Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is at a loss to understand what the money is for, let me refer him to Bill C-48.

It is for the environment, including for public transit and an energy efficient retrofit program. It is for training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, including for aboriginal people. It is for affordable housing across Canada, including for aboriginal people. It is for foreign aid.

Which of those things does the official opposition disagree with?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. gentleman that the simple repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

The fact of the matter is that the arrangements that we arrived at in Bill C-48 have ensured that there will be no deficit. They have ensured that the debt repayment plan will continue. They have ensured that any new investments are consistent with previously existing Government of Canada policies. They have ensured indeed that the tax program of the government will continue.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supply

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party. I will take the time to read it first so that I can then comment on it more easily.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada

For starters, I should say that my party intends to support the opposition motion put forward today by the NDP. However, I do have some criticism of it. In our view, it must be said that this motion is vague and inadequate. Why is it vague? Because it fails unfortunately to specify the extent to which we expect the automobile industry to improve the efficiency of light duty vehicles. Is the standard 25% or 10%? No one knows.

Of course we must take a regulatory approach. That is what we think on this side of the House. However, we must never forget that our regulations must be consistent, not with the American government standards—as is currently the case in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the regulations under it—but rather with the practices and regulations recently adopted in California. It is important to remember that.

Smog has been a reality in Canada for a number of years now. However, Quebec was alerted to it more than ever recently during several days in early February when Montreal and the Outaouais were hit by a smog alert. This was quite unusual. How could Montrealers and the people of the Outaouais possibly expect a smog alert in February? This points to a major problem which reminds us that we must change our ways of doing things and our consumption patterns.

Before I go on to the automobile industry and its impact, we must remember, first and foremost, that it is not just vehicle exhaust that causes this smog. Wood stoves and wood heating are also responsible for smog. As recently as between 1987 and 2000, there was a 60% increase in wood heating in Canada compared to only a 20% increase in rental housing. This means that the number of people who decided to heat their homes with wood more than doubled in 15 years. Naturally, that has a major impact on air quality, especially in urban areas like Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which I represent in this House.

There is a mandatory five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At present, wood stove manufacturing standards have been harmonized with EPA standards. It may be time to consider, during our examination of the relevant sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, if stricter standards on wood stove manufacturing could not be implemented.

The crux of the problem is the transportation sector as a whole. We must remember that this sector is responsible for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

So, this is not an inconsequential sector. Just before I started my intervention, I was looking at the figures, and the oil and gas sectors are responsible for 18% of these emissions. So, the transportation sector is the primary emitter of greenhouse gas in Canada, with 25%. It is even expected that by 2010, there will be a 32% increase in greenhouse emissions in the transportation sector compared to the 1990 levels, if nothing is done, and I want to emphasize that point.

This means that we have to make some choices. If Canada decides to maintain the status quo and not implement any measures, greenhouse emissions will have increased by 32% compared to 1990 levels. So we are forced to take action.

Until now, the government has chosen to take a voluntary approach with the auto industry, among others. Ultimately, this approach means that the auto industry is being trusted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.

But that begs a fundamental question. Since there are quite a number of sectors in Canada—I am thinking of manufacturing, pulp and paper, steel—how come the federal government has decided to exclude the auto industry from the large industrial emitters?

When 25% of emissions are generated by the transportation sector—and there is a major correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and motor vehicle use—why was it decided to exclude the automotive sector from the large industrial emitters?

If the government, through its Minister of the Environment or Minister of Natural Resources, had announced to us today that the automotive industry was excluded from the large industrial emitters because the technology did not exist, I might almost understand. That is the case in certain industry sectors, such as cement manufacturing, for example. There we have substantial greenhouse gas emissions, and the technology to improve the energy balance of that industrial sector unfortunately does not exist. If that were the case for the automotive sector, I might almost understand.

But no. The technology to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles is available. So why are we not forcing the automobile industry to make better vehicles? When the technology exists, why do we continue to apply a voluntary approach which in recent years has produced no results? Some will say it is for economic reasons. I was listening to the hon. members from the Conservative Party telling us earlier that we had to understand that the vehicles produced in Canada were being exported.

It is as if to say that what has been done in California, which has a population of over 25 million and a market comparable to Canada's—so it has similar economic conditions—is good for California but not for Canada.

The economic argument does not wash, because the Canadian market is comparable to the California market. So what can be done in California can most certainly be done in Canada.

I look, among other things, at the action plan on climate change that was tabled in November 2002. The section on energy efficiency states that the automotive sector would be required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2 megatonnes and improve automobile efficiency by 25%. The plan is that specific.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party motion does not contain this level of effort that we are demanding of the automobile industry. We would have liked to see that 25% threshold in this motion. What the automobile industry has been telling us lately is that it is not interested in any norm for improving vehicle efficiency by 25%.

That industry tells us that it is certainly prepared to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 megatonnes, but it does not want to have a standard comparable to California's. It prefers the status quo. The status quo, what we have at the moment, is a harmonization of the vehicle manufacturing standards with those of the federal government, the EPA.

There is a flagrant injustice being imposed on the various industrial sectors at this time. For example, the manufacturing sector—not the Quebec manufacturing sector, but the sector as a whole—has made a 7% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction imposed on it is 15%. How can anyone claim that what is being negotiated at this time is fair?

An industrial sector that has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% gets a 15% reduction imposed upon it, while an industrial sector like the auto industry, which has the technology, would not be included among the major emitters. There is something inequitable here; the government's proposed approach is unfair. A few months ago, the government announced a multi-million aid package for Ford. No problem, if they want to help that sector, and that particular company, that is fine with me. But, how can that company use the taxpayers' money without being prepared to apply more stringent energy efficiency standards? Ought this assistance to Ford not to have been conditional on improved manufacturing so as to produce more energy-efficient vehicles?

When the Commissioner of the Environment speaks of strategic environmental assessments, that is exactly what she is referring to. What does she say about this? That tax measures, financial assistance, is being provided to certain companies without due consideration of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Take Bill C-48. This is a bill that gives some $250 million a year in tax incentives to the hydrocarbon industry. Fine. The industry gets tax incentives and financial assistance and what do we get in return from these sectors that do not even have to sign a voluntary agreement with the federal government to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15%? What do these sectors have to say about this?

I was reading the steel industry agreement. It is worth a read. Two agreements were signed by the federal government: one with the pulp and paper industry and the other with the steel industry. If you take the time to read the agreement, you will see that it says that the industry will enforce a 15% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions provided the competitiveness of the industry is not affected. This is based on industry studies.

So, the industry is prepared to accept federal assistance—that is the case with Ford—but it is not prepared to enforce stricter standards to improve vehicle efficiency by 25%.

What should be our direction in the coming years? In my opinion there are two approaches. It takes a fiscal and budgetary approach together with a regulatory approach. Let us develop a regulatory approach to make—and this is the case in the automobile industry—existing technologies more energy efficient.

We are not talking about research and development in this economic sector. We are talking about technologies that already exist. The government has a responsibility when faced with an industry that refuses to make the manufacture of vehicles more efficient.

Let us implement regulations that harmonize with California's, a regulatory approach, as the New Democratic Party proposes, so that, at the end of the day, new vehicles that come on the market will be more energy efficient and thus will help reduce smog. That is not enough: this regulatory approach must be accompanied by a tax-based approach to assist the public choosing to use sustainable transportation.

Sustainable transportation is help for public transit. How can the government not have included the very simple measure of making the cost of a public transit pass tax-deductible in its budget?

On February 23, let us hope that the Minister of Finance, who has been described as green by the Minister of the Environment—I have faith in what the Minister of the Environment says about the Minister of Finance—but if he is serious, he will announce on February 23 that the cost of a public transit pass will be deductible. That is the first step.

As a second step, there must be a tax incentive for people who decide to use a hybrid vehicle. A few months ago I bought a hybrid vehicle, which cost me $10,000 more than a conventional vehicle of the same make with the same options.

While the federal government is giving tax incentives to the oil industry, through Bill C-48, a responsible individual must spend an additional $10,000 to buy a more ecological vehicle. That makes no sense.

In this budget there must be a tax incentive for the citizen making a decision. What is $10,000 for a person who decides to live a cleaner life, when $250 million per year is given, with one stroke, to the oil industry? There must at least be some balance in tax policy between the aid given to these polluting industries and the aid given to the environmental industry in Canada. That must be our approach.

Canada could decide to adopt this strategic environmental assessment. As we know, in 1994 there was a directive from Cabinet—not the members of the House of Commons—to the effect that all departments ought to apply strategic environmental assessments to measures they were deciding upon. Plans, policies and programs should all be subjected to that test.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. If the government decided to enact legislation here in this Parliament to force all departments—among them Transport Canada and Finance in particular—and the commissioner was not very kind toward the latter, indicating that it was dragging its feet—to apply strategic environmental assessment to departmental plans, policies and programs, we would likely not be where we are today. It would be very likely that Canada could be presenting the Montreal conference in September with a better record as far as energy and greenhouse gas emissions are concerned than the one we have at present.

I will again point out that my party will be supporting the NDP motion.

Canadian Heritage Act

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I remind the House that this bill was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. The purpose of this admittedly technical bill is to transfer responsibility for the ParksCanada Agency from the Department ofCanadian Heritage to Environment Canada. It is rather technical but we think it is probably time that some changes occur within the federal government in terms of responsibilities.

The people responsible for Canadian parks and their resources must strive to maintain the ecological integrity of those resources and protect our ecosystems. We have our doubts about leaving responsibility for ecosystems, which come under Parks Canada, with Canadian Heritage. Who better than the Department of the Environment to protect the ecological integrity of our resources and our parks, since its mandate is to protect and promote the ecosystems and to make the various ecological aspects of this environmental heritage more accessible to the public?

On December 12, 2003, pursuant to an order, control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency were transferred from Canadian Heritage to the Department of the Environment. On July 20, 2004, another order concerning the heritage responsibilities had to be made to clarify the previous one. Following those two orders, the legislation had to be amended, which explains the introduction of Bill C-7 to bring about the required amendments.

Of course, the bill is technical in nature. It contains—let us be honest—no substantive provision, even though it will affect several other acts. I emphasize this, because it will be examined in committee. We agree in principle with the introduction of the bill. However, when a bill has the effect of making amendments to the Canada National Parks Act, to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, and—note this third act—to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, to the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, to the Canada Shipping Act and to the Species at Risk Act, there is good reason to ask ourselves a number of questions. Indeed, this bill changes a number of acts, and this is quite important.

What we were told, and I certainly want to believe the government, is that these changes will have no organizational impact for the Parks Canada Agency, and that the organizational integrity of Parks Canada will be maintained.

Unions seemed totally in favour of these amendments in principle. However, in committee, we will have to question officials to see if, in light of the various disputes that occurred in recent weeks, among others with Parks Canada, the government will actually be able to guarantee this organizational integrity. Even though we agree in principle, it is our intention, on this side of the House, to meet with unions and to ask them if these changes meet their expectations and if they do not have concerns on the organizational level.

The state of parks in Canada is a pretty major concern. There are two visions, which may not necessarily be competing but rather complementary. According to the first one, we should start by consolidating the network of parks across Canada which, in many cases, are in a pitiful state because of severe lack of funding in recent years. Even customer services have been greatly affected and, in some instances, resource preservation may be in danger. So, there is this school of thought which recommends that we start by consolidating the existing network.

There is another one, according to which we should increase the number of parks in Canada. There are not enough parks; there should be more. What does that mean for Quebec? This means creating more Canadian zones, more federal lands. We must never forget that these places managed by Parks Canada inevitably come under federal jurisdiction. That means that federal law, including the Species at Risk Act, automatically applies. We never objected to such legislation applying to federal lands or crown lands.

Increasing the number of lands under the authority of Parks Canada inevitably increases the federal presence in Quebec. But in Quebec, we have a similar structure, called Parcs Québec, which allows us to create our own network of parks and wildlife reserves.

In the coming years, strategic choices will have to made. Should we consolidate, strengthen the existing networks of parks, invest public funds in greater amounts to preserve the ecological integrity of existing parks, or should we develop and increase the number of parks across Canada instead?

I think the ecological integrity of these lands ought to be preserved. I travel across Quebec; I am one of those who, each year, during tourist season, visit many parks that come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I observe how rundown these parks are. Personally, I think we should reinvest in the parks, but in existing ones.

As indicated earlier, we must not forget that Parks Canada comes under the Department of Canadian Heritage. We must remember what the mission of these parks is. The Canada National Parks Act, 1988, states:

The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

We cannot but be pleased with this. In recent years we have seen Canadian Heritage's propaganda strategies at work throughout Canada. This was grounds for concern. So what could be more normal than for the parks, which used to come under Parks Canada, to move to Environment? Perhaps this will enable us to ensure that the primary role that parks in Canada ought to play will be played, namely maintaining ecological integrity.

This is, in fact, precisely what is lacking in Canada at present. This morning Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled a highly interesting report on the state of our environment. I would invite hon. members to pay particular attention to one chapter of that report, the one on strategic environmental assessment.

The majority of departments refuse to integrate strategic environmental assessment, not just into their policies but into their plans and programs as well. If they did, we would at last be able to apply a directive that has been around for 14 years now, yet is very often not applied by the departments.

The Minister of Natural Resources over there must know what I am referring to. I would invite him to read the commissioner's report, as well as Bill C-48. The commissioner considers this no more or less than an unacceptable legislative initiative that does not promote sustainable development. When major oil companies are given tax incentives through Bill C-48, is this a policy promoting a sustainable development strategy for Canada? The answer to that is no, and that answer comes, not from the opposition, but from the commissioner of the environment, a person whose very mandate is to analyze this government's policies, plans and programs.

We have every right to be concerned about the way federal departments maintain the ecological integrity of the various areas for which they are responsible. To transfer Parks Canada from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is quite normal. Why is it normal? Because we now have a direct link to the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for protecting endangered species for instance. What can be more natural than to enforce this legislation in our parks? Maybe we could ensure that the environmental impact assessments in Canada, which come under the Department of the Environment, are applied to our parks as well as to everything Environment Canada does.

We have demonstrated again this morning that the strategic environmental assessment is applied in very few departments. A lot of departments are dragging their feet. Therefore, it is a good thing that our parks come under Environment Canada. The Environmental Assessment Act might finally be applied to crown lands. What could be more basic than to have federal legislation applied to crown land? What could be more normal than to ensure that the species at risk legislation in Canada is enforced on the crown lands that make up our Canadian parks?

It is quite normal. If the government carried out environmental assessments, a process triggered by the Department of Finance in the first place, we might not be in the situation we are right now as far as the state of the environment is concerned. As early as 1993 the Auditor General of Canada pointed out some administrative problems, as well as a lack of reinvestment dating back to 1996. There has been no reinvestment for eight years. The Auditor General said eight years ago that planning did not always provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives.

He is one of her recommendations: “Parks Canada should ensure that park management plans are updated in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks Act and policy, and business plans should be clearly linked to those management plans. Parks Canada should also introduce a formal process for monitoring the implementation of management plans”. The Auditor General also said in 1996: “Parks Canada lacks key information necessary for park management”.

The number of visitors increased by 25% between 1988 and 1989, and also between 1994 and 1995. Canadian parks are getting busier all the time, but investment is down. Moreover, ecological integrity, which should be the main concern of the government, leaves a lot to be desired.

This transfer of responsibility from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada will not ensure that those goals will be met, which was harshly criticized by the Office of the Auditor General as early as 1996. Why I am saying that? Because since I have been here, I have seen an increase in the number of legislative measures affecting the environment, be it the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Species at Risk Act.

Therefore, it is not because there have been legislative initiatives that the federal government has necessarily enforced the appropriate laws which it enacted itself. It is not because there is an endangered species act in Canada that the federal government has enforced that act on the lands within federal jurisdiction, such as those managed by Parks Canada. It is not because there is an environmental assessment act in Canada that this government has necessarily enforced its own law on its own lands. Of course, this transfer from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is, I think, a real test for the federal government.

We shall see whether the intentions and actions behind the introduction of this bill on October 8 translate into tangible activities to preserve ecological integrity on the lands belonging to the federal government. I am skeptical. We are ready, in principle, to give the federal government a chance. We are ready to do whatever we can to help this government enforce its own laws.

I believe that this restructuring, while technical, shows the essence and spirit of this desire. But I shall remain skeptical. We must ensure that in coming years we can put all possible means at the disposal of public servants and all who wish to maintain this ecological integrity and protect and increase accessibility. Naturally, this involves a transfer of responsibilities. It also involves reinvestment in actual, existing parks, and not necessarily scattering zones that would be more protected by Parks Canada.

Let us begin by consolidating our network of parks in Canada which, as I have often said, is in a precarious state. We must put our resources where they are needed. We can begin a process of organizational change, which is desirable, and transfer this responsibility away from a department, namely Canadian Heritage, whose purpose in recent years has been political propaganda to a department that, finally, must shoulder its responsibilities to protect resources, endangered species and ecological integrity on the lands for which the federal government is responsible.