane and that in every respect they had improvised. Today, the NDP representative is showing us just how much his party is improvising, perhaps with some help from the opposition.

I am pleased that the record will show that this bill is seriously flawed. Perhaps these proceedings are being televised as well. According to Ms. Donnelley's study, 99% of Saskatchewan's GDP and 56% of Alberta's GDP would be affected. How can we say that there will not be a problem and that everything will be the same as it was in the case of the Grand Trunk railway initiative? If 56% of Saskatchewan's GDP is affected, that is worse than a nuclear bomb. A 5% hit already means a serious recession. I don't know if there an any scenarios on the books for a hit of over 50%. That scenario is unfathomable!

I have a hard time believing that for the sake of an ideology... The Conservative party has often been criticized for being an ideological party. I asked if a costing should be done, yes or no. They refused to answer my question. I asked if such a study should be done before or after the bill is adopted. Again, no answer was forthcoming. I asked if Ms. Donnelley's study was sound. Again, no response. What's going on here? When rather serious questions are raised about this bill, no one wants to answer them. Mr.

Chairman, I'm wondering if perhaps there is some way to force my colleague to answer these questions so that we can move forward and establish what is reasonable, and what is not. I think these questions are reasonable. It is reasonable to want to know how the Canadian economy will be affected by this bill. When the spokesperson for David Suzuki testified before the committee, I asked him what benefit there was to the environment to produce aluminum in China, when seven tons of emissions were produced per ton of aluminum produced,

whereas in Canada, the figure was four tons of emissions per ton produced. I was told that it was important for China and all emerging economies to be a part of this initiative. That is exactly what our Prime Minister is saying. That is precisely what the Minister of the Environment has been saying for the past six months. The NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals have refused to acknowledge the fact that it is important for everyone to be involved in this initiative. I believe in a clean environment. We must bequeath to our children the best possible environment we can, but not at any cost.

We need to have something left over after reductions of 52%. What is the NDP calling for today? It wants to see GHG emissions cut by 52% by the year 2020. That is a formidable challenge in that in 13 years, our colleagues have made the situation 27% worse, instead of improving it by 52%. My Liberal colleagues who support this bill are being a little hypocritical. I appreciate that the Conservative Party is very efficient, that it keeps its promises and generally does what it says it will do, but to cut emissions by 52% is to take on responsibility for someone else's mess.

(1655) It is outrageous, to say the least, that 13 years after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, we're discussing targets that are 33% higher than the original ones set. Asking that we hold off until impact and cost studies are done before approving Bill C-377 is almost akin to moving a friendly amendment.The 99% figure mentioned by my Saskatchewan colleague warrants further consideration. We need to look at what we can do to help them deal with this. The situation may not be quite as serious in Quebec, where the figure mentioned is only 9.8%, but beyond 5%, we're already looking at a major recession. Mr.

Chairman, I would like my colleague Mr. Cullen to consider the following friendly amendment asking that we wait until a cost study has been done before we adopt Bill C-377. [ English ] The Chair : We do have the question of the NDP amendment, and that's not really an amendment to this particular clause, so I cannot accept that amendment at this point. We can accept it after we deal with the amendment we're facing. We're looking at NDP-5, and we need to vote on that and then proceed. Mr. Harvey, all I would say is that you will find in planet Ottawa that there are many more questions than there are answers.

So that everyone is clear, NDP-5 would add a paragraph (c). (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings ])

(1700) The Chair : We're now looking at clause 10 as amended. I'm not sure who had their hand up first. Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you, Chair. As I was listening to my colleagues, who share a similar concern that I have, I was going over the need for an impact analysis or a cost analysis. The first person who was asking for that was Mr. Layton. When Mr. Layton came on December 11, he said he wanted the government to do an impact analysis. He also went on to say that “Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”. He also shared that Mr.

Bramley had been consulted and helped write Bill C-377 . Mr. Bramley was asked about whether or not it had been costed. It was actually Mr. Vellacott who asked him this, and he said: Mr. Bramley, does your report do any economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada? In your report, “ The Case for Deep Reductions ”, do you have any economic modelling that focuses on Canada? It was a very clear question. Mr. Bramley's answer was: We cite a number of economic modelling studies but none that relate specifically to meeting the target we advocate for Canada in 2050.

To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done. So what we have here, right at the beginning, on December 11, is Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley-- The Chair : Mr. Cullen, on a point of order. Mr. Nathan Cullen : I'm looking at the same testimony. This has been consistently read into the record by Mr. Warawa, but he's absolutely got it backwards in terms of the actual testimony that came from Mr. Layton. I'd like to give him the opportunity to correct himself. Mr. Warawa asked him to keep his answers short and Mr. Layton abides by that.

The testimony of December 11 says this: “So at this point you have not costed your plan? So you're asking the government to cost your plan.” As the testimony given before says, “This is a set of targets.” That is Mr. Layton's testimony. The parliamentary secretary continually misspeaks himself and presents the testimony as otherwise. These are Mr. Layton's words: “It will be up to the governments of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve these targets.” That is exactly the testimony. He can continue talking about other people's testimony, but that is exactly what Mr.

Layton said, that “It will be up to the governments of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve these targets.” He said, “This is a set of targets.”

The Chair : Mr. Cullen, I think that clarifies the point. I'm sure Mr. Warawa will take note of that testimony and make any necessary corrections. Mr. Warawa. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you, Chair. That's on page 8 of the evidence. My first question is, have you costed your plan? The response from Mr. Layton is that this is a set of targets, and that it will be up to the government of the day. That's this government. Bill C-377 is being considered right now. It's up to the government of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve those targets. He's saying it's up to the government to cost it.

So it's absolutely accurate. This is the question that keeps coming up: has it been costed? Mr. Layton said to cost it. It needs to be costed by the government. Mr. Bramley said it needs to be costed. I went to the testimony of Vicki Pollard from the EU and Mr. James Hughes from the U.K. They recommended that an impact assessment be done before Bill C-377 move forward. We've heard from every witness group, even the sponsor of the bill, even the person who helped write the bill. I think the question Canadians have is, what has changed? Mr. Layton is saying to do an impact analysis, a costing. And now Mr.

Cullen is getting different directions from Mr. Layton. Mr. Layton began by saying to do a costing, and now he's telling Mr. Cullen to tell this committee not to do one. He's telling us not to do one now, to move forward with this bill without knowing what it's going to cost. Well, that's not the way to do things. You need to know whether it's feasible, whether it's been costed. It's very important. This is what we've been advised even from the EU, even from the U.K. Both have recommended an impact analysis. Mr. Cullen is asking us to move an amendment. I think the analogy that Mr.

Vellacott used of trying to build a house on a bad foundation was a good one. I've built a number of houses, and you have to start with a strong foundation. The footings have to be built on solid ground. You dig down to hard pan, or you put in pilings, but you have to have a solid foundation; otherwise it won't stand. We've heard from witness group after witness group that Bill C-377 does not have a good foundation. That's why I'm not moving an amendment on Bill C-377 , because it's a badly flawed bill. The Liberals have provided a number of amendments, as have the Bloc and the NDP.

I trust they made those motions in good faith, but we have to get the witnesses back to find out if they came up with a bill that's going to be effective. We don't know that. They want us to move forward without all the information. That's very dangerous. We have right now Canada's Turning the Corner plan, the regulatory framework on emissions. It is a plan that has been costed. It's a plan that will be effective. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. We also have absolute reductions in the Turning the Corner plan—60% to 70% by 2050.

These are definitely the toughest targets in Canadian history and one of the toughest in the world. If we had had a plan like this in place by a Conservative government back in the mid-nineties, we definitely would have been able to meet international targets. But we took over in 2006, and we ended up 33% off target. So we have a lot of making up to do. But this government is committed to absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

(1705) Commissioner Ron Thompson was here a couple of weeks ago, and the NDP made the startling admission that the opposition's focus has been on trying to make sure the government fails. A comment was made by the NDP, admitting that this is what they've been trying to do, to cause the government to fail. But this government is not failing. The government is moving forward with absolute reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because it needs to happen.

We cannot permit greenhouse gas emissions to continue to climb in Canada or any other country in the world, and that's why we've taken strong leadership and have a plan that has been costed, that has policy, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Canada's new government launched an ambitious and realistic agenda to protect the health of Canadians, to improve environmental quality, and to position Canada as a clean energy superpower. The proposed framework is comprehensive and includes mandatory and enforceable reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

It also engages all Canadians to take significant measurable action at home in Canada. The reason we focus on both greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants is that pollutants are the cause of death of one in twelve Canadians. Poor air quality has a major impact on the health of Canadians, costing billions of health care dollars and causing a reduction in quality of life, but also one Canadian in twelve dies. That's why our plan includes greenhouse gas reductions but also aims to clean up the air Canadians are breathing. Climate change is a global issue of major concern to Canadians.

Human activities continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, producing changes in the climate that are already apparent. And they are. Being from British Columbia, I've seen the mountain pine beetle kill. Very serious problems are being caused already in Canada by climate change. These changes include altered wind and precipitation patterns and the increased incidence of extreme weather events, droughts, and forest fires. In addition, glacier melt and warmer oceans could lead to significant rises in sea levels.

The changes could imperil the way of life in vulnerable communities around the world and here in Canada. The changes would also result in significant economic costs. It is critical that Canada do its part to address its own contribution to global climate change, and we are doing that. After many years of our not doing what we should be doing—and the Commissioner of the Environment sadly said there were a lot of announcements made but very little action, and we saw our emissions continue to climb, and climb, and climb, which was very embarrassing to Canada internationally—those days are over.

We've now moved from voluntary action to mandatory regulatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Air pollution is a significant threat to human health and the Canadian environment. Each year smog contributes to thousands of deaths. There are other air pollutant problems such as acid rain and threatened biodiversity in forest and freshwater ecosystems. In order to address the real concern of Canadians suffering from the health effects of air pollution and to clean up Canada's environment, the government must act to reduce emissions of air pollutants—and it's doing that.

Addressing these challenges in a coordinated way will require nothing short of a complete transformation in the capital stock of energy-producing and -consuming businesses and households across Canada. While cooperation among all sectors of government will be required, the Government of Canada is uniquely situated to provide the leadership on this issue that will be required to meet the challenge in a cost-effective manner, in order to ensure the continued competitiveness of the Canadian economy.

We need to have a healthy economy, but we also need to have action on the environment, and that's what we're seeing now. This transformation will not be achieved through the sum of different and potentially conflicting provincial plans or by setting up rules for industry that vary from one area of the country to another. The government's clean air regulatory agenda, along with other initiatives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, will provide a nationally consistent approach.

(1710) We've recently had the report Turning the Corner—An action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution . The report was just released. It says: Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. Canadians have long known that serious action is required. Previous Governments set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gases, [yet] emissions increased year after year. Why was that, Chair? Members of the opposition have admitted that when they were government, they really did not have the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But that's different.

Things have changed, and this government is committed to seeing those reductions, but with a realistic plan, a concrete plan that will see those reductions come. They are dramatic, Chair: 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. Today our greenhouse gas emissions are more than 25% higher than they were in 1990, putting Canada more than 32% above its Kyoto target. That's today. Without immediate action, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are projected to grow a further 24% by 2020 to reach about 940 megatonnes or 55% above the 1990 levels.

That is unacceptable, and that's why we said it is time to turn the corner, and we are turning that corner. Our government is committed to stopping the increase of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and dramatically reducing them. I was reading a little out of our Turning the Corner plan. Last April we released the high level framework of our Turning the Corner action plan for reducing emissions. It's a real plan. It's a plan that will achieve the results of absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, a plan that was costed, a plan that will reduce greenhouse gases. Since then we have consulted with the provinces.

We've consulted with environmental groups and industry to develop the details of our plan, which include forcing industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Forcing industry is huge. That's because we've moved from voluntary to mandatory. Our plan includes setting up a carbon emissions trading market, including a carbon offset system, to provide incentives for Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're providing industry with the tools it needs, the tools of a domestic carbon market, and we're also establishing the market price of carbon.

We've heard from industry, we've heard from environmental groups, and we've heard from our international partners that these are necessary parts of the plan, and they are now part of a plan. Our plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is a responsible plan. It's a responsible path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address the global threat of climate change. The Government of Canada has established the national target of an absolute reduction of 20% of greenhouse gas emissions from the 2006 levels by the year of 2020. That's a reduction of 330 megatonnes from projected levels. That's huge.

The previous plan was that emissions were going up and were going to continue to go up. We are now seeing a dramatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions--330 megatonnes. This is equal to eliminating the combined greenhouse gas emissions of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a huge accomplishment. With the Turning the Corner plan, the government is taking action and putting into place, for the first time in Canadian history, one of the toughest regulatory regimes in the world to cut greenhouse gases.

Our Turning the Corner plan requires reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases by big industry. Greenhouse gas emissions by the industrial sector will be reduced by 165 megatonnes from projected levels by 2020, an amount greater than the combined emissions by the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Existing facilities in all industrial sectors will face tough requirements to improve their emissions performance every year. Plants that began operating in 2004 will face even tougher requirements to force them to use cleaner fuels and greener technology.

(1715) New oil sands plants and coal-fired power plants coming into operation in 2012 or later--those that are now on the drawing board--will face the toughest requirements of all. The oil sands are one of Canada's greatest natural resources and a major engine to our economy, but we have a responsibility to this generation and future generations to ensure that they are developed in an environmentally responsible way. Without additional action today, emissions from the oil sands would grow dramatically in the coming years, and we can't allow that to happen.

The Government of Canada will require that all oil sand plants meet a tough new emission standard. Plants that began operation in 2004 or after will face even tougher standards based on the use of cleaner fuels. Plants starting operations in 2012 will be required to meet the toughest targets that will effectively put action into place for a new carbon capture and storage technology. It's a wonderful new technology. When I was in Berlin, Germany, for the G8+5 conference--and Chair, you were there with me--it was wonderful to hear that the world is counting on carbon capture and storage.

We also know that the biggest carbon capture and storage facility in the world is in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. What they do is this. In North Dakota, about 300 kilometres south, you have a synthetic coal gasification plant where they create natural gas out of gasifying coal, and from that they create electricity. The carbon dioxide from that plant is shipped 300 kilometres north to Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and it's pumped into the ground for enhanced oil recovery. An oil field that wasn't producing anymore now is because of that technology.

The world shared with us in Berlin, and there were some of us in this room who were at that meeting--the chair, I myself, and there was a member from the Bloc, Mr. Cullen was there, and Mr. Godfrey was there. We heard the importance of carbon capture and storage. The world is hoping that approximately 25% of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions globally will be reduced because of carbon capture and storage. So it's a very important technology, and who has that technology? Who is the world leader? Canada.

That's why we saw, in Indonesia and Bali, one of the people who were down there as part of the Canadian delegation sharing that technology with the world. We are world leaders, and that's why we're requiring the new plants in the oil sands will have to use that technology, where you capture the carbon dioxide and it's pumped back into the ground. It can be stored there, and it has a less than 1% chance of escaping over a 5,000-year period. It's very safe. It solidifies as it's pumped into the ground, and it also can be used for safe storage, but it also can be used for enhanced oil recovery.

It's expensive technology, but that is what the world is counting on, and that's the leadership that Canada is providing. The leadership is requiring that the Canadian oil sands will have to use that. Also, Canada must reduce emissions from the dirty coal-fired electricity generation--carbon capture and storage again. The new coal plants that are going to be built in Canada have to use carbon capture and storage. So it's a very good-news story.

I'm sure, Chair, it's something that excites you, because you've been aware of it for a number of years, and it's good news for Canada, but it's also good news for the world. Many Canadians are not aware that in many provinces much of the electricity we use at home and at work is generated by coal-fired power plants. The Government of Canada believes it is simply irresponsible to keep building dirty coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired plants will have to meet a tough new emission standard. We'll also bring in regulations that will effectively end the construction of dirty coal-fired plants starting in 2012.

This is all part of our regulatory Turning the Corner plan. Utilities that want to build coal-fired plants in the future will be required to meet targets based on the use of clean technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

(1720) These tough regulatory requirements will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands and electricity sectors by about 90 megatonnes, or 55% of the total expected reductions of the 165 megatonnes from industry, by 2020. This will be challenging for those sectors, but the government is confident they will step up and meet the challenge. It will happen. All together, our government's industrial regulations will achieve half the reductions required to meet our national target of 20% reduction by 2020.

These regulations will change how Canada produces and uses energy and will impose a price on carbon that will rise over time, and they will impact the entire economy. As such, they will provide important new incentives for innovation and new opportunities to develop Canadian green technologies. Chair, I was at the GLOBE conference two weeks ago. At the trade show, it was wonderful to see what was happening in the technologies here in Canada. We saw Iogen, a company that creates ethanol from waste product, from straw. They break it down using an enzyme to create alcohol, and it's 100% alcohol.

It's like a big still. They mix gasoline with the alcohol to create ethanol, and it's called E85. Minister Baird arrived at the GLOBE conference in an E85-powered vehicle. When I fuel up, there are gas stations already in British Columbia where you can buy ethanol. It's rated up to 10%. But this is where the government, through a mandatory regulation--no longer voluntary--is moving forward with cleaner fuels and cleaner technology. In the end, we end up with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. And we set a good example. We also end up with cleaner air for healthier Canadians.

The Government of Canada is taking further action that will cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and from buildings. These actions include mandatory renewable fuel content in gasoline, diesel, and heating oils. A moment ago, I mentioned what we saw at the GLOBE conference. It was very interesting. For the first time in Canadian history we will have tough new fuel consumption standards for cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles. These are some of the toughest targets in the world and definitely in Canadian history.

The vehicles--cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles--will have to burn less fuel and become more energy efficient. New energy efficiency requirements for a wide range of commercial and consumer products such as dishwashers and commercial boilers and new national performance standards that'll ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs are actions the government is requiring with our Turning the Corner plan. But we can already do that. We already have that technology and we are moving forward. These are minimum standards--20% reduction by 2020--but Canadians can already start doing that.

Chair, I've had the great pleasure of buying new fluorescent-type light bulbs as replacements and I've seen my electricity bill drop significantly. It's a nice light, and you can get different types of fluorescent lighting, all using much less energy. Instead of a 60-watt bulb, it's an 11-watt bulb. If you replace all the bulbs in your house, all of a sudden you're saving a lot of electricity. But there is different lighting. Some of the bulbs have a soft glow and some are very bright. We are implementing ways of reducing our carbon footprint and cleaning up the environment.

Our government has also launched a broad suite of ecoACTION programs that will complement our regulatory initiatives and stimulate the growth of renewable energy and fuels: energy-efficient homes and buildings, fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and increased public infrastructure.

(1725) The Chair : Mr. Warawa, could I interrupt you for a minute to advise everyone, as I said I would at 5:25. Obviously we're not going to complete the bill, so I will be suspending and asking everyone to return immediately after the vote, and we'll carry on. The bells will begin. We will suspend at that point and we'll return here right afterwards and carry on. Mr. Warawa, the floor is yours. Mr. Mark Warawa : Thank you.

So we believe that the federal initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—making our cars, our homes, and our industries much more efficient in their energy use—can achieve greenhouse gas reductions of 65 megatonnes from projected levels by 2020, equivalent to taking more than 16 million cars off the road, or eliminating the combined emissions of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. So these are very large numbers. These tough federal regulatory and other actions are expected to result in greenhouse gas reductions of 230 megatonnes from projected levels by 2020. That is a huge number, Chair.

Yet even with these tough new federal regulations and the promises of some provinces to close dirty coal-fired power plants and to increase their use of renewable and nuclear energy, the emissions from electricity generation are projected to be 90 megatonnes in 2020—still the single largest source of greenhouse gases in Canada. The Government of Canada wants to achieve additional emission reductions from the electricity sector of 25 megatonnes by 2020—and that's in only 12 years from 2008.

So in this very short period of time, there will be an additional 25 megatonnes in reductions from the electricity sector, equivalent to closing seven large coal-fired power plants. We're therefore setting up a clean electricity task force to work with the provinces and industry to meet this goal. If required, the Government of Canada is ready to use its regulatory powers to ensure that these cuts are achieved. Provincial governments are already committed to targets that would require achieving greenhouse gas reductions of as much as 300 megatonnes by 2020.

Over 200 provincial initiatives have been developed to date to begin achieving those great goals. While some of these initiatives overlap with federal actions, it is estimated they will provide an incremental 40 megatonnes in emission reductions by 2020. Most provinces have indicated they're planning to do even more to meet their own targets. The Government of Canada has provided over $1.5 billion in new funding to the provinces and the territories to support their climate change initiatives. That's good news. I want to thank the Liberal members for supporting that.

Unfortunately, the Bloc and the NDP voted against that $1.5 billion in initiatives to fight climate change. We're convinced it's realistic and achievable for provinces and territories to take further action in the areas where they have important responsibilities, such as building standards, public transit, and urban planning. This is very important: public transit will not be successful if you do not have well-planned, sustainable communities. We expect that the provinces will introduce new measures that will result, at minimum, in an additional 35 megatonnes of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

These will enable Canada not only to meet but, potentially, also to surpass its national target of a 20% absolute reduction in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020. Canada will play an important role in negotiations to develop a new international agreement on climate change, with contributions from all the major emitters, including the United States and China and India. We should be seeking to ensure that global emissions are cut at least in half by 2050. The Government of Canada has committed to achieving a 60% to 70% reduction in Canada's emissions by 2050.

(1730) At home, we will stop the dramatic growth in our greenhouse gas emissions and cut them by 20%, in absolute terms, between now and 2020, as I pointed out, which is only 12 years away. This will require all of us to do our part: the federal, provincial, and territorial governments; municipalities; industry; and individual Canadians. Together we can meet our target.

In doing so, we as a country will put in place large-scale carbon capture and storage and other existing technologies; we'll generate 90% of our power from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases; and we'll increase electricity from renewable sources, like wind and wave power, by 20 times. These are examples of this government actually getting it done. We'll cut greenhouse gas emissions from coal by more than 50%. We'll increase average fuel efficiency in new vehicles by 20%. We'll improve Canada's energy efficiency by 20%. That's our national energy efficiency.

These and other actions will change the path of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Canada will move from rapid growth to achieving absolute reductions of 20%, based in 2006 levels, and a reduction of 330 megatonnes from projected levels in 2020. The challenge to meet these targets by 2020 is great. It's a big challenge. However, the Government of Canada believes in the commitment, ingenuity, and willingness of Canadians to tackle the challenge of climate change while continuing to grow our economy. Together we are ready to face the challenge and to win. Chair, we need to win.

We need to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that each of us is responsible for. There are lots of opportunities and lots of ways to find out how we can reduce our carbon footprint. And it's fun to do. As I mentioned earlier, I replaced all my light bulbs, but I also bought a new hot water tank and found out that the new hot water tank was a lot more efficient. Also, when I leave the Hill, I turn my hot water tank off. Why heat water when we're not here? So I've done that. At home, I've reduced the temperature of the hot water tank. I have a new efficient hot water tank and efficient light bulbs.

What's also good is that I'm not the only one doing it and that it's fun; we have a lot of Canadians doing it. With more and more energy-efficient light bulbs available, the prices have come down. And we have a way of disposing of the light bulbs, because you don't want to just take the fluorescent bulbs and dispose of them in the regular garbage. You want to bring them back to where you got them. They will collect them and dispose of them in a safe manner, because the fluorescent bulbs have mercury, and you do not want to just throw them away and have them break and release the mercury.

That brings up another point, Chair. The government is very concerned about the mercury content in our environment. That's why we have a new program requiring vehicles that are scrapped to have the switches taken out of them to capture that mercury. We do not want it released into the atmosphere. The days of using our atmosphere as a dumping ground for greenhouse gas emissions, for mercury, and for pollutants are over. This government is very serious about reducing the amount of greenhouse gases we're putting into the air. Our regulations will have real, tangible health and environmental benefits for Canadians.

These benefits, in turn, will have positive economic effects. A robust regulatory system will also promote technological investment and innovation in Canada, yielding long-term economic benefits from enhanced productivity, improved energy efficiency, greater competitiveness, and more importantly, the ability to sell Canadian products and know-how abroad.

(1735) When I was at that global conference, it wasn't just Iogen that I saw there. I saw energy-efficient vehicles. I saw solar technology. I saw a technology for operating rooms. The gases coming from the anesthetics that are provided in operating theatres have 12,000 times the impact of carbon dioxide, so capturing those gases and having them brought down and managed in a safe manner is very good for the environment: 12,000 times carbon dioxide from the operating theatres.

Instead of having methane, which is a natural gas but is 21 times stronger than carbon dioxide, you capture that from landfills, from animal waste, and just by flaring it, it becomes carbon dioxide, but you can capture that and use that as a commodity to run vehicles. It provides a balance within our system. Instead of pulling more fuels from below the earth, we recycle what we already have above the earth. It provides that technology not only for Canadians but for the world. We saw that at the trade show. It was exciting that a lot of that technology is happening right here in Canada.

We're sharing that with the world too. We also saw Iogen. As well, we saw other waste products, cellulose waste, trees. They can take trees, or waste product from trees, and make fuel from it too, which I think is a better way than taking food stock. We use cellulose technology to create the ethanol, and you can then run your cars and vehicles in a much more environmentally friendly way. Each of us needs to do our part, but a lot of the world-leading technology is right here in Canada. It's very exciting.

Strong regulations will inevitably come at a cost, and those costs will be borne, at least in part, by every individual Canadian and his or her family. Consumer products, including cars and home appliances, could become more expensive. Electricity and fuel prices will rise. All Canadians must be prepared to bear this extra responsibility in order to get the job done. This government is committed to doing that, and I know Canadians are too.

In implementing the clean air regulatory agenda, the government will work with provincial and territorial governments, industry, environmental health groups, scientists, municipalities and communities, and individual Canadians. These partnerships will ensure that all segments of Canadian society have the opportunity to reduce their emissions and achieve a cleaner, healthier Canada for current and future generations—other examples of this government setting the example and getting it done. As a side note, we have now hydrogen-powered buses on the Hill.

The typical bus that we see running around on Parliament Hill is a green bus, and there are some white buses for the Senate. But we also now have hydrogen-powered buses. They're burning hydrogen, and the only thing coming out of the exhaust pipe is water. It's very exciting, another example of Canadian technology. The government is also taking other action. In the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed to take measures to achieve—

(1740) The Chair : I'm sorry. Mr. Bigras, on a point of order. [ Translation ] Mr. Bernard Bigras : Mr. Chairman, for the committee's benefit, can you tell me which document the parliamentary secretary is alluding to? [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Warawa, could you inform us of the document you're reading, please? Mr. Mark Warawa : This is called the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions . This is the Turning the Corner plan.

I think it's important for members of the committee who are supporting Bill C-377 to remember what witnesses have told us, namely, that the bill is missing substance, has jurisdictional issues, and is poorly written. The opposition has tried to rewrite it, but it's a flawed bill. Canada now has a Turning the Corner plan. And this plan will achieve what the committee wants, which is absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If the committee supports Bill C-377 , they obviously are not aware of the good plan that Canada now has. And that's why I was providing some of the highlights of it for the committee.

The government is also taking other action. In the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed to take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Back in 2006, the budget allocated $1.9 billion to initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the air Canadians breath. It included a 15.5% tax credit for the purchase of monthly public transit passes. This was meant to encourage individual Canadians and their families to leave their cars at home and take more environmentally sustainable modes of transportation.

There was also $1.3 billion for public transit and capital investments. It's unfortunate that in the last two budgets the Bloc and the NDP voted against providing billions of dollars for public transit, which was quite surprising. I would have thought that they would support those wonderful environmental incentives. But no, they voted against it. In December 2006, the government announced two key environmental measures. The first was the new chemicals management plan. I was there when we launched it. It was a very exciting day.

The plan takes immediate action to regulate chemicals that are harmful to human health or the environment. Canada was the first country in the world to categorize 23,000 legacy chemical substances. This action has allowed the government to move forward to ensure that chemical substances are handled safely. The government has challenged industry to provide the government with information on how they are safely handling 200 high-priority chemical substances. The government has committed $300 million over five years to implement the chemicals management plan, which is already having positive results.

The government also announced that it would require fuel producers and importers, by 2010, to have an average annual renewable content of at least 5% of the volume of gasolines that they produce or import. There are already gas stations that sell an ethanol content in their fuels, and it helps protect the environment. I encourage people to look for gas stations that sell gasoline with ethanol in it. Upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under Canadian conditions, the government will require an average 2% renewable fuel content in diesel fuel and heating oil by no later than 2012.

That's only four years away. The government also announced funding of $365 million to bolster the development of biofuels and other bio-products. Unfortunately, the Bloc and the NDP voted against this. These actions will significantly reduce air emissions from the fuel Canadians use to travel, transport goods, and heat their homes. To complement the clean air regulatory agenda, the government will also use targeted incentives and programs that will allow industry and consumers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

(1745) The ecoENERGY initiatives are there to help Canadians use energy and fuels more efficiently, to boost renewable energy supplies, and to develop cleaner energy technologies. These include programs to offer support and information on retrofits to homeowners and small businesses and organizations--good news--to encourage the construction and retrofit of more energy-efficient buildings and houses, and to accelerate energy savings investments within Canada's industrial sector. In addition, the Minister of Natural Resources and Alberta's-- The Chair : Yes, Mr. Regan, go ahead on a point of order. Hon.

Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Chair, my honourable colleague seems to be reading a document that's totally unrelated to the bill and to the amendment in question. I'm wondering if that's proper procedure. The Chair : Well, Mr. Regan, I'm afraid that we're talking about the amendment; we're talking about climate change. The area is pretty broad. It is rather difficult. I would ask the member to try to zero in on the amendment that's here. I've been here only 15 years and I must admit I've never seen anything quite like this. We are just reading, but I guess that's what we're doing.

I'm afraid we do have to look at the amendment. I would like to be referring to the amendment and deal with that one. I would ask the member to at least try to refer to the amendment occasionally in his reading. We're on clause 10.

(1750) Mr. Mark Warawa : Yes, we are, thank you. Clause 10 says: 10.

(1) On or before May 31 of each year, the Minister shall prepare a statement setting out (

a) the measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under

section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including measures taken in respect of (

i) regulated emission limits and performance standards, (ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets, (iii) spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry, and (iv) cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments; and (

b) the Canadian greenhouse gas emission reductions that are reasonably expected to result from each of those measures in each of the next ten years; and (

c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b). That's exactly what I'm speaking to, Chair, and that is clause 10. The Minister of Natural Resources and Alberta's Minister of Energy have commissioned a Canada-Alberta ecoENERGY Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force. The task force is made up of CEOs from the oil, power, and pipeline industries, as well as a member of the academic community.

It's been tasked with examining the opportunities for the large-scale application of carbon capture and storage technology in Canada. Based on that examination, the task force will provide a comprehensive set of options describing how government and industry can work together to take advantage of those opportunities. In carbon capture and storage technology, Canada is the world leader. When we were in Germany, I asked if there has been a mapping of geological formations globally. We were told, no, each country is going to be responsible for that.

But Canada has taken that leadership in carbon capture and storage, and we have that model in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. It's very important that we not continue to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need to capture it. That's going to be happening on new projects in the oil sands, and it will also be required for new coal-fired electric generating plants. We also look forward to Ontario shutting down those coal-fired plants and building these new electric-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and I'm sure Mr. McGuinty is looking forward to that too.

On March 19, 2007, just a year ago, our government further demonstrated its commitment to environmental action to provide health and environmental benefits to Canadians by allocating $4.5 billion in budget 2007 for initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases and their pollution, as well as water conservation enforcement initiatives.

These initiatives included the following: $1.5 billion for the trust fund for clean air and climate change, a new national trust fund that provides financial support for provincial and territorial government projects that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

It included a rebalancing of the tax system to encourage investments in the oil sands and other sectors in clean and renewable energy, while phasing out the accelerated capital cost allowance put in by the previous Liberal government for the oil sands development. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No. It also included an extension to 2020 for existing tax incentives for clean energy production and an expansion of the eligibility to cover wave and tidal energy, as well as additional solar energy and waste-to-energy technologies. Surely the Bloc would have supported that. Did they support it?

No. Did the NDP support that? No.

(1755) We also funded performance-based rebates on vehicles according to their fuel efficiency, with levies on fuel-inefficient vehicles beginning with the 2011 year. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No. We funded $36 million over two years to support programs to get older high-emitting vehicles off the road. It's a good plan. When you get the older vehicles off the road, people then will buy new energy-efficient vehicles. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No. They do support Bill C-377 , though, which is a bill with no plan and no costing.

Our plan included $2 billion over seven years to support the production of renewable fuels--$1.5 billion for operating incentives for producers of alternate low-emission fuels and $500 million for investing with the private sector in establishing large-scale facilities for the production of next-generation renewable fuels, such as Iogen here in Ottawa-- Mr. David McGuinty : It's in my riding. Mr. Mark Warawa : It's a good-news story. Did the Bloc support extending the public transit credit to different types of public transit, enhancing public transit? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

We have a very serious trend here, where the Bloc and the NDP are not supporting environmental programs. We provided funding to protect Canada's natural heritage, including $225 million for conserving ecologically sensitive lands and $110 million for protecting species at risk. Surely the Bloc would have supported that. They didn't. Did the NDP support that? No. Our plan included $22 million over the next two years to strengthen environmental enforcement. You can make laws, but if you don't enforce them you are not going to have an effect. Volunteerism only works to a point.

You need to have mandatory regulatory framework and it has to be enforced. Did the Bloc support enforcing the environmental laws of Canada? Did the NDP support that? No. We provided $92 million over two years to improve the water that Canadians drink, to clean polluted water, to protect ecosystems, and to ensure the sustainability of Canada's fish resources. We included over $200 million in funding to renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and support fisheries, science, and research. Again, the Bloc and the NDP did not support that. Canadians wonder why not.

These initiatives will deliver real results while industrial regulations are developing, and will promote the technology innovation required to support upcoming regulations. In addition, these initiatives include the regulations to set Canada on the road to making real progress toward its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The real reductions in emissions that will be drawn by the regulations, coupled with the impact of both the non-regulatory actions above and the ambitious new initiatives being taken by provincial and territorial governments, mean that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from all sources are expected to begin to decline as early as 2010. My colleagues brought that to the committee's attention. It's already happening. The environment is already cleaning up. We're getting it done. I think it was Mr. Cullen who said that their focus has been on trying to get the government to fail. It's not working.

The government is moving forward. We have a regulatory plan, a Turning the Corner plan that is already seeing results. Therefore absolute emissions continue to decline. The government is committed to reducing Canada's total emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020, and by 60% to 70% by 2050. The government supports the Kyoto process--I think I'm hearing an echo here--and actions at home that will be the basis for Canada's participation in future international cooperative efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

We've seen our minister, John Baird , do an incredible job making sure the post-Kyoto negotiations were successful in Indonesia. We all need to do our part. Greenhouse gas emissions are affecting Canada. We're already seeing the results of a warming climate in Canada, but we're also seeing it globally. Canada is doing its part and taking that leadership that was not there for a number of years. We're also encouraging all the international major emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(1800) At this point, 30% of the major greenhouse gas emitters are part of the Kyoto agreement. We need everybody to be willing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and that's what we're pushing for. Wouldn't it be wonderful to see everybody signing on and agreeing to a post-Kyoto target that included all the major emitters agreeing to reduce their greenhouse gases? And Canada is providing that leadership.

Significant long-term progress on greenhouse gases and air pollutants will be realized only through the development, commercialization, and employment of new, cleaner energy and transportation technologies, and through the active participation of all Canadians and all aspects of Canadian society. The government recognizes the need to work with all consumers, with industry and the provinces and the territories, to move forward to implement this aggressive plan. All Canadians will need to do their part to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution to help protect their health and their environment.

On October 21, 2006, our government published a notice of intent that imposed an integral, nationally consistent approach to the regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollutant emissions in order to protect the health and the environment of Canadians. Because greenhouse gases and air pollutants share many common sources, the coordination of requirements will allow firms to make cost-effective decisions to maximize synergies in reducing their emissions.

As you reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted, you often are reducing the pollutants that are also going in the air, for the benefit of the health of Canadians. And in our Turning the Corner plan, we have a reduction in air pollutants in half by 2015—a very short period of time. These are huge, aggressive targets that will be achieved for the health of Canadians.

The government has signalled its determination to address greenhouse gases and air pollutants from key sources and has outlined a regulatory agenda for industrial sources, and transportation and consumer and commercial products, for more stringent energy efficiency standards and improved indoor air quality. The government is committed to these targets of a 20% reduction by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050. Environmental protection is an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments.

The federal government has clear jurisdiction to regulate air emissions in order to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. The government recognizes the importance of endeavouring, in cooperation with the provinces and territories and aboriginal peoples, to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians. The provinces have taken important action to reduce air pollution emissions in their own jurisdictions.

However, national consistency is necessary to provide a minimum level of air quality for all Canadians to ensure a level playing field and to protect the competitiveness of our Canadian industry in different regions by avoiding a patchwork of different regulations being applied to the same industrial sectors. My colleague Mr. Harvey has brought up the point a number of times that the production of one tonne of aluminum produces four tonnes of carbon dioxide when it's produced in Canada, but in China it's seven. And with growing technology, my hope is that the four tonnes will be reduced more and more.

So we need to make sure it's Canadian technology, the very best of technology, being used for aluminum too. An integrated, nationally consistent approach will enable firms to reduce their emissions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Again, Canada has to stay competitive. We don't want jobs leaving Canada; we want jobs in Canada. We want Canadian technology used to benefit the world globally for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The federal government has never—never—regulated emissions of greenhouse gases or air pollutants across industries before.

This is the first government in Canadian history to do this.

(1805) For industrial sources, the October 2006 notice of intent to regulate indicated that the government would introduce a framework for short-term targets and compliance options by the spring of 2007. In the transportation sector, the Prime Minister reaffirmed, in his speech on February 6, 2007, that for the first time ever Canada's new government would regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, beginning with the 2011 model year. That's three years from now.

There's currently a memorandum of understanding between the auto industry and the government with a target of 5.3 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2010. That will be regulated for the 2011 model year, and the memorandum of understanding will end. The government will build on this agreement to establish an ambitious regulated fuel efficiency standard for the 2011 model benchmarked against a stringent dominant North American standard. That's good news. We need to have a level playing field, we need a clean environment, and it needs to be by regulation, and that is happening.

The government is also developing and will implement regulations to reduce smog- and acid-rain-forming emissions from vehicles, engines, and fuels. It will take action to reduce emissions from other modes of transportation, including rail, aviation, and marine. I live on the west coast, and marine is a very big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and our government is taking action on that. The government is developing regulations that strengthen energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements for consumer and commercial products.

The government is also developing, for the first time, a comprehensive regulatory agenda that will address indoor air quality--the first government to do that. The goal of these actions is to improve significantly and measurably the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Since the publication of the notice of intent in October, work has been ongoing on each of these priorities. The process you go through to end up with regulations has begun, and it began in October 2006.

Two draft regulations in the transportation sector to reduce smog-forming pollutants from vehicles and engines have been published in the Canada Gazette . Work has also begun on a series of amendments to the energy efficiency regulations. As I indicated in the notice of intent, an integrated approach to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants has been taken to maximize the benefits to the health of all Canadians and to the environment.

In the notice of intent, the government committed to develop and implement an integrated, nationally consistent approach to the regulation of industrial air emissions. As you can see, Chair, what I am speaking to relates directly to clause 10 of Bill C-377 . In November and December of 2006, extensive consultations were undertaken with the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups, and health and environmental groups on elements of the proposed approach and the development of the regulatory framework.

A companion document was published to further elaborate and present elements and options for consultation. These consultations and the public comments received in response to the notice of intent have informed the development of the regulatory framework. The regulations will mandate reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants from the following industrial sectors: electricity; electricity generation produced by combustion; oil and gas, including upstream; oil and gas, downstream; petroleum; oil sands; and the natural gas pipelines.

(1810) Chair, we have a vote happening. I have much more that I'd like to share, and that's why I didn't believe we would complete today. I think we could complete it in another day. At this point I would move that we adjourn. The Chair : We have a movement for adjournment, which is non-debatable. Our options basically, as everyone knows, would be to suspend when the bells go and then return, or hold the vote. We are now going to hold the vote on adjournment. (Motion negatived) The Chair : We will suspend when the bells begin, and we'll be back here as soon as possible. Are you carrying on, then, Mr. Warawa? Mr.

Mark Warawa : Thank you. For greenhouse gases, the framework sets a 2010 implementation date for emission intensity reduction targets. For air pollutants, the framework sets fixed emission caps that will enter into force as soon as possible between 2012 and 2015. In order to minimize cost to industry and the impact in the economy, the framework contains compliance mechanisms intended to provide industry with flexibility in meeting its regulatory options. The framework also requires rigorous monitoring and reporting in order to ensure compliance, assessment, and transparency.

These are all ingredients that are missing in Bill C-377 . There is no costing. There is nothing on the framework. There are just inter