Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada's Clean Air Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to promote the reduction of air pollution and the quality of outdoor and indoor air. It enables the Government of Canada to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases, including establishing emission-trading programs, and expands its authority to collect information about substances that contribute or are capable of contributing to air pollution. Part 1 also enacts requirements that the Ministers of the Environment and Health establish air quality objectives and publicly report on the attainment of those objectives and on the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve them.
Part 2 of this enactment amends the Energy Efficiency Act to
(a) clarify that classes of energy-using products may be established based on their common energy-consuming characteristics, the intended use of the products or the conditions under which the products are normally used;
(b) require that all interprovincial shipments of energy-using products meet the requirements of that Act;
(c) require dealers to provide prescribed information respecting the shipment or importation of energy-using products to the Minister responsible for that Act;
(d) provide for the authority to prescribe as energy-using products manufactured products, or classes of manufactured products, that affect or control energy consumption; and
(e) broaden the scope of the labelling provisions.
Part 3 of this enactment amends the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to clarify its regulation-making powers with respect to the establishment of standards for the fuel consumption of new motor vehicles sold in Canada and to modernize certain aspects of that Act.

[John Moffet, Acting Director General, Systems and Priorities, Department of the Environment]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Actually, if I might request your indulgence, I think we can commit to making all the departmental presentations within a half an hour. I might take a little more time than my colleagues, and they may take a little less than ten minutes. The bulk of the act amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the act that our minister administers along with the Minister of Health. I may have a few more comments to make, but we'll try to keep the comments within the totality of about half an hour.

My colleague from Health Canada, Phil Blagden, doesn't have a presentation to make. He's available to answer any questions anybody may have about the health aspects of the bill.

As members know, Bill C-30 amends three existing statutes: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which I'll refer to as CEPA from now on; the Energy Efficiency Act, which is administered by the Minister of Natural Resources; and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. If anybody can remember the name of that one, they get a surprise at the end of the meeting.

I'll speak to you about the main ways in which Bill C-30 amends CEPA. In order to do that, I am going to spend a few minutes telling you about CEPA itself. For some of you this will be old hat, because you're now experts, having concluded the review of CEPA. For others, this maybe useful before I launch into the specific amendments that the bill makes to CEPA.

A lot of federal statutes address pollutants; however, CEPA is the main framework piece of federal legislation for addressing pollutants. It comprises a number of regulatory regimes. It includes a regime for toxic substances. It includes a regime for regulating fuels and one for addressing nutrients and motor vehicle and engine emissions. It has a complete section that gives the government authority to regulate various environmental issues on federal lands and on aboriginal lands. It has a stand-alone regime for controlling the disposal of waste at sea. It provides a regime for environmental emergencies, and so on.

This is one of the most comprehensive environmental protection statutes in the world. For example, in the United States, the statutes that address the issues that are included in CEPA number at least eight, and probably more than that.

Although the statute covers a number of different regimes, the issue for which CEPA is probably most important, and almost certainly best known, is the toxics regime. That regime is at the heart of the act. Part 1 of the act addresses toxics; parts 3, 4, 5, and 6 address toxics; and part 9 also addresses toxics.

The act provides a comprehensive regime for identifying, assessing, and then managing substances that are found to meet the definition of “toxic”. Essentially, that is a legal definition. It doesn't refer to toxicological properties, it refers to risk to human health and the environment. Risk is a combination of the property of the substance and the potential for exposure, and therefore for harm to human health or the environment.

What the act does is provide a regime for identifying substances. When they're identified and are based on a scientific assessment, where a conclusion is made by the government that the substances need to be managed, those substances are added to what's called the list of toxic substances.

At the moment, under the act, the six greenhouse gases that Bill C-30 proposes to address and the six air pollutants that Bill C-30 proposes to address are on the list of toxic substances. They've been through a risk assessment. In the case of air pollutants, it was a risk assessment done in Canada. In the case of greenhouse gases, it was one that has been the subject of considerable media attention recently, at the international level.

Once the substance is added to the list of toxic substances, the act provides for various authorities to manage the substance in the most efficient manner possible. For example, the government can impose regulations that can restrict or ban completely activities related to the substance. The government can impose a deposit refund scheme. It can establish tradeable permit systems.

The minister has the authority to require a user or a producer or an emitter of a toxic substance to prepare a pollution prevention plan. Under this authority, the minister can't say, “You must reduce by x”, but the minister can say, “You must prepare a plan and then report it back to Parliament, to the government, to tell us how you're going to prevent emissions from these substances.”

In addition—and here I'm looking at slide 7—the act also provides broad authority to establish various guidelines and codes of practice regarding, for example, industrial processes that would be appropriate to minimize the use or production or emission of these substances.

In addition, there is a completely separate regime in CEPA for fuels and engines. The act provides the authority to regulate fuels and the properties of fuels in order to address air pollution. The act also provides the authority to regulate vehicles and engines. Indeed, there are numerous regulations in place, and more planned for publication in the next year or two, addressing air pollutant aspects of fuels, engines, and vehicles.

In addition to these specific regulatory regimes, throughout CEPA you can find various cross-cutting provisions. Some of these are summarized on slide 8. For example, the act provides the ministers of health and environment with broad research authorities. It also gives the Minister of the Environment in particular the authority to require members of the public and, in particular, industry to submit information that is in their custody, to support the minister's efforts to identify and assess the substance, determine whether the substance needs to be risk-managed, and then to determine the most appropriate manner in which to manage the substance.

There is a comprehensive enforcement regime at the back that is applicable to any regulation developed under the act. Of course, there are also provisions for equivalency and administrative agreements. We'll come back to those in a minute, but essentially these are mechanisms that the federal government can use to acknowledge that a provincial, territorial, or aboriginal government has in place a regime that will achieve an equivalent outcome. Therefore, we can avoid having overlapping federal–provincial regulation, and just have one regulation in place.

On slide 9 we detail some of the other cross-cutting elements that are important features of CEPA. They were present in the original CEPA that was published in 1988, but they became significantly strengthened as a result of the review the predecessor to the current environment and sustainable development committee conducted in the mid-1990s. As a result of that review, CEPA was considerably strengthened with respect to the obligations it puts on the ministers of environment and health to allow for public participation in virtually every important phase of decision-making under the act.

In addition, the act establishes a national advisory committee comprised of federal, territorial, and aboriginal representatives, to ensure that before any important decision is taken, those representatives are consulted and given an opportunity to provide input. They don't have decision-making authority, but we are obliged to consult with that committee.

Finally, there are various accountability mechanisms built into the act, including an annual report that we publish on the administration of the act, and of course the five-year review. The environment and sustainable development committee, as I understand it, is in the process of preparing the report that would represent the second such five-year review.

Turning to slide 10, in a couple of minutes I think I've tried to sketch for you how CEPA provides a fairly solid foundation for regulating pollutants, including air pollution and greenhouse gases. CEPA would enable us to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases as toxic substances.

What would Bill C-30 do? Bill C-30 would amend CEPA in two significant ways. First of all, it would amend various provisions in CEPA, tailor them a little bit better to ensure that they are more directly applicable to air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In addition, Bill C-30 would establish a clean air part, a new part in the act specifically designed to allow the government to collect information about air pollutants and GHGs and to develop risk management regimes, in particular, regulatory regimes, specifically for greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The next eight slides summarize the key ways in which Bill C-30 would amend CEPA. First of all, in terms of the scope of Bill C-30—looking at slide 11—the first important change is that the bill explicitly states that air applies to indoor and outdoor air. So wherever you read “air” in CEPA, if Bill C-30 were to pass, you would read “indoor and outdoor air”. For example, any of the research authorities, any of the information-gathering authorities, or any of the regulatory authorities could be applied to indoor air. And of course, most of us spend most of our time indoors rather than outdoors. While outdoor air certainly poses significant health risks to Canadians, so does indoor air, indeed maybe more so, if you care to ask my colleague from Health Canada.

The bill would also slightly amend the current definition of “air pollution”, but it would still be broad enough to include smog, acid rain, and climate change. It would define air pollutants as the items listed on slide 11: particulate matter, ozone, volatile organic compounds, gaseous ammonia—these are all smog precursors—nitrous oxides and sulphur dioxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain, and mercury. As I mentioned earlier, each of these items is currently listed as a toxic substance. Were Bill C-30 to pass, these items, with the exception of mercury, would be removed from the list of toxic substances and would be managed and regulated as air pollutants alone. Mercury would remain on both lists because of course it's a problem in water and soil as well as in the air.

Similarly, the bill would define the six greenhouse gases as greenhouse gases that are currently on the list of toxic substances. In late 1995 the government added those six gases to the list of toxic substances, giving the government the authority to regulate them under the toxic substances provision. What Bill C-30 would do is take them off the list of toxic substances and define them as a greenhouse gas, and then enable the regulation of those substances under the new clean air part as a greenhouse gas.

In addition, the bill would give the Governor in Council the authority to name additional substances either as an air pollutant or a greenhouse gas, provided that the Governor in Council was satisfied that the substance contributed, or was capable of contributing, to air pollution—in other words, smog, acid rain, or climate change.

Slide 12 summarizes the way in which the bill would establish an accountability regime specifically tailored to air pollutants in greenhouse gases. At the moment, CEPA enables the minister to establish environmental quality objectives, publish a state of the environment report, publish a summary of emissions from large sources in Canada, and provide an annual report.

Those obligations would stay. But in addition to those, Bill C-30 would require the ministers to set ambient air quality objectives. In other words, we're not talking about an emission limit. We're talking about how much of this stuff do we want in the air? What's the ideal limit for these two major smog precursors?

It would be a benchmark against which future governments would be assessed by their colleagues and by the government in terms of the success at reducing emissions. It would also require the ministers to monitor the attainment of those objectives on a regular basis, and it would require the ministers to report annually on a bunch of things about which they're not currently required to report.

On attainment of air quality objectives, it would require an annual report on air quality in Canada. It would require a report on the effectiveness of actions that are being taken by all governments in Canada, not only by the federal government but by all governments.

We're not giving the federal minister the authority to intervene in a province and say they must do A or B. But the bill would give the ministers of the environment and health the obligation to report on the effectiveness of actions that are being taken by all levels of government in Canada, in recognition that all levels of government have a direct impact on air quality, and of any plans that the ministers have for additional actions to improve air quality.

Next are the expanded authorities that the bill would give to the ministers to conduct research and to monitor and gather information on air issues. There would be expanded and tailored authorities to do research and information-gathering on air issues.

The Minister of Health in particular would receive expanded authorities to do these kinds of activities. At the moment, the Minister of Health's authority to do research and collect information under CEPA is actually quite limited. Of course, not so much on the greenhouse gas side but on the air pollution side, we're primarily talking about health issues. The authority of the Minister of Health would be considerably expanded on the science side of the issue, both to understand the issue and in order to be able to monitor the ongoing impacts of government interventions. For example, there would be a new authority to conduct biomonitoring.

In addition, there's the proposed expansion in the government's regulatory powers. At the moment, as I indicated earlier, under the toxics provisions and under the fuels, engines, and vehicles provisions, CEPA provides fairly broad authority to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases as toxic substances.

Bill C-30 would do a couple of things. First, the authority wouldn't be tied to the linkage to toxic. The authority would be given to these substances as to what they are, air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Second, the authorities that you find in proposed part 5.1, in the clear air part, have been tailored to air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

For example, there are certain authorities that may be appropriate regarding the kinds of requirements that one might want to include in a regulation about how a “regulatee” should monitor or report on emissions. It's very hard to report in many cases precisely on what is coming out of the stack. In many cases, mathematical modelling is required. We don't want facility A to use a different model from facility B, so we might want to be able to specify the kind of modelling that's done. We don't have the authority now. It would be provided in the new bill.

A significant enhancement would be the ability to regulate products that create air pollutants. At the moment, we can regulate products that contain and emit air pollutants, but we can't regulate a product that doesn't contain an air pollutant. A wood stove is a good example. A wood stove is an inert piece of metal or cast iron. There's nothing wrong with a wood stove when it's sitting there. When you put wood in it and you fire it up, particulate matter and other stuff come out of the chimney. We can't regulate the way a wood stove is designed at the moment, because there's no toxic substance in the wood stove. What we would like to be able to do is regulate the way a wood stove is designed to ensure that it is as efficient as possible, to minimize the particulate matter and other smog-causing emissions it creates.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned previously, I only have about a minute. I had prepared a big long speech with all sorts of information, but I will just make a very quick intervention.

First, I question the sincerity of the NDP to put forward this particular private member's bill. We have a legislative committee Bill C-30, the clean air act, proposed by this government to clean up greenhouse gases and to clean up the air we breathe.

I say to the NDP and all members of this House, let us work together, put politics aside for a change, put partisanship aside and let us work for the environment for the best interest of Canadians.

Bill C-30 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will make our air cleaner to breathe for all Canadians for future generations. I would encourage members to do that.

I would also encourage everybody listening and watching today, all Canadians, to not believe what I, or the NDP, or the Liberals, or the Bloc are saying. I ask them to look for themselves on websites, ask their members of Parliament to provide information so they can educate themselves on the great initiative that this government, the minister and the Prime Minister are doing.

We are a government of action. We are going to get results for Canadians if we can put aside partisan politics and work together for the best interest of Canadians. Bill C-30 is a great bill. It is a great initiative. I say put aside Bill C-377, put aside the other motions put forward by the other parties, and let us work together collaboratively for the best interest of Canadians today and the best interest of future generations. We can get the job done. This government will get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-377. I would like to start off by recognizing the incredible work done by the member for Toronto—Danforth, for his many years as a Toronto city councillor where he brought forward ideas to cut smog and pollution, and for his ongoing commitment in his role as leader of the NDP to make sure that Canada lives up to its commitments to the world on reducing greenhouse gases and addressing the crisis of climate change.

I would like to also recognize the Canadian public who for years have been calling upon the government to act, to clean up our air and our water, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ordinary Canadians are far ahead of us in recognizing it is long past time to take our promises to the world seriously. In 1992 at the Earth Summit, Canada urged the world to act on the looming crisis of climate change. We promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but we failed to act and instead, our emissions went up, not down. We not only failed to act, we failed our country and we failed our planet.

I want to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for bringing this bill before the House. It lays out a plan to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and creates an accountability measure to make sure that we follow through and meet those targets.

It is important to pass this bill because we are in a crisis. We can point to many examples around the world. Scientists have pointed out these examples, such as melting polar ice caps, bigger and stronger hurricanes in the south, and longer periods of drought in many places around the world. Many people in this House and in this country have probably seen Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, which follows the trend of global warming over many years and highlights some startling examples.

I would like to talk for a few moments about what I have seen in Canada in my riding of Vancouver Island North.

My riding is on the west coast of Canada and it is typically known as a rain forest. We jokingly refer to it as the wet coast. We do not worry about smog days because we have fog days. A few years ago we noticed our summers were getting longer and hotter. Cedar trees were wilting by the end of summer because of a lack of rain and because of the intense heat.

Because the forest is drying out more quickly, there is more likelihood of forest fires. While forest fires are nothing new in British Columbia, they usually happen in July and August, but last year we had our first fire on Vancouver Island in May, not very far from where I live. We counted ourselves lucky because there was no property damage; however, the birds, the deer, the frogs and all the other creatures that lived in that forested area perished or are without a home.

Another example of how our weather is changing is the Cliffe Glacier in the Comox Valley. It is the focal point of many beautiful postcards, as well as a source of cold water for the lakes and rivers that it feeds. For the last few years we have been seeing more and more of the mountain poking out of the ice as the glacier melts a little more every summer. It is an eerie feeling when I look up at that glacier in the summer and see rocks that have been covered for thousands of years. It makes me sad knowing that if Canada had acted sooner on its commitment, we would not be in this crisis.

The most startling example of climate change on the coast is in our oceans. For thousands of years people on the west coast have relied upon the oceans for their food, for their livelihood and for their recreation. Fishermen used to be able to count on returns of salmon at certain times of the year, but with the warmer rivers running into a warmer ocean, fish migration patterns are changing.

Last year, as an example, with the warmer water salmon were returning later to the streams to spawn and die as they usually do, but the streams were low due to a lack of summer and fall rains. Then when the rains did come, they came with a vengeance, flushing away everything in the river, including the tiny eggs in many small streams. This will have an impact for years to come. Couple that with the increasing acidity of our oceans due to carbon dioxide and the impact on fish habitat is enormous.

Yes, Canada must act. Those are just a few examples right here in our own backyard. I could list many others, such as the pine beetle infestation in the B.C. interior and melting in the Arctic which has a profound impact on wildlife and vegetation. I am sure there are thousands more examples we could point to for reasons that Canada must act quickly to address the now imminent crisis of climate change.

Bill C-377's short title is the climate change accountability act. It proposes measures to meet our commitments and creates an obligation for the environment commissioner to review and report to Parliament on our progress.

This is something we did not have in the past. There was no accountability of the previous government to live up to our commitments. Because of that, our greenhouse gas emissions went up instead of down. We are further behind many other countries. Canada can afford to live up to its commitments to the world. We are a rich country in so many ways. We have the technology to act.

In 2005 the NDP put forward a plan to help Canada act on its commitments to the world. It is called “Sustainability within a generation: A Kyoto plan to clean our air, fight climate change, and create jobs”. It would save future generations health, economic and ecological costs. It is a comprehensive plan to create jobs building clean renewable energy solutions right here in Canada, incentives to reduce energy consumption for businesses and homes, invest more in public transit and sustainable transportation, retrofit federal government facilities to reduce energy consumption, and cap large emitters with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This plan is achievable and would put Canada on the path to reverse the growth of emissions. I am proud of our party's commitment to work in this House with other parties on Bill C-30 to put some of these ideas into action.

Ordinary families want to retrofit and renovate their homes to be more energy efficient, but the constraints of everyday living and the costs of conversion are out of reach for them. This is where government could help with subsidies for families. It is unfair to Canadian families who see the oil and gas industry, one of the largest CO₂ emitters, get government subsidies while those companies make enormous profits. It is unfair to the families who are working to make our environment a cleaner place to live.

I was pleased to see the recent announcements of the government to invest money in alternative energy solutions, more money for wind, solar and wave generated power. That investment is long overdue and falls short of what is needed to help Canada achieve its clean energy commitments. I will be watching the government carefully and reminding it that it also needs to live up to the commitments Canada made to the world.

In British Columbia there are no windmills, no wind generated power. We are the only province in Canada that does not have them and it is not for a lack of desire. There are small companies working very hard trying to implement wind, solar and wave generated power, but they need help from the government to make it a reality. Solar panels for homes are expensive and working families need assistance up front to purchase clean energy solutions, not after the fact.

If we are going to make real changes quickly, the government needs to make a stronger commitment to the people of Canada and the environment.

Again, I am pleased to support Bill C-377, an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities, preventing dangerous climate change.

I am pleased to hear that the government wants to work together, because we have an obligation to act. We promised we would act in 1992. We promised we would dramatically cut pollution. We promised we would act in Kyoto. Canadians want us to act. Our children want us to act. Our children's future depends on us. We must act now.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-377, the climate change accountability act.

I would like to begin by saying that there are some aspects of this bill that are laudable. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that Canada contributes to the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and to prevent dangerous changes to the climate. This is something the government has made clear that it is committed to. Canadians have sent the message that the environment is their number one priority and the government agrees.

I would also like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment on his recent trip to Paris for the release of the IPCC report. The recent report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change shone a very strong spotlight on the issue of climate change, and rightly so. Climate change is real. The scientific evidence supporting the warming of the planet has become so strong, it is unequivocal. What our environment needs and what Canadians demand is real action, not just empty talk and empty promises.

We have heard from the opposition parties that they want to improve Canada's clean air act. I would encourage them that the best way to do that is to set aside party politics and genuinely work together so that we can make progress on this important issue. Let us work collaboratively, so that Canadians can see that the representatives in Ottawa are willing to put aside their partisan differences to actually make the difference on the environment.

The appropriate venue for moving forward on this matter is the legislative committee on Bill C-30. If the opposition parties have ideas and suggestions, as expressed through private members' bills and opposition motions, bring those to the table during the amendment of Bill C-30. We have been pleased that the NDP has demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively. We hope that the Liberals and the Bloc would also be willing to move forward on this matter in a timely fashion. We do not want to waste time. We want to prove to Canadians that we can work together.

Canada's natural beauty, its rivers, forests, prairies, mountains, is one of this country's greatest features. Our natural resources also provide great opportunities and great challenges. Our government is committed to being good stewards of our environment and our resources. The state of the environment the government inherited a year ago posed great threats to the health of every Canadian, especially to the most vulnerable in our society.

Children and seniors suffer disproportionately from smog, poor air quality and environmental hazards. Poor air is not a minor irritant to be endured but a serious health issue that poses an increasing risk to the well-being of Canadians. Greenhouse gas emissions also degrade Canada's natural landscape and pose an imminent threat to our economic prosperity. That is why our government is taking real, concrete action to achieve results.

Canadians are tired of empty promises. They want and deserve action and results. Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, is a response to that. Canada's clean air act makes a bold new era of environmental protection as this country's first comprehensive and integrated approach to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Our government is taking unprecedented action to reduce both greenhouse gases and air pollutants. It is important to recognize that most sources of air pollutants are also sources of greenhouse gases and Bill C-30 recognizes that reality.

Canada's clean air act contains important new provisions that will expand the powers of the federal government to address the existing inefficient regulatory framework. It will replace the current ad hoc patchwork system with comprehensive national standards. By improving and bringing more accountability to CEPA, Bill C-30 does the following things.

It requires that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health establish, monitor and report on new national air quality objectives, it strengthens the government's ability to make new regulations on air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and it expands our ability to work cooperatively with the provinces and territories to avoid regulatory overlapping.

The second key difference in our approach to clean air lies in our focus on mandatory regulations to achieve real results now and in the future. We are the first federal government to introduce mandatory regulations on all industrial sectors across Canada to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. Voluntary approaches are impossible to enforce. These approaches have simply not delivered the results that we need.

The clean air act sent a strong signal to industries that the day of voluntary emission targets are over and that they had to adapt to this new environmental reality of compulsory targets.

We believe that clear regulations will provide industry with called for certainty and an incentive to invest in the technologies needed to deliver early reductions in air pollutants and greenhouses gases.

The government is committed to real action. It is what Canadians have been demanding for years and it is what our country and our environment deserves.

How is the government making a difference? We are moving from voluntary action to mandatory regulations. We are moving from random, arbitrary targets to logical targets. We are moving from uncertainty to certainty. We are moving from a scattered patchwork approach to an integrated national approach. We are moving from talking to taking action and we are moving from empty promises to fulfilled commitments.

That is why Canadians put their trust in us a year ago. We will not let them down. We are getting the job done.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

moved that Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak briefly about the legislation, I want to acknowledge that I had the opportunity to be with some firefighters in Manitoba over the weekend, remarkable men and women who are working on our behalf, and yet I have to report today to the House that a tragedy has occurred and two firefighters died Sunday night after a massive flash of heat and flames overwhelmed them in a burning Winnipeg home.

A crew was inside the flame-consumed building when they were hit by what is called a flashover, a sudden violent burst of flames at extreme temperatures. Two senior captains, both with more than 30 years of experience, did not make it out. Others are suffering at the moment in hospital. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with them at this moment. I am sure I express the sentiments of all members of the House in drawing attention to this tragedy.

It is with a certain degree of emotion that I am able to stand here today and present a private member's bill on the crisis of climate change. That is partly because I never thought I would have such an opportunity when I first read Silent Spring in the 1960s and began to become aware of the environmental crises that were facing the country, or when my dad, who later was to become a member of Parliament and in fact a minister of the Crown, told my brothers and I that we should install solar hot water heating on top of our roof in Hudson, Quebec in about 1969. He had a vision that the way in which we were conducting our activities on the planet was going to have to change. He was someone who focused very much on that work. He was involved in putting up some of the first wind turbines in Canada in the mid-1970s on Prince Edward Island and in many other innovations and initiatives as well.

I am also thinking of our reaction when the global scientists came to Toronto in 1988. I was a member of the city council at the time. They spoke about the crisis of global warming that was emerging. Members of our council from all political backgrounds came back quite shaken and decided that we needed to act. That is when we created the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which I had the privilege of leading for a period of time.

To be here in the House and to call now for significant action on climate change is therefore an opportunity that I cherish and respect deeply. I believe that members of the House want to see action taken.

Last week in Paris, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said:

If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a very different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are.

Canadians are seeing the costs now. This winter, the costs of inaction have been very easy to spot. We had the devastating storm in Stanley Park. We have had the first green Christmas in memory in places such as Timmins and Quebec City. There was the giant slab of ice that broke off in the Arctic, a slab that was bigger and broke off sooner than any scientists were predicting.

I think that ordinary Canadians have for quite a long time known what these costs are. Canadians have been seeing and breathing the consequences of pollution for years.

In an experience that far too many Canadian families have had, I remember having to take my asthmatic son to the emergency ward. He came back from a camp up north and was breathing well, but he arrived in our city on a smog day, and within two days he was in the emergency ward and they were putting the third oxygen mask on him. As I stood at his side, the doctor said, “We normally don't get to put three masks on”. We lose far too many young people and far too many seniors prematurely because of filthy air, yet we do not take action.

Another image I will never forget as long as I live was being in Quesnel this past summer, walking through the forest with the experts and seeing the devastation of the pine beetle. I then flew over the forest in the helicopter to see the extent of the damage with those who were involved in trying to harvest the forest and protect it as well.

I then travelled back to Vancouver and realized that thousands of square kilometres of the lodgepole pine had been destroyed. Virtually an entire ecosystem has been destroyed.

As is visible from satellites, the lungs of the planet in our Canadian forests have been destroyed. More recently, in Kamloops we saw the Ponderosa pine infested just this past summer. Now, virtually all of the Ponderosa pines have died. The landscape is going to be transformed.

There are impacts in the north. The first person I heard speak about this so passionately was Sheila Watt-Cloutier, of whom we are very proud today because she has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. She spoke about how streams in the north have become so torrential from melting ice that they have become very dangerous and about how new species are invading the north and having an enormous impact on the ecosystems there.

I remember meeting with aboriginal hunters in Dawson City, seniors who described how the animals they used to hunt are now being preyed upon by predators from the south. New kinds of mosquitoes, blackflies, fish and birds are coming into the north and disrupting ecosystems that have been in place for thousands of years.

The melting permafrost is having devastating impacts on buildings and of course is also having an impact on the migration of the caribou herds, which are now greatly threatened.

There is now a longer ice-free season. Ice roads are now weakened and are coming into place much later. I remember when Sheila Watt-Cloutier looked at me when we were in Buenos Aires at the COP conference and said that “global warming is now killing our young men”. She described how young men driving trucks on the ice roads were going through the ice and perishing. In fact, she felt that global warming was destroying the traditional Inuit way of life.

Canadians have been seeing these changes and are calling for action. I think we have to say that they have been disappointed to date, but they are hopeful that perhaps for this House, in this time, in this place, when we have a wave of public opinion urging us on, when we have every political party suggesting that it wants to be seen to take action and, let us hope, actually wants to take action, there is a moment in time here that is unique in Canadian history when action can be taken. It is going to require us to put aside some of what we normally do here, and we have to understand the need for speed.

When we proposed that the Bill C-30 committee move quickly to produce the best legislation possible, there was the comment by some members who were asking, “What is the rush here?”

I will tell members what the rush is. It is a polar bear population soon to be placed on the endangered species list, spotted farther south than ever before and in desperate straits.

It is about jobs in our communities, whether they be in forestry, fishing or hunting. These jobs are now at risk.

There is a decrease in water levels in rivers and lakes that is jeopardizing not only water quality but even the possibility of generating the hydroelectricity that we are going to need as part of the clean energy solution.

Therefore, the rush is about jobs, the rush is about protecting parkland and species, and the rush is about the health of our families and our kids' future tomorrow, not only here but all around the world. That is what the rush is all about. I would urge all members to realize that we have to get moving. Endless conversation and the dragging out of processes are counterproductive.

Over the years we have seen the Conservatives and the Liberals subsidize the oil and gas sector to the tune of over $40 billion. We need to end this practice. We need to start putting those precious Canadian taxpayers' dollars into the solutions, not into accelerating the problems.

We have to invest in clean energy and in energy efficiency projects.

We can create jobs through retrofitting the homes of low income Canadians. That would create work all over Canada, not just in one part of the country's economy having to do with energy. It would also help Canadians who are struggling, whether they are seniors or families with modest incomes. It would enable them to burn less, pay less and create work in their local communities as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has to happen and it has to happen now.

We have to put in place fuel efficiency standards for the auto sector so that the automobiles on our roads can be much less polluting than they have been historically.

As well, we must honour the obligations that we have undertaken to the world under the Kyoto protocol.

Let us consider the scientific facts and data. The report by Dr. Pachauri from the international panel of experts released in Paris concluded that global warming was caused by human activity. It is clear that we have caused this problem, and we now have a responsibility to tackle it, a responsibility to our planet and a responsibility to our children and grandchildren.

The Paris report also predicts that the temperature will rise by up to 6.4^oC by the end of this century; that is unacceptable, and quick action is required. This will mean more droughts and intense heatwaves, more tropical storms and hurricanes, and sea level rising by half a metre, which in itself is quite phenomenal.

Those certainly are alarming predictions and, as David Suzuki has said, “the scientists have done their part and the burden has now shifted to the politicians”. Let us take on that burden and let us do Canadians proud by taking action in the next short number of weeks.

We tabled the bill to ensure that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing climate change. It is only part of the solution. There are other elements that we have an opportunity to move on through Bill C-30, through the budget and through other processes. However, this is a very important piece of the puzzle because it is particularly rooted in what science tells us to do if we are to avoid the dangerous levels of global temperature increase.

The science tells us to do everything that we can to avoid a two degree rise in surface air temperatures. These targets that have been established and laid out in bill are based on a report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation and they build on Canada's obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

Canada must honour its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Canada has to be involved in international efforts to combat climate change. We must be involved every step of the way, and we should play a leadership role.

Under the climate change accountability act, action to reduce greenhouse gases would begin immediately. A full range of targets at five year intervals will need to be in place within six months of it being adopted. This is speeding up our entire process in the House and in Canada to achieve our goals.

Also, to ensure compliance, the bill proposes that we give the authority to government to make strong regulations and to ensure there are offences and penalties for those who contravene the regulations passed under the act. It is time to get tough on the polluters.

The bill also proposes to mandate the environment commissioner to report on the government's selection of targets and the measures it adopts to reach those goals. We continue to believe, in fact more so in the light of recent events, that the environment commissioner should be an officer of the House and report directly to the House of Commons.

With the bill, Canadians would see action in their lifetime. They would not need to hold their breath any longer for action by the House of Commons.

I would like to speak briefly to the companion effort that we are all undertaking through the special committee that has been established. This is a unique opportunity for each of us, for each of our parties, to put forward our best ideas and to vote on them. It is perhaps a rather radical idea the notion that each party would simply put its best notions forward, would, on a fair and reasonable basis, assess the proposals of other parties and would raise their hands in the committee and, ultimately, in the House in favour of the best ideas that Canadians have been able to bring forward to this place on the biggest crisis facing the planet.

The time for action is now, and we will continue to push for these measures. The NDP will press on with clear targets and goals. We will try to get this bill passed and we will lobby the parties represented on the legislative committee struck to rewrite the clean air act to meet the goals for strong, tough, meaningful and innovative measures.

That is something we can and must do.

Our commitment to the House and to all Canadians is to do everything that we can to produce results from the House in the very short period of time before we find ourselves having to go back to Canadians. I do not want to go back and tell them we were not able to get it done. I want to go back and tell them that we all got together and we got it done.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate. It seems to be, and I hope it is not the first and only, a week of talking about the environment.

It gives me particular pleasure because the issue has been one on which I do not think Parliament has been seized with the proper energy over the last number of years, certainly over the last number of decades. While the debate today is somewhat representative of where we need not to be on this issue, Canadians have heard the Liberals time and again claiming that the Conservative Party members do not believe in climate change or that they are climate change skeptics. While I do not necessarily doubt the allegation, the fact is that they need to respond.

I am not sure any party in this place has a choice any more. We cannot stand on the side of the biggest polluters or on the side of those who wish to continue to be irresponsible in their decisions. We must stand on the side of responsible governance.

We saw the report out of Paris today that was made by 1,200 leading scientists, more than 2,300 contributors of the best and brightest our world has to offer and more than 113 countries. For those of us who have been involved in the United Nations process, we know that getting language into a document can be onerous because it needs to be done by consensus. When we have all these different views and countries represented with their own narrow national interest, it is hard to establish strong language. However, even under those conditions, the language that came out of the United Nations today compels every one of us to work within our parties, to work within our constituencies and to work with all the groups and businesses on this issue for a common cause, which is the reduction of the amount of pollution that is produced by our economy.

We have had many witnesses. For more than two and a half years the former environment committee heard witnesses and now the present environment committee, which was looking at Bill C-288 and is now looking at Bill C-30, will hear more witnesses. Something that has been consistently brought to the attention of members of Parliament is that Kyoto is not so much an environmental protocol as it is an economic one. It goes to the very heart of the decisions that are made about our economy and about the way that certain costs are captured.

The costs for pollution have never been properly captured in this country. That has been true for many other nations as well but they have been moving ahead of us, particularly on the European front but other nations as well, to capture the actual costs of production, one of those costs being how much pollution is emitted into the air.

If anyone remains doubtful of the science or doubtful of the impacts I would gladly invite them for a tour of my riding in northwestern British Columbia where the foresters have come to me and said that they are witnessing the impacts of climate change. The forestry experts have said that the changes they have seen in their weather are causing an infestation of parasites that they have never see the likes of before. They are losing virtually every pine tree in the province and it is now sweeping over the Rockies into Alberta into the boreal forest. The consequences are serious.

We have also heard in the debate today, which I am not sure is helpful, the Conservatives disclaiming the record of the Liberals. Something calls to my mind when I look at Bill C-288. Where was this bill in 1998 and where was it in 2000? Where was the demand for an accountable plan? I know the hon. member was not here but his party was in power.

This is important to point out because timing is important when we talk about the adjustments we need in our economy. I had an excellent meeting with a group of mining executives in the last Parliament. They were upset and frustrated with the government at the time on the question of energy. They were smelting a great deal of ore and it is very energy intensive.

They watched us go through the Kyoto debate, sign on in 1988 and ratify later on. They saw this coming, because they heard from the government that this was coming, and they started to make some changes to the way they used energy and the way that they were polluting. They have been reducing that pollution and their energy uses, which was mostly natural gas in their case, and yet they were not getting any credit for it. There was no level playing field created because the government kept waiting and waiting.

Meanwhile, their competitors in the industry were allowed to continue business as usual. They were not making those types of investments. They became frustrated, and rightly so. The timing of the thing, the fairness and the certainty that businesses have been requiring for so long is critical for moving across our economy.

Despite all the failures of the previous government to set a fair and level playing field for all those competing, on their way out I asked the Liberals one last question: “By the way, how is it going? How is business?” They said, “It is great. Natural gas prices went through the roof in the last couple of years. We used far less than our competitors and we are beating the pants off some of them”, and then they walked out.

At some point we need to debate the environment versus the economy. I often hear some of my colleagues on the benches to my left ask what we have against Alberta and what we have against jobs. That type of thinking needs to end. At some point, with the water crisis that we had in Alberta and when the mayor of Fort McMurray and her council pass a unanimous resolution begging, pleading with the provincial and federal governments to put a halt to any new projects in their area, one begins to question the economy versus the environment debate and see that it is not true.

We see the IPCC report today, the UN's report. We are no longer debating if the seas are rising, we are debating how much. We are no longer debating if the earth is in fact warming, we are debating how much.

An important thing for Canadians to realize, when they look at the numbers and the estimates go from a little less than two degrees to potentially as much as six degrees average temperatures, is that the average temperature for the entire globe is felt most in the northern hemisphere. The further north one goes the more intense those degrees move and the greater they are. For the people who live in the far north and who depend on the resources for resource extraction, we have seen the number of permafrost days and ice road days go down. Mining companies are closing up shop for longer and longer periods of time.

We need to understand and appreciate that this is a battle we must all be seized with. We need to realize that to continue this ping-pong debate back and forth in question period and in debates like this between who is doing worse on the environment between the Conservatives and Liberals, I do not think Canadians are all that interested, to be frank. I do not think Canadians are as interested anymore in hearing that the Liberal record for 13 years led to 30% above, which is true, or that the Conservatives are not seized with the issue of the environment, which is true.

I encourage my colleague who is introducing this bill to hand over some of the amendments that exist in his private member's bill and we can stuff them in, or cram them in or force them into the government's bill. I constantly hear some opposition members at the committee and here in the House say that they want to hear more about the government's plans before they can make decisions about the government's bill. My goodness, courage my friends. The opposition parties have a majority on the committee, as they do in this place, and we should tell the government what we want to do. We should not be waiting for government plans or for this hopeful Kyoto strategy that may or may not come from the government. I am not holding my breath. I waited a long time for the previous government to do it, and I kept waiting and waiting. One gets bored of waiting and just wants to make the changes and do the things that we know are right, in particular, in the debate around Kyoto and whether we are staying in.

Kyoto is a contract that we have with the international community. We are in this protocol. Unless the government steps forward and says that it is tearing it up, we are in this protocol and we must honour our commitments. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister have not said that we are tearing it up. However, if the government is not suggesting that we step out of it, then we are in, and, if we are in, there are penalties that are incurred for missing the targets. That is how it was written.

The world community thought this was so serious that we could not just have another international meeting, have more politicians standing up at more microphones making more pronouncements and yet continuing down a disastrous path when it came to pollution and to climate change. Because they knew this was not an option, the leaders of the day, who signed on to this agreement and drafted this, made sure there were penalties. They are the penalties we abide by.

The debate over the science of climate change is over. The debate over whether Canada is in this protocol must be over. The only debate that now exists is on the measures we as parliamentarians together need to take to change course in this country to once again be proud of our international reputation, particularly when it comes to the environment. We absolutely owe it to ourselves, to the constituents who sent us here and to future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to discuss Bill C-288, which proposes that Canada adopt the Kyoto protocol. What better time to discuss this bill than the day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its fourth report on climate change.

Today, this report has made it clear that climate change is happening faster than expected. The 2001 report forecasted temperature increases ranging from 1^oC to 1.4^oC, with 5.8^oC being the extreme.

Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that global temperatures could rise as much as 6.4^oC.

Another important fact in the report is that Canada and Quebec could be facing even more dramatic temperature increases in the next few years.

Experts tell us that temperature increases could be 3% to 4% greater than they currently are in northern Quebec and that we could experience increases exceeding 10^oC within years. Danger is at our doorstep. The situation is alarming. This is an emergency.

Remember that an eminent former economist with the World Bank, Mr. Stern, had predicted that a 5^oC temperature increase was a critical threshold beyond which significant economic impacts would be seen around the world.

A few minutes ago, I listened to the Minister of the Environment say he was surprised by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You really would have to be in another world not to have predicted accelerated climate change and the findings in the IPCC's fourth report.

On this side of the House, we are not surprised at the minister's surprise, because this government has denied the fact of climate change for so many years. With climate change accelerating, the government needs to bring forward a plan to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada sooner. Of course, the government will say that its solution to climate change is Bill C-30, the clean air act.

When we look at this bill in detail, the first thing we notice is that it does not include the Kyoto targets, which many of us feel are the first step in the fight against climate change. The government is proposing a long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050. This is not enough.

In the coming weeks, could the government table a plan based on the most recent scientific data, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tabled today, and, when it comes to combating climate change, stop applying a policy from the stone age, which always suggests that to them these climate changes do not seem to be having an impact and are simply a naturally occurring phenomenon?

The report has been validated with 90% scientific certitude. The links between climate change and human activity have now been proven, and this threshold of certitude is currently at 90% in the report that was tabled.

Therefore we must move forward with a bill, such as Bill C-288, which reaffirms the importance of respecting the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and proposing measures for the short, medium and long terms in order to combat climate change.

Furthermore, in this bill we have proposed a new approach that, in our opinion, will maximize every dollar invested in combating climate change, in order to ensure that we reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible.

Until now, the approach proposed by the federal government has been a sectoral approach that sets reduction objectives per industrial sector. This voluntary approach has not produced the expected results. Increases of over 27% in greenhouse gas emissions were observed compared to 1990 levels. That is the federal government's record, including the current government and the previous government. This has lost Canada its role as leader on the world stage.

What is the approach being proposed today by the Bloc? It is a territorial approach much like the one used in Europe, which has allowed that continent to plan and present to the world an environmental record that will see it achieving its Kyoto targets more quickly than anything Canada has proposed to date.

How did they achieve these results? By negotiating an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions among the 15 countries which, at the time, were members of the European Union—now consisting of more than 25 countries, by setting a single negotiated target and assigning different targets to individual EU members.

How were these different targets established? They were established on the basis of climate, for example. Can we agree that the climate is not the same everywhere in Canada? Can we recognize that the Canadian economic structure is not the same across the country? In the western provinces the economic base is oil and in Ontario it is the automobile industry. We know that the federal government has done everything it could to consolidate the automobile industry in Ontario. In Quebec, manufacturing is the economic base and for years has been overlooked by the federal government. The situation varies depending on where we live.

The Quebec industrial sector, as a whole, has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec by 7%. Imposing an across-the-board reduction for greenhouse gas emissions for all industrial sectors in Canada would penalize Quebec industry, which has already made an effort by changing its industrial processes or implementing action plans in various sectors and businesses. Quebec is prepared to sign an agreement with the federal government regarding a target of a 6% reduction within its borders. What we are saying here today is that Quebec must be given the opportunity to implement its own policy to address climate change. Why? Because in Quebec, further efforts are not needed in the industrial sector; efforts are needed in the transportation sector. This how true decentralization could be used to make the most of every dollar invested in the fight against climate change, in order to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible.

What we are asking for is simply a more effective approach. Personally, I do not believe that a single, coast-to-coast plan to combat climate change adopted in Ottawa is the way to make the most of every dollar invested. Various realities must be taken into consideration. In Canada, a common approach can be adopted concerning the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We must ensure that the provinces respect their commitments. If necessary, a regulatory system could be introduced, but the provinces must be allowed to implement their own policies. That is the only way to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to every dollar invested.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner also said that “good intentions are not good enough”. She went on to say:

When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal [Liberal] government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

Before I continue, I would like to reiterate what the Minister of the Environment said yesterday during his speech, which is that our government acknowledges that climate change is taking place and that it is a serious issue facing the world today.

Canadians have also told us that they are extremely concerned about climate change. That is why this government is taking concrete action so that Canadians can see clear results for the environment and for their health.

This government also recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and here in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not get the job done.

The environment commissioner also went on to condemn the previous government, saying:

Even if the measures contained in the previous government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emissions reductions would have been enough to meet our Kyoto obligations.

The Leader of the Opposition admitted that his plan was inadequate. He said, “I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

Canadians do not want fancy talk and pretentious rhetoric. They want real leadership and a sensible, practical plan for taking action now.

Canadians do not want unrealistic commitments that we cannot achieve. They want to see cleaner air, cleaner water and a healthy environment.

Canadians do not want billions of their hard-earned tax dollars sent to buy foreign hot air credits in a vain attempt for optics to meet Kyoto targets. They want their tax dollars spent on getting Canada on the right track so that we can make real progress in addressing our greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions for the long term.

Climate change is a serious environmental problem that needs immediate attention. The previous government decision to do nothing over the last decade was a serious mistake. Our government will do better.

Bill C-288 is a mistake. It will not solve the problems that the Liberals left behind. Our government will do better through some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution: Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

We need a new approach, an approach that will get concrete results which will protect the health of Canadians and the environment, an approach that is achievable, affordable and practical.

We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries for both greenhouse gases and air quality in Canada. We have made a very good start and we are going to do more.

Canada's clean air act will enhance our capacity to address the concerns of Canadians and strengthen the government's ability to take a coordinated approach to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The clean air regulatory agenda will regulate both the greenhouse gases and the air pollutants from all industrial sectors and transportation in the short, the medium and the long term. Our short term targets for greenhouse gas reductions will be more aggressive than those proposed by the previous Liberal government. Our short term targets for air pollutants will be among the most aggressive in the world.

We are regulating the energy efficiency of 20 currently unregulated products, such as commercial clothes dryers and commercial boilers. We are tightening requirements for 10 other products, such as residential dishwashers and dehumidifiers.

We are also providing $1.5 billion for incentives for projects to generate clean energy from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal.

We are providing $300 million to help Canadians make their homes and business more energy efficient.

We are providing $230 million to accelerate the development of clean energy technology, including CO₂ sequestration and storage, clean oil, clean coal, clean oil sands, renewable energy, advanced vehicles, next generation nuclear, and bioenergy.

We have provided Canadians with tax credits of 15.5% on public transit passes, which will offset the greenhouse gas emissions of about 56,000 cars.

We have provided $1.3 billion to the provinces and territories for urban transit infrastructure improvements.

We are regulating a 5% average renewable fuel content in Canadian gasoline and a 2% average renewable fuel content in diesel fuel and heating oil. We have provided $345 million to bolster farmer participation in the production of biofuels.

This is the kind of leadership needed to achieve affordable and practical action. That is what Canadians want.

The Liberal plan was to buy hot air credits and then have inaction. Canadians now know that it did not work and it will not work.

Canadians want action on the environment and that is what they are getting. That is what we will continue doing. We are getting the job done.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's intentions with respect to solving the problem of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted by certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially industry.

On October 19, 2006, the government introduced Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, which gives the government additional, greater powers to take the necessary action to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. The bill strengthens the government's ability to regulate air emissions, including greenhouses gases and other air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The bill is currently before committee and I am eager to work with the opposition to move forward with this important piece of legislation. Immediately after introducing Canada's clean air act, the government published a Notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions, which clearly establishes the government's plans to reduce the greenhouse gases and air pollutants caused by industry, transportation, and commercial and consumer products, as well as to adopt measures to improve indoor air quality.

The notice of intent highlighted the importance of regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution given that industry produces about half of all emissions in Canada, both greenhouse gases and air pollution.

The government will propose mandatory targets for the reduction of emissions in the short, medium and long term. We also plan to adopt an integrated approach to emission reductions so that measures adopted by industry to reduce one type of emission, such as air pollutants, will not lead to an increase in another type of emission.

With regard to short-term targets for greenhouse gases, we are committed to targets that will produce results that are better than those proposed prior to 2005. For air pollutants, we plan on establishing fixed emission ceilings that will be at least as rigorous as those of governments that are leaders in environmental performance. This is an important measure that no previous federal government has implemented.

We are attempting to find the best means for industry to achieve the targets. We wish to ensure that we are putting in place a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost-effective means of attaining emission targets while continuing to meet environmental and health objectives.

We also strongly believe that it is important to support the development of transformation technologies to reduce greenhouse gases—technologies we need to achieve the necessary reductions so we can prevent irreversible climate change.

Fighting climate change and reducing air pollution is not a short-term undertaking, and these problems will not be solved by short-term policies. Fighting climate change and air pollution requires long- term solutions. That is why we have asked the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise us on specific emission reduction targets for the medium and long terms for Canadian industry so that we can reach our health and environmental goals while maintaining a stable economy.

At the end of last year, officials from my department, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada travelled across the country consulting the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups and environmental groups about how best to establish such regulations. We also received over 800 comments from the provinces, industry, environmental organizations and private citizens about the proposed regulatory regime. Nearly all of the comments supported the government's short term measures to fight climate change and air pollution.

I would like to emphasize the fact that we are currently putting all of our efforts into developing that regulatory regime, which will establish realistic short term emissions targets for industry, as well as compliance mechanisms.

The purpose of this framework is to set short-term targets that will put us on the right track to achieve our long-term objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% to 65% by the year 2050, which would improve air quality all across Canada.

We are working relentlessly to complete this regulatory framework. For example, we reviewed the standards set by other governments regarding air pollutant emissions for all industrial sectors, in order to identify primary environmental standards in the world. We organized workshops with experts to discuss two main compliance options: an investment fund to support the development of technologies, and the exchange of emission rights. The discussions that took place at these workshops are helping us make an informed decision on the development of compliance mechanisms.

These measures clearly illustrate the government's intention to regulate the industry's emissions. We have made a lot of progress and we will soon release our proposed regulatory framework. We will be the first federal government to make regulations to help the industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

We intend to continue cooperating with the provinces and territories, the industry and other groups as we develop the regulatory framework and the regulations themselves.

We are not doing this in an unreasonable fashion. We have emission reduction targets that are logical and that will not jeopardize our country's economic growth. Indeed, experience shows that environmental protection can also generate economic benefits.

The industry is not the only source of emissions, but it is a major one. My colleagues will talk about recent announcements on programs and measures to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in other areas, including the residential, commercial and transportation sectors.

So, the government has already taken the first steps towards regulating greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and other measures will be taken in the coming weeks. Through Canada's Clean Air Act, we are also working to strengthen the government's ability to implement such regulations in a cost-effective fashion. We are looking forward to working with opposition members to further this critical issue.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat as a town councillor going to Winnipeg to plead the case alongside my other colleagues from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to have the former government support and sustain the transfer of gas tax money to municipalities so that we could support public transit, act on not only the demand side but also in order to be able to do it and increase the offer.

Those are two elements that my hon. colleague should remember. He should know it full well because he did exercise this task within the previous government. He should also know that congestion is a major problem. He should also know that when we talk about greenhouse gases we are also talking about air pollutants. He should also know that he should be giving his support, like the Canadian Medical Association, to Bill C-30 that helps reduce greenhouse gases. That is what he should be doing and not systematically saying--

“Take it or leave it”, “we fight climate change or we do nothing”. We have seen where doing nothing has gotten us. It has embarrassed Canada on the international stage. It was the previous government, led by Paul Martin, that created that situation.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is totally muddled on this issue. The member for Timmins—James Bay just told us that Bill C-30 was the worst piece of legislation ever to hit the House. We agree with him, as did the Bloc Québécois and the major environment groups. We said to kill it dead.

Why then would the NDP wish to revive the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? The NDP agreed with us that we do not need the legislation. We can legislate and use all the regulatory power of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act now. We do not even need the bill.

Therefore, why would the hon. member suggest reviving something his fellow member described as the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? We can do it better with existing legislation.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do today is discuss three points. One of them is very much inspired by the intervention by the Minister of the Environment this morning who described Kyoto as a distraction from better ideas like Bill C-30. He said, as well, that Kyoto was a 50 year marathon.

Today I want to do three things. The first is to show why Kyoto is not a distraction; far from it. It is a crucial and essential component to any climate change plan in Canada.

Second, I want to say that if we are going to have a 50 year marathon we need to get out of the starting blocks sooner rather than later and now is the time to do it.

I also would like to describe what the elements of a real climate change plan would look like as opposed to the dribble of reannouncements in a weakened form of things that we introduced, as well as Bill C-30, which, as the member from Timmins pointed out, is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to hit this House, even though he decided to bring it back for reasons that are not entirely clear to us.

If time permits, my third point will be to set out four criteria by which any climate change plan can be judged for its effectiveness.

I will begin with the necessary connection between Kyoto and a climate change plan in Canada. By definition, climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. The Kyoto protocol is the only global forum in which the world can come together. Despite the imperfections of the protocol, it is the only global forum in which we can collectively advance this file.

It is true that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are only 2% but if we expect others, as the government does, such as India, China and the United States, to do their part, we need them to join in, not for us to leave Kyoto or to ignore Kyoto. We need to stay in and we need to stay in in good faith, as we did under the previous government, to do our part and to help others, particularly developing countries, do their part as well. A global problem demands a global solution and the only global structure for doing that is the Kyoto protocol.

Kyoto will help a Canadian climate change plan. First, it puts our targets and goals into an international framework. It gives us a sense of deadlines, a sense of urgency. If we do not set these targets and these deadlines we will take no action whatever.

Second, if we in good faith attempt to meet our targets and timetables, we leverage our success and results to get other countries to do their part. It also sets in perspective what is our fair share of this problem. We cannot do this in isolation for a global problem.

The third point is that the Kyoto protocol is the only one which gives us access to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, to help other countries, particularly developing countries, meet their targets. It also has the effect of making life easier for Canadian industry.

We forget that when we agreed to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, which allows us to work with other countries to get credits, it was at the request of the Canadian business community.

It is interesting that in one of today's newspapers Stavros Dimas, who is the environment commissioner for the European Union, said this of the clean development mechanism:

This [mechanism] allows national governments to meet part of their Kyoto target by financing emission-reduction projects in the developing world. One tonne of carbon dioxide has the same effect whether it is emitted in Montreal, Mexico or Mumbai. Currently, 168 countries, covering over 90 per cent of the global population, can engage in this emerging carbon market.

Using CDM allows the EU to meet its Kyoto target at lower cost. Most importantly, it also supports investment to boost clean growth in developing countries, demonstrates the potential of new, clean technologies, allows developing countries access to modern technologies and gives EU companies access to new markets. It also means that many more countries benefit from participating in the global effort to limit climate change.

That is why we need to be in the Kyoto protocol and that is why there are these references in the motion today that we must do our part within that framework.

The second question I asked was: What were the elements of a plan B, a serious plan, as opposed to dribs and drabs of announcements in a feeble form of projects that were cancelled a year ago, and of a bill which confuses climate change with air pollution?

The problem we face in reducing greenhouse gases can be divided into more or less six equal components.

Greenhouse gases are produced by electrical generation, upstream oil and gas, heavy industry, residential and commercial, transportation, and agriculture and waste. Each one of those, if we are going to have a solution, takes a treatment and a set of projects, and a set of programs to deal with. They are interrelated, but they are also separate.

How do we imagine undertaking this great enterprise?

It seems to me that if climate change is the problem which every scientist in the world describes and has the economic consequences which Sir Nicholas Stern has described if we do not take action, we need to imagine ourselves mobilizing as we did during the second world war, mobilizing our economy, mobilizing our industry.

It is worth noting that we did that in a five-year period. We went from zero military production to full military production in a five-year period. We knew how to do it as Canadians. That happens to be exactly the same time that remains between now and 2012, the first Kyoto implementation period.

When we did it in World War II, it had the effect of totally transforming the Canadian economy, of creating a great industrial power. That is the way in which we need to view our tackling of the six great challenges, the six more or less equal slices that will require our solution.

What we need, in effect, is to couple our meeting of Kyoto targets, a response to global warming as a new industrial and, I would add, agricultural strategy which will transform Canada's economy for the 21st century, based on energy saving, innovation, and new techniques for agriculture and natural resources.

This will be a great project for Canada. It is never a mistake to undertake measures which save energy, and a great deal of what we are talking about, five-sixths of those slices, are directly about energy.

Finally, I said that there were four criteria by which any plan which addressed these six issues would be judged.

First, does it actually lead to measurable greenhouse gas reductions?

Second, is it efficient economically? Does it help us to be competitive and innovative? Do we undertake measures which are the cheapest way of getting there, as the European commissioner suggested?

Third, which is of concern to all of us, is, is it politically saleable? Is it socially just? Are we being unfair to certain segments of the population? That political test, which is our business, is hugely important, but I think the Canadian people want us to show political will. I think the climate, in every way, has changed not only the natural climate but the political climate.

Fourth, whatever measure we undertake, is it administratively feasible? Is it the simplest way of getting there? Which leads us to market-based regulation solutions like cap and trade which is probably, as we have learned in the fight against acid rain, the simplest, most elegant way of bringing around real reductions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.

We know that if industry is set a target, given a cap, it will find a way, without our telling it what it is. It will be incented to produce surpluses, to trade and sell to other industries. This is the success, to date, of the European model.

So, with those words, I heartily endorse this motion and wait for questions.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to point out that we need to work together in the House to tackle this very important issue. However, he knows that his own Liberal Party has decided to put politics ahead of real action on the environment, by working with the Bloc to drag out committee hearings on Bill C-30 for another two months. This means the clean air legislation cannot pass before the federal budget, which will obviously be a confidence vote that could mean another election.

It is one thing that the previous Liberal government did not get the job done when it had 13 years, mostly in majority as my colleague pointed out, to accomplish virtually anything it wanted. It is far worse, though, that the Liberals are trying to correct their mistake by holding up legislation that would fix the problems they created.

What does the member have to say about the roadblocks his party is putting up, for purely political reasons at committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will find out one day the Bloc's position on liquefied natural gas imports into its region, but perhaps not today.

It is today that we are addressing the debate that has been put forward by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the leader of the official opposition. It is a topic and a debate that I engage in with great interest and passion.

This chamber can be seized with many different topics. Members from all sides can get quite excited and brought into the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place. Perhaps no other issue and no other topic facing the country, facing all of our individual communities and, indeed, facing the international community, than the topic of climate change and the pollution that we allow into our atmosphere and our environment has seized us more.

Certainly, this past week for me and other members in this place who work on the issue of the environment has been quite a busy week. There have been many suggestions and proposals put forward, and a constant challenge for members of Parliament to rise above partisan interests, and to rise above the rhetoric of daily question period that plays to specific partisan interests. Our challenge is to grasp the ideas, the concepts and the actions that are required for our country to once again be proud of our standing in the international community, for our economy to change course, and for our communities to develop in such a way that we work within the context of this environment and this planet.

I think it may have been Mr. Suzuki himself who said we must understand that conventional economics, as it is understood, is a form of brain damage. The reason he said this is because of the concept that we can continually grow exponentially within a finite structure is not sane; it is counterintuitive and makes no sense.

The motion that has been brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a motion and a topic which I believe sincerely the future generations will judge us. They will judge all of us as leaders in this country, not in the strict definition of the word politician or act thereof but as leaders in this country, to make decisions, make pronouncements, and to take action at long last that Canadians so desperately want to see.

It is important to take a small walk through history.

There were some discrepancies between the member for Ottawa South and the Minister of the Environment, so we will clarify the numbers, just to ensure we are all on the same page.

The Earth Summit at Rio in 1992, and some members in this place were there, brought together the world leaders. With great conviction, they produced much rhetoric and pronouncements, and announcements and press conferences. However, one of the substantive things that came from that debate, that crisis that the world was seeing with respect to our environment, was the decision to go on and negotiate an international pact, a treaty that would be binding, that would connect the countries of the world into a common cause, and that cause was to reduce the effects of climate change.

At that time, some of the more progressive climatologists and scientists in the world were saying that this is a serious matter, but the skeptics and the naysayers were far and wide. Yet over time, the debate has gained momentum and with the exception of some backward-looking members in this place and a few narrow pockets of self-interest in this country, the debate has been settled that human-caused anthropogenic climate change is a fact and a reality, and is having an effect on our world.

I know the minister will be going to Europe later this week and will hear directly from the more than 2,000 leading scientists on this issue. They will claim the debate is over as to whether the effects are happening; the only question now is how much hotter is the world getting, and how much of a great change is facing us in our environment?

Kyoto was negotiated by a former Liberal government in December 1997. Parliament ratified that decision, under a Liberal government, in 2002. One would think with all that history behind it that when it was ratified in February 2005, after Russia ratified it in 2004, the government would have had plans in place. One would think that the government would have taken action, would have been making the systemic changes that are required in the way that we produce and use energy primarily in this country to allow us to fall into compliance to the agreements that we made, but there was more cynicism at play than that.

We have heard from Conservative members that protestations were made to executives in Calgary by the former leader of the Liberal Party to not worry, that Kyoto was more of a protocol and an exercise in public relations, but that it was not serious. The oil and gas sector in Alberta would face no hard times or no encumbering of its business.

Lo and behold, the surprise came upon us and the protocol was ratified. Now we look to the record. The record is important to establish including the numbers and the comments that I am using here, none of which are under dispute.

For eight of the nine years since this protocol was ratified the Liberals were in power. They negotiated the targets. The Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister for 18 months of those eight of nine years. Plans were delayed and it was the Commissioner of the Environment herself, Johanne Gélinas, who said that “--the measures are not up to the task of meeting our Kyoto obligations”. That is a direct quote. She also said:

When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

This again was stated by Johanne Gélinas, someone who members of the Liberal benches, the Bloc, and the NDP, all opposition parties praised her work as a true fighter for the environment and auditor of this country.

Under the Liberals and Conservatives, the most recent numbers we have, and these are not disputed, say that we are almost 35% above the targets that we set for ourselves. For Canadians watching this that is a staggering number. It is a staggering condemnation of inaction and dithering that has gone on too long.

The time for action is now. That action has been decided through agreement by all four parties in this place to take place in a legislative committee set up to redo, rewrite, and redraft Bill C-30, a bill that was misnamed as the clean air act. When the details were looked at by members of the opposition, environment groups and Canadians, it was found seriously lacking.

Lo and behold, the New Democrats made a suggestion. I remember the day we made the suggestion. The NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, stood in this place and asked whether the Prime Minister would give this bill to a special legislative committee and allow it to be redrafted from top to bottom. Some of my Conservative colleagues guffawed, laughed, chuckled, and said things I could not repeat on the record which were directed toward the NDP leader. It is true. It was incredible. The guffaws were loud.

Yet the Prime Minister, in a state of desperation, reminded us of similar times when the Liberals were in power and needed to have a budget rewritten because there was a massive corporate tax cut included that was not campaigned upon and the budget was redrafted. The NDP, pushing to redraft a flawed piece of legislation, got agreement from all the parties to do this. How quickly the parties have forgotten.

We need to go through the record because it is important. The Liberal leader voted with the Conservatives against mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars in February 2005. This is not distant history. This is recent. He voted against an NDP proposal for mandatory fuel efficiency standards. He was absent from the vote in fact on Bill C-288, the bill we will be debating tomorrow to implement the Kyoto accord. He was busy with other things.

He voted against the NDP proposal to include the precautionary principle in CEPA in November 1999, a strange thing to do, the precautionary principle being something that is known and understood. I know the member for Ottawa South is a great champion of such a cause and concept. His own leader voted against it recently. He voted in favour of allowing oil and gas companies to deduct an even greater portion of their royalties. He did that in October 2003.

We are going in the wrong direction. Science warns us that a rise in the average global temperature of 2° by 2050 or sooner will have catastrophic impacts. That is the record from the one who cast a green scarf around his neck and claimed to be champion of the environment. He may wish to rename his dog at some point in this debate.

The riding experience is something that is important to me. I come from the northwest of British Columbia and we all need to take this experience back to our homes and understand what it means for our constituents. We in the northwest of British Columbia have seen the devastating impacts of climate change.

The forestry councils of British Columbia and Canada have said direct causal links between the change in climate created by human activity has caused the pine beetle infestation to spread right across B.C. It is now headed over the Rockies. The foresters, and no tree huggers by their own admission, have said this is what is going on.

We have seen a change in the temperature of our rivers and our waters. The salmon migration has changed and the quality of life enjoyed by first nations people from time immemorial in our region and by the people who have since moved there like myself has changed.

There was a suggestion by one of my staff some months ago that we may wish to screen An Inconvenient Truth, a film by the defeated former presidential candidate in the United States. I said it has been out for months, no one will come, but let us try it anyway. We showed it in five different small communities in my riding and there was standing room only in every single community. The most interesting thing was not that more than 500 people came out to watch it, but they stayed afterward because they wanted to talk about these issues. They wanted to talk about what was happening not only in our communities but at the federal level.

When I would explain the process that the NDP had negotiated for Bill C-30, they were encouraged and told me to go back there and get it done and make the proposals. For months the NDP has had front and centre on our website, ndp.ca for those viewing at home with access to the Internet, those proposals out in the public domain so that the other parties can critique them or add to them. What have the other parties done? They brought forward nothing except an extensive witness list, more than 100 witnesses for something we have been studying for more than two and a half years. Let us bring more witnesses to discuss climate change. Let us talk about the nuance of the debate.

Every party in this place, every platform will claim to have the answers to climate change, and yet when we ask for those answers to be brought forward in amendments and suggestions, in concrete ideas, they are found wanting. Not a single party has brought forward an amendment other than the New Democrats. Not a single party has made a constructive suggestion of how to make this bill better. They have just said it is no good and that is not good enough.

I remember when Bill C-30 was being tabled, the ministers of the Crown, one by one, it seemed there was a roll call, approached me and said this bill is going to knock our socks off, this clean air thing is going to be so good the NDP will have to support it. It was so disappointing to see the eventual reality for that bill was dead on arrival.

The Liberals and Conservatives have decided to stall on this. The sincerity of their action on this is found seriously wanting. The Conservatives delayed debating it in Parliament in December. The Liberals did not even name the members to sit on the committee until the 11th hour, the last possible moment. Only then did they slip in their member list. They were confused. They were not sure anyone wanted to be there and then they all wanted to be there. They got themselves in a snit.

Both parties refused to meet during the winter break as the NDP suggested. They were busy. At committee the Liberals refused to agree to a quick process. As the member from the Bloc has pointed out, members of the Conservatives and Liberals are interested in extensive debate. To their credit there is one thing the Liberals have been very good at throughout the entire environment debate and that is the ability to seek consultation and more consultation, and more meetings and further consultations.

When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the environment, I would sit with him and say we need to get such-and-such done. He would shake his head and say, “I have a real struggle at cabinet with this, I cannot get that done. I cannot get mandatory fuel efficiencies. I cannot get any connection between research and development connected to the environment. I cannot get it done. The cabinet is resisting.”

Yet, the Liberals will stand in this place and I am sure members will say it again, that we have the ability to do it right now, we could make these changes right now. That is incorrect. We have had that ability for more than five years, four of those years under the Liberals. They had that ability if they claim it to be true for all of those years and they could not get it done. The reason is they needed to return to the cabinet table. They needed to enter back into the political fray behind those closed doors to make the types of progressive changes for the environment that were needed and they could not get it done.

They could not do it, whether it was the minister of the environment, now the Leader of the Opposition, or other ministers of the environment. I know Mr. Anderson from Victoria has made public statements about his inability to get it through cabinet. We have said join with us, have the courage of the convictions to put this into legislation, to draft this in such a way that it can no longer be done behind the closed doors of cabinet. It must be done in this place.

Parliament and the public must see what parliamentarians are up to when it comes to climate change and the environment. If there is no other issue that must be in the public discourse, it is this one, but instead we have had delay and dithering.

I will read an important letter, which was sent on January 22 and signed by seven of the largest and most important environmental groups in the country. It is an important quote and it states:

We believe that all parties understand the need for urgent action on climate change and clean air, so the committee should have no need for lengthy debates. A time period on the order of four weeks should be enough to debate the wording of any amendments and to consider C-30 clause by clause.

This was the very motion the NDP brought forward at committee and members of the House from the other three parties voted 11 to 1 against us for such a suggestion. They said that we should take our time. We do not have the luxury of time. Of all the things at our disposal right now, time is not one of them.

The letter also said:

As you know, we are interested in the most efficient possible Committee process with respect to C-30. The issues involved with this piece of legislation have already been studied extensively, and it is our view that the Committee needs to hear from a minimum of witnesses in order to gather the necessary information for its report.

Canada needs aggressive action on these issues.

More than 100 witnesses were proposed.

I am not sure Liberal members would know aggressive action on the environment if it came up and smacked them on the head.

The rush is on. Every day we ponder, consider, navel-gaze and have speculative conversations about the impact of climate change, but greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the case becomes impossible. In fact, the Liberal Party might even be in collusion with the Conservative Party to ensure that nothing happens. Maybe they want to roll it all in to the debate around the budget. Maybe the Liberals want to roll it into confidence debates and perhaps at some point in some future imagined and wishful thinking, they will regain power, get it to cabinet and delay more.

The record is absolutely solid in this respect. The very member who was elected a short time ago to lead the Liberal Party claims a new conviction to the environment. I remember the green scarves fondly. My goodness, look at what he named his dog. It seems the solutions are found wanting. When his members show up at committee, they have absolutely no solutions as to how to reach the Kyoto targets or how to reset Canada back on the track. They come wanting. They come lacking.

We must understand that we will be judged by future generations about our actions now. We have proposed a course of action to which all parties in this place agreed. All parties recognized it as a way forward and chose to involve themselves in the committee process. We must act beyond narrow partisan interests. We must act in a responsible way, in a way of leadership. We must take command and have the courage to seize the opportunity in front of us.

At committee, Liberal members said that they needed to hear more plans from the government. They needed to understand the greater context of the plan. That is incredible. Waiting for a Conservative plan on the environment might even take longer than the time we waited for the Liberal plan on the environment. They need to put those partisan interests aside. They need to come forward with serious and honourable recommendations, solutions they all claim to have.

We are all intelligent members in the place. We have studied this issue for quite a number of years. We need to get tough. We need to make the hard decisions. We can make those decisions. The people in northwest British Columbia demand that we start to make changes. As Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist from the World Bank and who we have all quoted in this place, has said that the cost of inaction is significant, perhaps as much as 20% of the world's GDP. Perhaps worse in terms of economic catastrophes in the first world war and the Great Depression combined, he has called what has happened with pollution perhaps the world's greatest market failure.

It is important that we take a progressive stance. It is important that we move to a place where this issue no longer gains interest for one party or another.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word “action”: (f) understanding the importance and urgency of this matter, this House calls on the legislative committee currently dealing with Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) to complete its work and report back to this House on or before March 2, 2007, in line with the recommendation of leading environmental organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, Quebec is not asking to have lower Kyoto targets. Quebec is ready and has every means at its disposal to enforce the Kyoto protocol within its borders and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990, for the 2008 and 2012 periods.

However, what the government and the hon. member must recognize is that a coast-to-coast, Canada-wide approach will fail to make the most of every dollar invested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec businesses have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 7% compared to 1990, but it is the transportation sector that has a dismal record. We are proposing that Quebec maintain its target of a 6% reduction compared to 1990—and there will be a firm commitment from the Quebec government and the National Assembly—and that Quebec receive $328 million to reach its target. Thus, Quebec could implement its own, more efficient policies.

These funds for fighting climate change would very likely not be used in the industrial sector because it is doing very well in Quebec in the fight against climate change. In contrast to the rest of Canada, these public funds would likely be invested in transportation. This territorial approach is more effective and equitable and maximizes the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for each dollar invested. This is the approach that the federal government should adopt, and in this way we will certainly be able to achieve our Kyoto protocol objectives.

In regard now to Bill C-30, I want to remind the House that the Liberals wanted to study it in committee for some three or four months and the Conservatives for a month and a half. We are going to study Bill C-30 for two months now, but during these two months, we will be taking two weeks off.

The Bloc Québécois has remained true to one principle, that of urgency and effectiveness. That is how we behaved in committee, as a responsible political party that facilitated the compromise we see today.