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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are all seized with solutions when it comes to the issue of climate change. The debate on whether the science is valid and whether climate change is caused by human activity is now over and now we are looking for solutions. I am glad about that. There are still doubters out there who deny that there is credible science for climate change, and that is fine, we are in a democracy and people have different points of view, but I think the consensus is that climate change and what we see happening is the result of human activity and human behaviour.

What is incumbent upon us as legislators is to look at solutions. I will be supporting the bill. The essence of it is to have cap and trade as one of those solutions. It is no surprise that I and my party are supporting the bill. In fact, central to our platform in the last election was to set up a cap and trade system.

It is important to look around the globe right now. Often people talk about globalization and the need for more trade. I would say that we have fallen behind on the cap and trade issue. When we look at global markets and their approach to climate change, there is a consensus among many countries that a price needs to be put on carbon. However, there might be a debate about how to do it.

If we look at Europe, at what is happening in the United States and what is happening among provinces here in Canada, the consensus is that there should be a carbon market. We need to have a price on carbon that is dealt with through an exchange.

When we look back to the previous Parliament, Bill C-30, the clean air act, was brought forward by the government. The government at the time allowed it to go to a legislative committee to be amended. One of the things in that bill was to have a cap and trade system, among other changes to ensure we dealt with climate change. Sadly, in a most bizarre outcome, the bill was returned to the House amended but the government would not bring it forward again. That was a missed opportunity.

What is happening in Europe, in the United States and in the provinces in Canada is that people are establishing carbon markets and they are doing it through a cap and trade system.

For those who do not quite understand the essence of this, I would simply point to another environmental irritant that we had to deal with, a catastrophic environmental phenomena known as acid rain, which devastated producers in the fishing industry and the maple syrup industry back in the eighties.

At that time, many people, including myself, were pushing governments of the day to come up with a solution to solve the acid rain problem. It was dealt with through a similar kind of approach and that was to set limits on industry as to how much it could pollute and to put scrubbers on its factories to ensure the amount of sulphur and other irritants going into the air would be capped.

We were able to deal with acid rain by having a strong regulatory framework, by having what I call big sticks and good carrots. If companies did not comply, they would be fined and they did comply, they would be rewarded.

Cap and trade is similar. If members may recall, there actually was an agreement, which the Conservative government brought forward, to have an acid rain agreement with the United States. We need to do that now. We are losing time. The United States is now moving toward a cap and trade system.

We removed the phenomena of acid rain by bringing in a strong regulatory framework, by ensuring the big polluters paid and ensuring there were rewards for those making the transition.

That is exactly what cap and trade is. It is to ensure that there is a coherent market. Those who produce excess amounts of carbon have to pay a price. Those who reduce it are rewarded. There is a exchange for this and that is why there has to be a carbon market.

It is that simple, but it requires leadership and legislation. At the national level, it requires a government that believes in this and goes forward. I am very troubled by the fact that we are so far behind.

The foreign affairs committee was recently in Washington. The U.S. is moving ahead. Copenhagen will be in the fall and that will be a follow-up to Kyoto. Where is Canada when it comes to cap and trade? Are we going to be following behind? Are the Americans going to have the leg up? Are we going to come to the table too late to be able to take advantage of this emerging opportunity?

Some provinces have gone ahead with the cap and trade model, such as Ontario and Quebec. The western provinces are looking at getting together as well.

We need a coherent approach at the national level, a national voice for cap and trade to meet where the Americans are going, but we also we need to be coherent. As we know, greenhouse gas does not know borders. It does not have a passport. It is a shared interest with the Americans. In fact, if we go back to the acid rain treaty, it was Canadian leadership.

I recently talked to Joe Clark and I asked how that happened. He said that MPs pushed it and that they had some leadership. He was the external affairs minister of the day. He pushed it and he was allowed to do that. He was given the power to negotiate with the Americans.

Sadly, we are not seeing that with the government. We heard nice things when President Obama was here. We heard about an arrangement was made, but we have not seen the details.

We are about to find ourselves going into the summer without a coherent plan on cap and trade. If we pick up the paper any day, there is a debate about how the Americans will define their cap and trade system.

When we look south of the border, it is worthy to note President Obama's nomination of Steven Chu as his secretary of energy, which is no coincidence. If we look at his approach, he wants to push the cap and trade framework further ahead. That is why President Obama nominated him.

For those who think this is some left-wing conspiracy, there is a consensus on this. People from the business community and people who are entrepreneurial see this as the way to go because it puts a price on carbon that is determined by a market. The last time I checked, I thought the Conservatives were in favour of that. They claim to be, but we have not seen evidence of action.

Cap and trade, simply put, would finally get us to the point where we could start looking at changing and transitioning our economy from one that is based on carbon, which is having negative effects on our economy, and transitioning to an economy that will be based on new solutions that are viable and sustainable.

The first step in any journey is an important one. The first step in this journey to deal with catastrophic climate change is at the national level to have a cap and trade system. That is why we will support the motion.

Energy Efficiency Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act. Earlier, my colleague from Halifax West spoke extensively on the bill and made a number of valid points on energy efficiency. I would refer people to those comments. He talked especially about wasted energy. When politicians are out on a political campaign, we walk into houses and see little lights flashing here and there, on VCRs, computers and telephones that are not in use. All those units are using energy unnecessarily. It is a lot of wasted energy.

The bill makes a series of changes to the Energy Efficiency Act to broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate consumer products that use energy. We can certainly go the regulatory way with encouragement in that area, but as citizens of the country, we also need to do a lot of individual things to save energy in terms of shutting down computers and so on when we may be gone for more than a day. There are all kinds of things we could do.

The bill is rooted in old Bill C-30 from a former Parliament, which was a plan to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Bill S-3 goes back to some of those points that were made in Bill C-30. After the House committee made wholesale amendments to the climate change provisions in Bill C-30, the government chose not to bring the bill back to the House for further debate. When the first session of the 39th Parliament prorogued, Bill C-30 died. Instead of bringing back the bill in its entirety, the government decided instead to carve off the Energy Efficiency Act provisions and introduce them as a separate bill in the Senate. The bill did not receive second reading in the Senate before the election was called in August, 2008.

The provisions of the bill are not controversial. In fact, it is widely expected that most MPs and most parties will support the bill in the House of Commons because the spirit and the intent of former Bill C-30, what opposition parties mainly drove for, is encompassed in this bill.

An effective regulation of energy-using products is one of a suite of tools the government will have to fight global warming. As my colleague said earlier, there are a lot of global warming deniers on the government side of the House. A lot of points have been raised by previous speakers as to that being the fact. Through this bill we hope the Conservatives will take, not a big challenge, but a small challenge to do a number of small things that can make a difference in terms of energy use itself.

On this point, Canadians know what we should be doing each and every day to improve energy efficiency in many small ways, but sometimes it takes a little encouragement. Although none of us really likes regulations, sometimes it takes a little push with regulations to encourage us to do the right thing on the environment.

Another important area for us to do the right things on the environment and to increase our energy efficiency is a stronger education process. Sometimes we do not realize how the small points on energy efficiency can add up in the global context to big savings on energy.

Let us look at what little things can do. We can go back to Christmastime, when many people light up their houses with Christmas light bulbs and so on. In my province, Christmas was the peak energy period of the year because of the lights on Christmas trees, houses, floodlights and so on. When the LED lights came in, they created such energy efficiencies that the energy use at that time went down substantially.

Therefore, it shows what can be done by both an education campaign and any regulatory campaign. It is one example of many.

It is unbelievable the gains in energy efficiency that have been made in the agricultural industry over the last 15 to 20 years, and there is a lot more we can do. There is a lot more the government can do to assist us in getting there.

It would be really helpful if the government, in its programming, used some of its available resources. We know it has clearly failed the agricultural industry to date, especially the primary producers, but it is not that difficult for it to develop the programs. Whether it is through tax incentives, grants, regional development agencies, Industry Canada or Environment Canada could come up with funding programs that would assist primary producers in purchasing equipment and technology that would reduce the amount of energy used on primary production units on our farms.

Although the government fails to admit it, we know that the agriculture, fisheries, mining and forestry sectors in rural Canada are the generators of economic wealth in the country. Anything that can be done to assist those hard pressed industries in this time of recession would be valuable in moving our country forward.

There is an opportunity, at a time when a so-called economic stimulus is being made available, if the Government of Canada would develop the programming to assist all those industries in reducing their energy use and improving their bottom line. The government seems to have failed to seize that opportunity.

I want to provide some examples in the farming sector. On the equipment side, the tractors we use today are much more energy efficient. Cultivators do a better job with less use of energy on a per acre basis. One of the big areas is the use of GPS equipment, whether it is on equipment used for cultivating potatoes and row crops or whether it is on sprayers where one can do a better job of going over the ground just once. Instead of going over a field or a crop two or three times, one can go over it with a single pass, saving a tremendous amount of energy and greater efficiency. Therefore, less greenhouse gases are put into air for each production unit that is produced on farms.

Many Canadians, especially people who live in urban centres who do not understand the farm community that well, have a strange picture or perception of farmers. Primary producers, farmers, have always been at the cutting edge of technological change. Whether it is energy efficiency, more production per acre, whatever it may be, they have always been at that edge of technological change. This is a great opportunity where we could assist the farm community in making its operations more efficient.

Another example that I could give would be dairy operations. I was a dairy producer, and I have been on many of these operations. More people should see this efficient use of energy. It is an area where expenditures could be made to get more producers on those kinds of efficient uses of energy systems.

To draw a picture, when milk is produced, it is a warm product that has to be cooled by what almost looks like the old type of radiators. The milk is produced by the cows, comes out of the milking system and goes through that radiator unit. The heat is taken out and used to heat water for sanitizing and cleaning up the system and, in some cases, for heating barns. There is great efficiency.

Instead of losing the heat and putting it into a cooler that expends energy to cool the milk so it keeps and can be trucked to the processing plant in a high quality state, the new systems are used to take the heat out of the milk and use it for other purposes, whether it is heating water for sanitizing or whatever. The temperature of that milk is reduced and then when it gets into the cooler, it is already partially cooled. Therefore, it takes less energy to cool the milk product to the proper temperature so it stores safely until it can be shipped to a processing plant for bottling, or for cheese or for whatever its use may be.

From my own experience in the past, I know that originally there were grants from provincial governments at that time to encourage people to move into the earlier concept of bulk milk coolers. This is an area that the government could be assisting the production sector, with stimulus packages and creating energy efficiency as well. I know that goes beyond the concept of this bill, but it is an example of where government action, beyond the regulatory regime, could be a huge help to the farming community.

The same applies in the design of farms. Rather than using the fans, which are used in so many places, there are new concepts where we use natural movement of air.

As another example, this morning I had a great meeting with the greenhouse industry. The Canadian greenhouse industry is one of the most innovative industries in our country. In Ontario alone there are about 1,800 acres under glass. In B.C. there are about 700 acres. I believe it is something like 60 acres or 80 acres in Quebec.

I was in one operation that had 52 acres of tomato and cucumber plants under glass, growing year round. One of the highest costs is the use of hydro. Therefore, farmers have been moving to new concepts. Again, it is an area where the government could assist. In fact, I believe it costs close to $6 million to put the new system in for one of these operations.

Beyond the solar efforts of the sun, using natural gas to heat that generates a byproduct containing CO₂, which plants need to produce the cucumbers and tomatoes. A recycling effect is created and it will pay off over the long term tremendously. Again, it is another case of using greater energy efficiency to have greater economic and energy efficiencies in the operation and less greenhouse gases as a result at the end of the day.

There are so many opportunities available to us in terms of energy efficiency. This bill will move us a little farther along that line. It significantly broadens the government's ability to regulate products that affect the use of energy and we support that. It does not have to be an obtrusive regulation. As I mentioned in the very beginning, to a great extent, it can be more of an education campaign to have people understand what is available out there. The regulations can encourage better use of products, whether it is shutting down equipment or buying more efficient equipment or machinery on the industrial operations, on farms, on fishing boats, in the forestry industry or whatever.

We support these amendments, since they are substantially identical to the proposed amendments to the clean air act, Bill C-30, which the Liberal Party supported. For some reason the Government of Canada wanted to make that disappear. Maybe it was too forward-looking a bill for the current government to grasp, take hold of and put Canada in the lead in terms of environmental change.

If we had moved forward with that act, instead of being a follower, we would have been a leader. In this recession, we see more followers than leaders from the government side. Maybe that makes the point as to why the government abandoned the clean air act. Now we have to at least try to encourage it to move a little step forward with the Energy Efficiency Act.

We look forward to seeing regulations, but it will be necessary to ensure that the impact of these amendments are fully felt in Canadian society.

I want to make one quick point about my own province. One initiative of Premier Robert Ghiz and the Liberal government in P.E.I. is on energy. We are increasingly using wind energy to meet our energy needs. The province has laid out a master plan of how we can use the production of energy and hydro from windmills to meet a greater and greater share of the electricity needs of Prince Edward Island. The Canadian wind test site is on Prince Edward Island. I think it shows that a little province is leading the way in this country in terms of using wind energy to meet Canadians' needs and reduce greenhouse gases.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill S-3, a bill that would amend the Energy Efficiency Act.

The basic premise of this bill is to broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate energy-using consumer products. We can all think of a whole range of consumer products that people have in their homes, whether it be washing machines, dryers, fridges or so many others. The government already does regulate many of these under the existing act, through standards, through labelling, and through the promotion of energy-efficient products.

Indeed, this is something that needs to be broadened, because there are so many new appliances and new electronic gadgets these days.

So many of us in this House, of course, use the BlackBerry, which is a great Canadian-made product from my wife's home area of Kitchener—Waterloo. I must say, of course, that I am proud that Research in Motion also has a building in my riding of Halifax West. That is an interesting connection that my wife and I have with our hometowns.

There are so many items we have in our homes that use power, and there are programs when one is shopping for these things. One can look for the EnerGuide label or the Energy Star label to find out how, for example, one fridge compares to other fridges in its energy consumption, or whether a computer monitor falls within the group that is low enough in terms of energy use to have received the Energy Star. Those are good programs that have been around for a while.

The issue of standby power is an important one. That is one of the things this bill purports to regulate. That is to say, we all know of things in our homes that use power all the time. It may be only a little power, but they are still using power. Anything that has a light on all the time is using power. Often our televisions, even though they are turned off, are still using some power unless they are unplugged.

I can think of things like the new digital video recorders that use quite a bit of power, I gather, particularly if they are recording. Even if they are not recording, there is still a light on. The VCR has a light on, the stereo system has a little light on, and all these things use power.

Even an intercom system is often on all the time. These things are using power.

What this bill will allow the government to do by regulation is limit the amount of standby power that these products can use. Many of these products today use in the range of six to eight watts. At the same time, some of the new products are able to use as little as one watt of power per product. That would be a much better standard to apply to all of them. In fact, that is part of the plan, from what I hear of the government, and that is a good thing.

There are so many things: computers, battery chargers, adapters, stereos, TVs, and microwaves. If a charger for a cellphone is left plugged into the wall, it will become warm. The adapter will become warm. It becomes warm for a reason. That is because it is using power.

One thing that is worthwhile to mention during the debate on this bill is that it is a good opportunity to remind people to unplug these things. It is costing money and it is using power unnecessarily. We all know there are many good reasons not to do that, notably to save money and to help the environment.

In fact, Natural Resources Canada has an office of energy efficiency that has looked into this. They say that as much as 10% of household electrical consumption in Canada comes from this standby power issue. In other words, we could each theoretically reduce as much as 10% of our electrical bills by unplugging these things.

They say that if we did this and dealt with this issue, it could be the equivalent of turning off the power in 300,000 homes. In other words, 300,000 homes worth of electricity per year could be saved across the country. When we are looking at issues like blackouts in Ontario and problems when there are peak energy uses in the summer in particular, we can all see the importance of having that kind of room in the electrical grid.

However, as many have pointed out before, it is not simply what is in this bill that is of concern here and that we ought to be looking at. In fact, what is not in the bill is of major concern.

The measures in this bill were originally in Bill C-30 in the previous Parliament, the government's so-called clean air act which purported to deal with climate change. A special committee of the House was set aside to deal with the bill. Once it actually got hold of it and made a variety of amendments, it did become what could realistically be called a clean air act, but it certainly was not that when it was proposed by the government. It was the opposition amendments that put it in a form that would have actually achieved something.

What did we see? Did that bill go forward? No, it did not go forward. In fact, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament and called an election. We have not seen the bill come back from the government. We have had lots of comments from the government about dealing with climate change which that bill purported to do, but no action.

In June 2005 the previous government actually listed in the Canada Gazette the six major greenhouse gases. That is the beginning of the 18 month process of regulating those greenhouse gases.

There is no reason why the following Conservative government that took over in February 2006 could not have regulated to limit the production, the emission, of those various greenhouse gases within that 18 month period.

Now it is more than three and a half years since those were listed, and we still see no regulations from the government in relation to the limiting of greenhouse gases. We have heard the government talk about cap and trade, we heard that it has a so called “Turning the Corner” plan, but we do not see any corner being turned. We do not see any actual regulations, any real action to deal with greenhouse gases or climate change. That is a concern.

The total lack of trust Canadians have in the government is also a concern. The kind of thing I have talked about is one of the reasons they have so little trust in the government. When it actually comes to bringing forth regulations to ensure the impact of amendments outlined in this bill are actually felt, we do not know what the government will do. This bill does allow the government to regulate in a whole variety of areas.

One of the questions we have heard during debate, both in the Senate and here, is this question of whether or not this bill could be used, this law could be used, to regulate automobile emissions. Well, the wording is very broad. I had a look at the law that exists now and it says in section 200, the definition section, “'energy-using product' means a prescribed product”.

Actually, that means that the government can set out in regulation what products are included as energy using products that fall within the scope of this bill. In other words, it could certainly regulate automobiles, as they do use an energy product: gasoline obviously, ethanol, even hydrogen these days or electricity. All these things are using energy. In theory, then, the government could certainly regulate automobiles through this bill, although we would expect it to use other legislation that is on the books to do that. It is interesting that that is one of the options.

The point I am making is that we do not know what the government will do with these regulations. We do not know if it will take any action at all. Its record so far in regulating on the environment is so weak that it is hard for Canadians to have any confidence that this bill will actually be used to do anything worthwhile.

The idea of the bill is a fine idea, but it is how it is used. The bill is all about giving that power to regulate to the government. That is an important point.

There are also concerns about the Conservative government's complete failure to understand that energy efficiency is a fundamental issue not just for the environment but for the economy. Dealing with these things is important in terms of where we go in the economy. What was lacking, for example, in the budget was an understanding of the importance of that.

In the U.S. we have seen the Obama administration's package for economic stimulus. We have seen six times as much spending per capita on the energy efficiency side of things and renewable energies as here in the Conservative government package. That was disappointing. I think the government ought to consider that, reconsider its position, and recognize that it is important for the economy that we become efficient. It can save us in many ways. It can help us with the strains in terms of our electrical grids and in many other areas.

I suspect that the fact that many government members are still climate change deniers is a factor here. I have witnessed that in this House. I witnessed it on Monday during debate on this same bill. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was speaking. He was talking about Antarctica and how we have seen ice shelves, such as the Larsen ice shelf, collapse there and what a concern that is for situations like that around the globe. He gave examples of global warming, examples that are alarming scientists around the globe, and some of the reasons why scientists tell us the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity.

However, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt was in the chamber and he said that Antarctica is growing. I do not know what planet he is talking about. Maybe there is another Antarctica on another planet somewhere that is growing, but I think it is pretty clear that the opposite is happening here.

In fact we understand, and I think most people do, that the ice in Antarctica does not just freeze every winter. With the ice in Antarctica, or on the Greenland glacier or Arctic ice cap, we are talking primarily about ice that has been formed with snow falling and then more the following year and so much over centuries that it pushes down, compacts and turns into very hard and very old ice.

When we see something that is thousands of years old collapse and fall into the ocean, and a colleague thinks that Antarctica is actually growing, I think he ought to give his head a shake.

It is a bit like those who suggest that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. All the science is in the other direction. It is overwhelmingly clear that there is a link between HIV and AIDS. Or it is like the techniques that were used for years by those people who said there was no link between tobacco and cancer. We hear the same kinds of things from the other side.

It seems to me the Conservatives have not gotten the message. It seems to me that they forget the poll that came out in January 2007 which said that the number one concern of Canadians was the environment. This was about six or eight months after Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth came into the theatres and people started to become much more concerned about these issues. The media started to talk about this. People got more and more concerned, but it was only after that, that the government suddenly and totally changed direction and started to admit that there was a concern about climate change, or at least it wanted us to believe that it was reformed, that it actually had bought into the idea that this was a real problem.

Yet, it seems that many members on that side did not get the memo, that they have not gotten the message that in fact they are supposed to believe now in climate change, because we hear them say things like the notion that Antarctica is still growing. We hear them say things that are utterly ridiculous and that fly in the face of the overwhelming science that tells us that climate change is real and is the result of human activity.

Maybe they should work on their messaging over there and get the message out. Maybe they need another memo for more of the members on that side to get this clear. Most of them do not say very much normally without the office of the Prime Minister giving the approval, so one would think that maybe they need clearer direction from the PMO on that. Perhaps it is the fact that they are climate change deniers that accounts for their dismal failure to grasp what really are the larger implications that are at play with this bill and the issues of climate change, to which Bill C-30 in the last Parliament was tied.

When this bill was debated in the other place, that red chamber down the hall on the east side of this building, my colleague from Alberta, Senator Grant Mitchell, raised many important questions about this bill. In fact, while this bill was introduced in the Senate by the government leader there, it was Senator Mitchell who has been the driving force behind this idea for some time, pushing for energy efficiency improvements and pushing for changes, so that the government can regulate classes of products, not just certain products. That is a good thing, there is no question.

He was right, in the Senate, when he noted that perhaps one of the biggest questions was the lack of trust Canadians have that the Conservative government will do anything it promises. I have heard from many Canadians that they do not trust the government. They simply do not trust the government to actually implement this or any significant environmental policy because its record is so dismal.

While the Liberal Party supports a broadening of the government's ability to regulate products that use energy, this does not disguise the fact that these changes are in isolation to create the false impression the Conservatives are actually doing something on this file.

Well, they are not, really. We know that. That is why Canadians do not trust the Prime Minister or the government on the environment any more than they trust them to properly manage our country's finances or our economy.

This is the same government that told us last fall that there were no problems. The Prime Minister said that if it was going to get bad, it would already have been bad. We heard that during the election: if the economy is going to be in recession, we would have already had it here.

Well, things got a lot worse. In September he said it was good time to buy stocks. Not only was that insensitive but it was incredibly bad advice, when we consider what has happened since. For a guy who claims to be an economist, that is a pretty scary bit of prognostication. I think most people would have to recognize that.

Why the lack of trust? That is the result when the Conservatives deny climate change in the face of the kind of overwhelming scientific evidence that exists, or when they deny there is a recession in the midst of a global economic meltdown as we have been seeing over the past number of months, or when they say they will balance the books when they have been in deficit for months, as we heard last fall in the fiscal update, which was clearly absolute nonsense and from which the government retreated.

That is the question. Will the Conservatives actually implement these amendments in this bill and act on the regulatory power that this gives them?

We all saw what the Conservatives did with the Kyoto protocol. We saw an announcement related to cap and trade two years ago, and nothing has happened. We saw what they did with Bill C-30 in a previous Parliament, which is where this initiative first saw the light of day.

And did we not have a bill related to fixed term elections? That seems to be something I can recall; something that evaporated in the mind of the Prime Minister around about last September.

Did we not have a promise not to tax income trusts? Did we not have a signed offshore accord with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that the Prime Minister said would not be abandoned? I think we did.

On the environment, in general, the trust factor is non-existent for the Conservative government. It announced a $1 billion clean energy fund, which sounded great. But how much of that is going toward things like solar power, wind power, tidal power or geothermal power? When the deputy minister appeared before the natural resources committee, she was asked about this fund and she told the committee that $850 million was targeted toward carbon capture and sequestration. Now, that is an important technology and it is of great concern to the oil sands, certainly. However, it is not the only issue. What is concerning is that the Conservatives want to give the impression they have this wonderful clean energy fund for a whole range of clean energies. We really see it is almost all going to one particular area.

Aside from this fundamental issue of trust, there are also concerns of what is not in the bill that raises other questions. For instance, what kind of consultation took place in relation to the second section which talks about interprovincial trade? Did the government consult the provinces? We do not know.

There are a variety of other concerns. The questions and comments that I hope will follow will give me an opportunity to talk about them more.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this bill replicates for all practical purposes the now defunct Bill C-30 on air quality introduced by the government. It caused considerable debate, especially at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The second part of Bill C-30 aimed to modernize and improve the Energy Efficiency Act. Of course, that legislation needed to be renewed, updated and improved. For that reason, among others, we will support Bill S-3.

However, the fact remains that it is clearly not enough and more needs to be done. It is clear from many of the comments made by stakeholders in the industrial and business sectors, as well as the environmental community, that the industry proposed these regulations with a shrug of their shoulders. That says it all. It is a step in the right direction, since the amendments presented in these regulations were necessary, but it is not nearly enough to address the problem and improve energy efficiency. We simply must go even further on this issue, because it constitutes one of the most important pillars in a real policy to fight climate change.

A climate change policy must have two basic components. The first is the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at their source and changing our industrial processes and lifestyles in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One way this can be accomplished is by changing how we produce energy. In the next few years, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, whether coal, gas or oil. We must develop new sources of energy in order to reduce our dependency on oil, for instance, which strains the budgets of individuals as well as of businesses and government. When we reduce our dependency on oil, we create conditions conducive to protecting the environment and improving the economy of our society.

This bill amends regulations to reflect advances in energy efficiency, especially with respect to standby power. That is significant. We must encourage such changes, suited to each type of appliance, especially in our homes. For example, an energy-efficient television will use 1 watt compared to 12 watts for a conventional television set. That is the case for certain appliances. If we really want to eliminate consumption, we should just pull the plug However, quite often we cannot because some devices have a memory and we would lose all the information.

It is important to update these technologies, to introduce regulations and to force businesses to change the manufacture of appliances especially when the technology is available. It is estimated that the implementation of new technologies for standby power alone could save families $35 a year and result in electricity savings equivalent to consumption by 300,000 households.

That part of the bill is good for the economy and for people's budgets.

This bill would also give the minister more power when it comes to labelling products that consume energy, and it would standardize the process, broadening the range of products to which labelling applies. That is important, but we feel that the government should go much farther. This kind of energy use labelling should not be restricted to appliances, such as dishwashers and televisions, or to light bulbs. It should also bring in a vehicle energy use labelling system like the one in Switzerland and elsewhere. In 2002, the Swiss implemented mandatory energy use labelling for new vehicles. That is the kind of energy use labelling we need.

Our proposed measure would require those who make and sell cars to affix a label containing information about fuel consumption, CO₂ emissions and energy efficiency to all new and used vehicles for sale. We think that this information should also appear on brochures and all advertising material. Labelling would raise awareness among individuals and companies about vehicle efficiency by providing information about fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. People need that information to make responsible, well-informed choices.

We think that the government should go further than this bill and implement mandatory energy use labelling for new vehicles offered for sale, something along the lines of the Swiss system. I really want to emphasize that because we believe that energy efficiency is about more than the environment and environmental protection. It is also about saving money and creating jobs. This is an opportunity for businesses, states, nations and countries to create jobs based on energy efficiency.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in today's debate on Bill S-3 to modernize the Energy Efficiency Act. This bill was introduced in the Senate on January 29, 2009 by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

This bill represents and replicates, for all practical purposes, part 2 of Bill C-30.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill S-3. This bill would enable the government to regulate products that use energy, as we have heard before, and my party is going to support it in order to move it forward.

Elements of this bill came out of the former Bill C-30, which had the misnomer being called the clean air act, which did a little for the reduction of pollution but missed the central challenge of our times in terms of the environment, and that is how to deal with global warming. The government has essentially been missing in action on this global challenge, which is going to require all countries to move forward.

We heard from the previous speaker about what is happening this year. We are at a fork in the road because later on this year in Copenhagen world leaders will meet to wrestle with and develop a mechanism to effectively reduce greenhouse gases against the backdrop of some new scientific data which, at the very least, should be keeping those tasked with this challenge awake at night.

It should keep all of us awake at night because when we compare the evidence from two years ago, sea levels are rising at twice the speed of what was anticipated. That is shocking. We have seen how the Arctic ice cap, the Antarctic ice cap and glaciers are shrinking at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Part of the reason is that global warming is actually causing rifts and crevices within the glaciers, which is causing water to seep through and big chunks to fall off. These areas which reflect sun back into the atmosphere are being removed and it is contributing to the problem in terms of global warming.

It is part of a nasty feedback loop that ties into something I will talk about a little later with respect to the warming of the oceans, but it also has an impact upon how the currents work in the north Atlantic. If that current system changes, we are going to have a catastrophic feedback loop that we have no idea how to address. This is a much more serious problem than scientists even thought.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to put a price on carbon. There is no two ways about that. There is no better system. We are going to have to put a price on carbon. We will have to find a way to develop a carbon trading system so the private sector can trade credits. This will enable us to bring down emissions.

We also have to deal with supporting initiatives that work. We need to encourage the use of solar power, geothermal power and wind power. Many of the technological challenges that have existed around wave and tidal power have been overcome, and I might say proudly that many of those have been overcome by Canadian scientists who have been working very hard to do it. That is an inexhaustible source of energy.

We can also look at some new technologies in terms of rotating buildings. There are new initiatives in the UAE and other countries where buildings can rotate to follow the sun and absorb energy, thereby reducing the amount of energy that is required to heat buildings.

The other issue, which is a new change on an old idea, is electric cars. There have been some new discoveries in electric cars. Lithium phosphate batteries are able to store enough energy but also release the energy quickly. Previously, we never had an effective battery that was able to store energy as well as release it quickly, which is what electric cars require. I would suggest the government invest in and encourage scientists working in these areas. A full court press must be done to support these initiatives.

Unfortunately, what has happened, quite shockingly I might add, is that in the last budget the government actually cut moneys to some key monitoring areas for global warming. Canada was a leader in terms of building a network across the world to address climate change. Unfortunately, as a leader in this, these groups are going to have those moneys eviscerated by the government. That would be a tragedy for our country and for the world.

At the end of the day, we also have to look at how we can educate the public to use inputs that are going to dramatically reduce their use of fossil-based fuels. It is interesting that we can dramatically reduce our utilization of fossil fuels by how we build our buildings. We can reduce the use of fossil fuels by 70% or more if we change how we build our buildings. The member who spoke last gave the very good suggestion that we should work toward a national building code that will set standards on how buildings can be built. That is one of the most effective ways to reduce our consumption of greenhouse gases.

A couple of years ago, Scientific American really did a fabulous job. It devoted a month to climate change. In that, it showcased a number of very effective solutions that have been done around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deal with climate change. One of the great articles in that journal was about how we can change the way we build our buildings.

In my last speech, I also spoke about the issue of forests. We know that deforestation is occurring at an unprecedented rate. As our population grows exponentially, our demand for products is also growing, so we are seeing an unprecedented level of deforestation. Madam Speaker, you and I know that our world cannot exist without forests. Forests have a value when they are cut down. Yet, suppose those forests had a value as they stand. In fact, they do because forests are, in effect, public utilities. They function as public utilities because they absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis. That has a value.

If we put a price on carbon at $10 a tonne and we know that a hectare of jungle in the Congo River Basin or Amazonia can absorb about 200 tonnes of carbon a year, that is $2000 a year per hectare. Previously, when Kyoto was put together, countries with large tropical forests like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil were leery of this and did not want to pursue it because they thought it might mitigate and affect their development. However, they have come around because they recognize that those moneys can be used for the development of the country in a sustainable way. In the case of Indonesia, that could be a net benefit of about $2 billion.

The catch in all this is that the people who live around and near these forests have to benefit. Where these programs have been tried, the failure, as it is in many development projects, is that the moneys do not get down to the people who need it the most. That is the central failure. The people who need to benefit, who are frequently the poorest people in the world, do not benefit from this. We need to enable ourselves to have a system with accountability to make sure that the people around those areas get a value for that forest and therefore do not cut it down.

If we do not do that, the system is doomed for failure. Putting a value on our forests, which are the lungs of the planet, is an intelligent way to preserve them. Our country has massive resources in terms of forests and we need to do a much better job of managing those forests. As I said earlier, we have rules and regulations that are governed by the provinces in terms of forestry code practices. However, speaking for my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and from having worked up north in B.C., we have found that in many cases those forestry practices are simply not adhered to because the companies doing it know that there is no effective enforcement mechanism.

We are seeing forests cut down right to the edge of rivers and where salmon-bearing streams occur. As a result, we are seeing that it is partially responsible for a massive depletion of our salmon stocks on the west coast. This is not an inevitable situation. This does not have to occur. If we are smart about how we develop and enforce our forestry practices, it will go a long way to ensuring that we have stable fisheries on the west coast as well as a forest that will be there in the future.

Biofuels are the coal of the renewable energy sector. Biofuels, in particular corn ethanol, is a disaster. Corn ethanol is the coal of the biofuel industry. We are subsidizing land to be wiped out and reseeded with corn which has a downstream effect that has been opposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Food Programme and others. By taking land and planting corn for biofuels, the energy that goes into processing that corn is much larger than what we get out of it. In other words, we are burning more fossil fuels to get a unit of energy out of corn. Also, we are removing areas that were previously acting as major carbon sinks and replanting with corn.

This is a lose-lose-lose proposition. I would strongly encourage the government to wrap its head around this. Corn biofuels are bad. It needs to stop subsidizing corn biofuels and start looking at alternative energies that actually work, such as solar, wind, tidal power, wave power with geo-thermal.

Some biofuels might work in terms of the detritus from forestry practices, and a few others, but, for heaven's sake, to take land and encourage the planting of corn to warp, twist and distort the system, that is actually causing incredible damage.

Another interesting thing that has happened concerns carbon scrubbers. We now know that there are proposals and developments that enable us to actually scrub the air of carbon dioxide, transferring that into a situation where the carbon is being pulled out of the atmosphere. I would submit that is something we need to consider and need to look at and I would encourage the government to do this.

Something the Liberal Party railed against In the previous budget was the government's failure to support research and development. We know that research and development will be the cornerstone of our country's ability to be competitive in the changing economy that will come out of the economic tsunami that has rolled across our planet and destroyed so many people's finances, so many countries' economies and has hurt so many people here in Canada and around the world.

The government must stop its antipathy toward science and research and understand clearly that research and development is one of the key cornerstones of the future of our country. The failure to invest in this will cause huge economic damage to our people and our country and it will result in the egress of a loss of some of our best and brightest minds.

Back in the late 1990s the then Liberal government saw this as a priority. After the deficits were slayed, the then government of Jean Chrétien put moneys into research and development dramatically. As a result of that, we were able to attract some of the best and brightest scientists from around the world. We have started to actually get to the forefront of science and research in many fields, whether it is medicine, physics, chemistry, proteomics or genomics.

In our neck of the woods, adaptive optics is being done at the Hertzberg Institute of Astrophysics. In fact, we are the third leader in the world in astronomy

What is happening now, whether it is in the Hertzberg Institute of Astrophysics, in Genome Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Research or NSERC, the sudden cut of moneys by the government at a time when an economic stimulus demands that it invests in research and development, will negatively and profoundly affect the ability of our country to be economically competitive in the future.

What the government is doing is harming the future of our children and of our grandchildren and we cannot allow that to occur.

I know that my party, the Liberal Party, has told the government, loud and clear, to get smart and understand the importance of research and development and understand that it is a cornerstone of our economy. We cannot divorce publicly funded research and development from the future of our economy or our nation. It is critically important.

It also speaks to the critical importance of the government to invest in scientific research and climate change. We know there is a great deal of skepticism on the other side that this is even occurring. We know the government thinks this is simply a natural ebb and flow of temperature changes over time. However, that ignores 99% of the scientists who have made a clear, compelling and provocative argument to say that this is not simply the normal variance of temperature over time, that this is a fact. Unless the government deals with this now and works with other countries, the future of our nation and our world will be compromised. It is a very serious problem because we are dealing with the extinction of a lot of species. I do not want to be alarmist about it but we are one of those species. It is critically important that the government do this.

The government also needs to look at best practices. One of the singular failures that we have seen, for some strange reason, is the inability of the government to say that it does not need to necessarily reinvent the wheel, but as a first step we should look at best practices within our country and around the world. We should draw them together to ensure those best practices are moved out from the bench, from theory, from small practices and into a much larger acceptance and involvement by a greater number of people. This can and has to be done and it is simple to do.

Why not create a centre for best practices at the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and all of the different scientific areas, whether it is NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC? We can take best practices in all those areas and do a good job of trying to share them with others in our country and with those around the world.

When the world comes to Copenhagen at the end of this year, Canada will be sitting there but we cannot be a second rate player in this. We cannot sit on the sidelines and simply see where this goes. What is required, before the world comes to Copenhagen, is that we start to develop and begin to lead. We develop a coalition of the willing, and there is no reason the government cannot do that.

We know that President Obama is trying. I believe 10% of the $783 billion stimulus package is devoted to climate change. The Americans are trying to find ways to bring down the utilization of fossil fuels and utilize new tools and new technologies to address that. The president also knows that there will be a global demand for this.

We all know that China and India are producing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. We also know that as their demand increases, and it will increase geometrically, the impact upon our environment will be huge.

The previous president of the United States and our current Prime Minister have made the fallacious argument that these countries need to grasp onto this themselves and come to the table or we will not play ball. That is not leadership. What the government could do is sit down and engage both of these countries. At the end of the day, they will be impacted by global change just like everybody else. That is not something any government wants to do.

With the diaspora that we have here and have come from Asia, why do we not utilize those folks here and engage both China and India in a way that few other countries can?

We have an opportunity to cease the day and engage other countries. We can use best practices and tackle this beast called climate change once and for all. Failure to do that is not an option.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the issues of energy efficiency and we recall Bill C-30 from the previous Parliament, the so-called clean air act which contained some of these provisions, we can also recall the government talked about how it wanted to have a made in Canada plan. That was its position when it took government. Now it seems it is no longer interested in that. It has dropped that kind of phrasing. Now what it looks like is it is waiting and we are going to have a made in the U.S.A. plan.

Could she comment on what the government is doing in this regard?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill S-3. It is a very important concept, but as hon. members will see from my remarks today, the bill does not go anywhere near far enough. A number of my colleagues in the House have said it is nice that we are taking some measures, but if we are to get serious about addressing pollution control and climate change, there is far more that needs to be done.

Why is energy efficiency important? Why would we even bother to bring forward amendments like this? We need to reduce our energy use. Why do we need to reduce energy use? Because most of our energy generation in Canada at this point in time, except for hydroelectricity, is fossil fuel based. Fossil fuel based power is the largest source of greenhouse gases that are emitted in Canada, and also the largest source of a number of pollutants.

Coal-fired power, which happens to be the largest source of greenhouse gases being emitted in Canada right now, is also the largest source of industrial mercury in Canada. It has been designated by the Government of Canada as being the priority substance for reduction. By getting more effective with energy use, we can reduce pollution and neurotoxins.

It provides cost savings. By reducing energy use, we save a lot of money not only to individual homeowners and business owners, but also to the Government of Canada. In this time of economic crisis when programs that should be supported are being cut left, right and centre, we could make a lot more revenue available to good programs if we cut energy use.

We can also save a lot of money, if people cut down their energy use, by building new generation facilities and transmission lines. The costs that individual homeowners, businesses and the government pay for electricity are based on the development of new generation and transmission lines, some of those transmission lines being built for export.

There is also the environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity: the coal mines, the cooling ponds and so forth. Overall, it is a laudatory objective. The preamble of Bill S-3 states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring sustained improvement in the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy;

I will speak to that in a minute and talk about the inadequacies of the bill in dealing with what the preamble states.

Now more than ever the federal government needs to assert its powers to trigger energy efficient measures. We can do that through environmental protection measures. By having strict environmental controls, we encourage industry to be more efficient in how it generates power and to look for ways where it can actually encourage people to retrofit their homes.

One concrete example of that is in California where Pacific Gas and Electric Company determined it made more sense rather than build a new, big, expensive generation facility, to pay people to retrofit their homes and businesses. It has been a very successful program. The end result was that they got a higher rate, but people used less power.

The Government of Canada could also use its fiscal powers. It could impose fees, a higher cost on non-energy-efficient appliances and so forth. There is a lot of market measures we could use that we are simply not using. We could use our spending power. We could put conditions on the transfer of money.

For example, we are sending billions of dollars to provincial governments and to the private sector to test carbon sequestration. We could be putting conditions on that money by saying to industry that if it agreed to phase out some of its coal-fired power plants, we would help pay for its testing of technology.

This bill, as the Conservatives' plan to tackle climate change, is a pretty small baby step in the right direction, but it falls short. The amendments mirror the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act in Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change bill, which was approved by the environment committee in the 39th Parliament but has not been acted upon. That bill would have added a preamble to the Energy Efficiency Act to support setting continuous economy-wide improvement targets in energy efficiency in Canada, with two sections added to the Energy Efficiency Act.

The first change that would have been made would require the governor in council to prescribe energy efficient standards for all energy-using products, not just a handful, this list of five, but all energy-using products that are responsible for significant or growing energy consumption in Canada.

Second, the cabinet would be required to review all energy efficient standards within three years after they were introduced or amended in after third year thereafter. Through this review, every energy efficiency standard would have had to meet or exceed the most stringent levels found in North America.

Regrettably the bill is not that far-reaching. It is extremely limited.

The bill would delete that second requirement. There is no guarantee that the standards made would be as good as any other North American jurisdiction. This could mean that, once again, Canada could be outstripped by the United States on energy efficiency and ultimately on climate change, including setting standards for the manufacture of equipment. If we do not set higher energy standards, there is a possibility that we could not even ship our goods or sell them to the United States if it has higher standards, which President Obama is moving toward.

President Obama has directed higher efficiency standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and so forth. He has directed quick, clear progress on energy efficiency. The final rules are to be in place by this August, requiring energy efficiency standards for a very lengthy list of products, three times the list offered up in Bill S-3. I will not go through the entire review, but is a very comprehensive list.

His directive also asks for his department of energy to meet all deadlines in setting energy standards and evaluate them in priority order and finish some ahead of schedule if possible.

Bill S-3 will subject a limited list of products to new energy efficiency regulations for only commercial clothes washers, dishwashers, incandescent fluorescent lamps, battery chargers and satellite set top boxes. There is no indication whether the standards released will be as stringent as those in the United States and whether there will be any mechanism to ensure Canada is a leader in energy efficiency rather than a follower.

Instead of this minimalist approach, why are we not allowing Canadians to buy the best possible energy efficient appliances? Why are we continuing to allow the sale and the manufacturing in Canada of products that are not serving Canadians? Canadians will be best served by the most efficient possible appliance. Why do we not then only enable the sale of the most efficient energy appliances or ban the sale of outdated ones that burn energy and put up costs for all Canadians?

Why not pursue innovative approaches such as what the Pembina Institute has talked about and that some American states have adopted, for example, the innovative electricity conservation option called “virtual power”. If any kind of mechanism, building or part of a building or appliance is not in use, the computer automatically shuts off that equipment. It is an incredibly innovative approach and it is time for our country to move ahead into these more innovative approaches.

Bill S-3 professes to ensure the sustained improvement in the efficient use of energy in all sectors. If we are serious about addressing energy efficiency and energy conservation in Canada, we need to tackle the single largest source of greenhouse gases. Incidentally it is also the single largest remaining source of industrial mercury emissions in Canada and across North America. That is coal-fired power plants.

Canada is criticizing the United States and China for their proposals for the expansion of the coal-fired power plants. The federal government is doing nothing in the exercise of its available powers and mandate to foster the closure of these plants at the end of their operating life. The federal government should take this action if we are really serious about energy efficiency in Canada.

The majority of coal-fired power plants have a 30% energy efficiency. Even the most efficient operate a 40% efficiency. That is a super critical plant. As far as I am aware, there is only one such plant in Canada, and that is in Alberta.

To run pollution control equipment, which we hope these plants will clean up their act and add on more pollution control equipment, they need to burn more coal. We get into this perverse cycle where in order to have energy efficiency and cost savings for the coal-fired generators, we burn more coal.

I want to offer up to the House as well some information that has come to my attention. I sought information from the government on the energy efficiency of public buildings. That is a sector where President Obama is leading. In his new stimulus package he has directed a massive energy efficiency program for all public buildings across the United States of America. We do not have that kind of stimulus package in our budget.

The information provided to me is most invaluable to the House. I have discovered that of the more than 26,000 buildings held by the Government of Canada, only 10 buildings are in the process of doing any energy efficient work whatsoever toward a LEED standard. That is reprehensible. If we are to expect the private sector, or households, or small businesses to move in the direction of energy efficiency, to turn in their older appliances and recyclables and buy more energy efficient equipment, surely the government should set the stage by example.

Environment Canada, alone, owns more than 5,000 buildings, yet only one of those buildings is in the process of being retrofitted. If we retrofitted the public buildings and saved only 1% energy use in our public facilities, we would save $3.5 million a year. If we improved the energy efficiency of our public buildings by 5%, we would save more than $18 million a year. Think of the programs for child care, for education, for seniors, for affordable housing, for environmental protection that we could benefit with $18 million a year. Essentially Canadian money is going out the stack in these government facilities.

I commend the government for bringing the bill forward. It is a nice tiny baby step forward. However, if we are to live up to what the bill says, which is improving energy efficiency in all sectors of the Canadian economy, then it is incumbent upon the government to table legislation forthwith to move us forward into this century and take real action on climate change, pollution reduction and protect Canadian health and save Canadians money.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member took part in the study in a previous Parliament of Bill C-30 which included some of the measures that are proposed in this bill on energy efficiency. However, what I would like to ask him about are the things that we do not see in this bill.

I know he worked with other opposition parties and members on the committee to make considerable improvements to what the Conservatives called the so-called clean air act, which it clearly was not when it started but by the time it had been amended and revised considerably by the committee, it was actually beginning to look not so bad.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on what has been left out here, what we do not see here.

He talked a bit about ecoENERGY which was gutted in the recent budget. Perhaps he would like to comment again on what is missing in the budget in relation to energy efficiency.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.

It is interesting to follow the parliamentary secretary after his remarks and his responses to questions with a couple of fundamental facts for Canadians to understand. First, this bill is actually being sponsored by the leader of the government in the Senate, but of course the critic there is hon. Grant Mitchell, a Liberal senator who has been driving this through the Senate for some time now.

It is a bill that will make, as the parliamentary secretary has said, a number of changes to the existing Energy Efficiency Act here in Canada. It will, in effect, broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate consumer products that use energy, which in and of itself is a good thing.

The fundamental challenge, the theme I am going to come back to, about this bill and the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act is that they are now being presented completely and utterly in isolation. They are presented in isolation of a climate change plan for the country. They are presented in isolation from fiscal structures in the country that may or may not be driving energy efficiency because we all know that energy efficiency and a carbon constrained future, with the reduction of greenhouse gases, is a major and massive competitive factor that Canada is now pursuing.

We are in a globally highly sought after race which many jurisdictions want to win, and that is the race to better and higher energy efficiency standards for our production processes, for the services we render, and for the way in which the government procures its goods and services.

There is yet another missing link in this package. How do these energy efficiency measures connect with a comprehensive innovative strategy for the future of Canada? How do they connect to the existing fiscal measures that are in place? How do they connect to the government's overall program expenditures? How do they connect to the government's own procurement system, having watched the green procurement regime of the previous government disappear under this government?

How is it connected to the government's own energy efficient audit system for Canadian homeowners which has been seriously undermined and weakened? How does it connect to the government's new short-term funding for the building of decks and patios to try to stimulate the economy? How does it connect to the standards by which stimulus money is being invested in Canadian society? What is the matrix here that the government is bringing to bear on billions of dollars of necessary stimulus spending? How do these connect?

It is all so passing strange that the government has been mounting for months, now a campaign, the publicity and communications campaign, to tell Canadians that it is a red tape buster or, in the case of energy efficiency and climate change, a green tape buster. The Minister of Transport, for example, regularly talks about being the accountability guy, the efficiency guy.

Why is it, surreptitiously, that just last Friday afternoon the Government of Canada, the Conservatives, tabled an outrageous document which lists hundreds of exceptions for environmental assessment provisions in this country claiming that these have to be removed, these standards for environmental assessment have to be removed because, of course, they will impede, the government suggests, stimulus investment in the Canadian economy.

How do we square this? On the one hand, we have one document that says we have to do away with environmental assessment, and yet now we have a new series of amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act which say that businesses are going to have to abide by a whole new suite of energy efficiency standards.

Is not this suite of energy efficiency amendments yet more red tape being tabled by the Conservative Party, or really is the Conservative Party being disingenuous, being deliberately misleading with the Canadian people about whether environmental assessment is in fact an impediment to getting important stimulus investment out the door?

However, it is worse than that. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities told us there already exists over $13 billion of so-called shovel-ready projects that have been environmentally assessed. So why is it that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth? Which story are Canadians supposed to believe?

I think what we are seeing here is the end result of three and a half years of non-stop lurching by the Conservative Party when it comes to energy efficiency and the climate change crisis. It is jumping literally from ice floe to ice floe as the Arctic thaws at breakneck speed.

There is no climate change plan in this country. There is no more Turning the Corner plan. Everything has evaporated into thin air. Instead of actually stopping the nonsense, stopping the lurching from one communications campaign to another over the past three and a half years on the climate change crisis, the government is introducing these minor but important changes to the Energy Efficiency Act and expecting Canadians to believe these amendments constitute a climate change plan. They do not.

There is absolutely no doubt now; it is conclusive. Canada has abandoned the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, although the government does not have the guts to stand up and say it.

It is the only international treaty in existence on the planet today to deal with atmospheric carrying capacity and the climate change crisis. There is no other. For any government that unilaterally changes the baseline year, for example, from 1990 to 2006, which is also part of the government's communications campaign, the universe only started in 2006. In terms of everything that came before, such as Prime Minister Mulroney's work, Mr. Stanfield's work, Mr. Trudeau's work, the work of successive governments, in the communications campaign none of that existed before.

Therefore, in 2006, the government came and unilaterally changed the terms of conditions of our climate change obligations, and instead of coming clean and telling the world, the international community and Canadians, that it was abandoning the only international agreement there is, it bobbed, weaved, lurched and did what it did best. It communicated with shock and awe. It tried to stop the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act by sending a minister into a committee of the other place, making a fool of himself by actually putting up fictitious numbers and then getting caught. Like the schoolchild who gets caught cheating on the exam, the minister was really reminiscent of a child who has an answer for everything except for the fact that he got cheating on the exam.

Therefore, we have a situation now where this is completely incoherent. It attaches to nothing. Eleven independent groups have examined the government's previous Turning the Corner environmental climate change plan. Each and every single group that has examined the government's plan has said it is not real. It cannot possibly achieve the targets that the government says it will achieve.

Is that why, for example, we have heard no talk of this Turning the Corner plan in months since the last election campaign?

Is that why the only thing the Government of Canada can put in the window on climate change is a so-called dialogue with the United States, a dialogue I described as a dialogue of the deaf?

Canada is now apparently entering dialogue and negotiation with the United States on an appropriate so-called continental climate change response, but we have no plan.

Who in their right mind, in any organization—and I defy the Conservatives to name one organization in any sector of Canadian society, business, non-governmental, civil society, government, anywhere—would purport to be entering into negotiations with a sovereign state like the United States that excels at negotiations, and have no plan?

I think the only group that is purporting to foist this on the Canadian people is the Conservative Party of Canada. How can one enter into negotiations without a plan? One cannot.

We now have a situation where these amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act are being put in the window as window dressing, just like the government's environmental enforcement provisions in another act, in order to masquerade or to cover the fact that there is no climate change plan for this country, over and over again. I do not know what it is going to take.

Even the government cloaking itself in the flag of Obama is not working, because Canadians know they should not be taking their climate change strategy and their plan out of Washington. We should not be taking the design for a cap and trade system out of Washington. We should not be taking the price of a tonne of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in carbon dioxide equivalent measurement out of Washington.

We should not be abandoning the more than 174 countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and wait for Washington. We should not be waiting for 535 congressmen and congresswomen in Washington who have the extremely difficult task of delivering up a cap and trade system and a renewable energy system to President Obama.

This bill to amend the Energy Efficiency Act does not a climate change plan make. It is a simple series of obvious amendments to deal with the fact that the government has no plan.

One of the important provisions of the bill, I will say, is this: It will require that the minister compare Canada's energy efficiency standards to those of the United States and Mexico and report to Parliament here every three years. That is important because of the preponderance of white goods that are now being manufactured in a continental perspective in Mexico.

That is important. It does increase the scope and flexibility of the authority the government can bring for more effective regulation to govern energy consumption. That is a good thing.

We have had this debate. It was at the Canada's Clean Air Act hearings, the hearings of the special legislative committee. We spent hours, for months, sitting until midnight, working and working harder yet again to achieve a proper outcome for the country.

What was the end result? The Prime Minister took his soccer ball and went home with it. He prorogued Parliament. He did not like the outcome of the work of parliamentarians. He was not prepared to abide by the majority wishes of this House and took his ball and went home with it.

We have now been set back at least three and a half years, probably five years, in dealing with the climate change crisis. Once again, Energy Efficiency Act amendments do not a climate change plan make.

Why is the government unable to tell us how the knee bone connects to the thigh bone, or the hip bone connects to the thigh bone? It is incapable of telling us because it has not done its homework.

When it came into power in 2006, it set loose a series of ministers who were two- and three-men wrecking crews. They disassembled the climate change programming that was in place. They cut over $5 billion from climate change programming.

Here are some of the ironic aspects of those changes.

Just a month ago, the Prime Minister's own National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy said that we need a commercial energy efficiency investment program. In 2006, the government killed a program called the commercial building retrofit program because it was brought in by a former government. How could it possibly be good if it was not aligned to the speak-think of the Conservative Party?

The wind power production incentive, the WPPI, as it was called, brought in and providing good fiscal stimulus for our transition to a carbon-constrained future, is gone. The government did not like it. It did not belong to the Conservatives. It could not be Conservative speak-think. The Conservatives could not sell it as theirs. Everything that came before was bad.

The renewable power production incentive, important for solar panels, wave technology, tidal energy sources, biomass and other potentials, is effectively gone. It does not exist anymore.

There is yet another one. All Canadians can see the government's silly ads on television right now about tax credits and picking which one applies to oneself, as if that makes a climate change policy. Forewarned by the official opposition and its own officials at Environment Canada and Finance Canada, the government of tax credits brought in a tax-deductible transit pass.

Just a month ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development chided the government, or worse than chided, I think, took the government to serious task about the fact that it claimed it would reduce tens of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. It cost $637 million, and in the words of the commissioner, had no effect on reducing greenhouse gases. Worse, it had no effect on driving up ridership in our public transit systems. Instead of taking the $637 million and investing it as it should have in the capital needs, the infrastructure needs of public transit systems across this country, it chose to use yet another tax credit to try to convince Canadians it was the right thing to do.

It is no wonder that our allies and countries with whom we have been doing business for 50 years on energy and environmental issues are scratching their heads and wondering in disbelief what has happened to the country of Canada when it comes to environment, energy and economic opportunities.

The government brought in a $1.5 billion ecotrust. Canadians remember that one. It was during the last Parliament.

We had the Minister of the Environment at the committee and we asked him to tell us why the government put $1.5 billion into a trust fund. He said provinces were drawing it down and it was being used for greenhouse gas emission reductions. We asked him if he could illustrate just one project where the money was spent. The minister could not. We then asked him how many tonnes of greenhouse gases have been reduced as a result of that fund, or what metrics were forced on the provinces, what standards he told the provinces they ought to abide by in spending the money. It turns out that there are no metrics or standards.

It is no surprise that this bill on amending the Energy Efficiency Act cannot be seen in isolation. It is being presented in isolation, but it cannot be seen in isolation. It is no surprise that it does not connect to programmatic spending or fiscal stimuli. It does not connect at all to our climate change plan because we do not have one.

Now we are drifting and waiting for Washington. I think it is a shameful thing for Canada to abandon its sovereignty in preparing a climate change strategy for this country such that we can be good international citizens and come to the negotiating table in Copenhagen with clean hands, something that will be very important as we seek the cooperation of the world to achieve an implementable climate change agreement for 2012 and beyond.

World Environment Day

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating World Environment Day . This year's theme is “Kick the habit! Towards a low carbon economy”.

The Liberal Party, along with the other opposition parties, worked on Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, to ensure that the Conservative government would take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Conservatives have refused to bring the bill back to parliament for debate.

The government does not believe in imposing hard targets for large final emitters. It does not believe in higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks. It does not believe in allowing Canadian companies to trade emission credits internationally.

The environment will be celebrated throughout the world today. It is time for this government to take concrete action. The first step would be to reintroduce the Clean Air Act.This would be supported by the three opposition parties, who have worked hard to ensure that the government implements real measures.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Let us make it clear right at the start that the purpose of this government bill, which in itself contains no standards whatsoever, is to authorize the government to enact regulations governing the Canadian production of biofuels. In other words, the bill would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline.

In order to have a better understanding of legislative developments in the biofuels file, let us begin by reminding hon. members that the proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 from the previous session. I would remind the House that this bill, known as the clean air act, was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appeared in the amended version of the bill.

It would be a good thing to remind hon. members at this point that the government had already announced that an amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations to require an average of 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations would also require an average of 2% renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

I would point out that the Bloc Québécois has been concerned since the beginning about the environmental and social consequences of the use of corn ethanol. It therefore submitted amendments in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food specifically intended to better monitor biofuel regulation. These amendments would, for instance, have enabled committee members to keep abreast of technological advances in the field of renewable biofuels and also to evaluate the appropriateness of the measures proposed by the government.

Renewable fuels are one way for us to reduce greenhouse gases, but not the only way. Such fuels can also help us reduce our dependence on oil. However, not all renewable fuels are equal. That is very important to realize. A study by the committee of the federal government's regulations could have looked further into biofuels, their sources and their potential consequences. Unfortunately, the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were all rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

In light of this, the Bloc Québécois then moved, in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a motion that asked:

That the Committee recommend that the government ensure that the implementation of regulations resulting from the eventual adoption of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, not result in an increase in the proportion of Canadian corn production currently used to produce ethanol and that it be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

The adoption of this motion would have kept the current proportion of land seeded with corn for use in ethanol production. For example, if 15% of Canadian corn production is currently being used to produce ethanol, the motion would have ensured that 15% of that production continued to be used to produce ethanol.

Unfortunately, by rejecting the motion, the Conservatives have sent a clear message: they have no intention of developing the biofuel industry in a balanced manner. The regulation that will result from Bill C-33 may be conducive to excess. I cannot stress that enough.

We are in favour of renewable fuels but, in our opinion, this bill, which allows the federal government to regulate the level of biofuel in gasoline, diesel and fuel oil, must be passed in order to ensure sustainable development.

The federal government cannot try to find a measure that reduces both greenhouse gas emissions and our dependency on oil while at the same time it risks bringing about social and environmental consequences by increasing the proportion of corn production currently dedicated to ethanol production. If it adopts this contradictory approach, it risks completely eliminating any of the benefits it is trying to create through this bill. The Bloc Québécois cannot endorse such action.

This is one of the reasons that we are in favour of the amendment we are debating today, which asks that Bill C-33 be sent back to committee to be further studied in the context of the most recent scientific, environmental, agricultural and international developments.

For us, in terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This technique, still in its experimental stage, uses an inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground.

Research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose, that is, fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses.

Iogen Corporation has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years.

A pilot plant in Sweden, for example, is producing ethanol from wood chips. The process produces three co-products that can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide gas and ethanol.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec has already asked the federal government for assistance to conduct a market study to determine whether constructing a biodiesel plant would be feasible. A very profitable market could be developed in which animal oils and animal product residues could eventually be turned into biofuel.

We think that ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste, and other types of fuels still in the experimental stage look like a very interesting possibility.

In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec. In fact, during my tour of the Varennes facilities over six months ago, the CEO, a particularly visionary leader, told me that future development of his plant would be based on second generation ethanol production using household waste.

Before the regulations are implemented, the Bloc Québécois wants to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. We must not lose sight of the fact that the original intention of this bill was to try to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our oil dependency.

If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, including a plan to reduce dependency on oil, among other things, rather than trying to go against the current and scuttling Quebec's efforts with its inaction in the fight against greenhouse gases.

It could also, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois, require automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada, like the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

However, we know the Conservative government's position on this matter: rather than adopting a standard supported by those who have shown leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases, it chose to go with that of the Bush administration, which is less stringent and seems to be designed specifically to spare American auto manufacturers.

However, although there is no consensus on the environmental record of an alternate fuel, it is definitely responsible to have some reservations about it. Thus, in a letter last May about Bill C-33, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec wrote:

The federation agrees with the objective of the bill. However, this objective cannot be attained unless certain conditions are fulfilled. On the one hand, the industry cannot develop fully without adequate government support in terms of human and financial resources. On the other hand, we have to ensure that the life cycle of the renewable fuels chosen offers true environmental and energy benefits compared to oil products.

Furthermore, if it potentially worsens troubling social and environmental problems, elected members must make the responsible and appropriate decision, must refuse to continue in that direction and must attempt to propose alternative solutions.

That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois is doing. Although we initially supported the principle of the bill, we proposed significant amendments, which sought, among other things, to shed light on the environmental record and to ensure oversight of the potential negative effects of choosing one type of replacement fuel over another. I would remind members that these amendments and motions were defeated in two separate committees by the Conservative government with the support of the Liberal Party. This point is central to our position.

When the government commits more than $2 billion of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money to a bill of this scope, it is important to ensure that all the objectives of this bill will be reached and that the medium- and long-term negative effects are balanced and reasonable.

In closing, I would like to say that this is a complex bill. As an MP, I have had a number of calls and letters from producers urging my colleagues and I to vote in favour of this bill, while a number of citizens have called on us to vote against it. This bill concerns me ethically, personally and emotionally, since I represent an agricultural riding. I am very familiar with the situation facing many farmers who are trying to make ends meet, who are fighting to develop new markets, who are trying to build a better life and who want to keep doing their share to protect the environment.

After our discussions, a vast majority of the people I spoke with understand our position and admit that it is balanced, reasonable and responsible, and that it is important to make the right choices and reach one's objectives as well as possible. I will conclude by saying that it is important to pursue ethanol development from a variety of sources. In this sense, the Bloc Québécois motion, which was rejected by the Conservatives, and from which the Liberals abstained, was a step in the right direction. It is important to make informed decisions that take different parameters into account and that meet the environmental, social and economic objectives.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here to listen to the presentation by the member for Nunavut and I must say that she has been a champion on behalf of the interests of first nations, Inuit and Métis.

In a prior session of Parliament, on government Bill C-30 dealing with climate change, I can recall that there actually was a point of order raised with regard to the release of a draft bill to the public prior to it being tabled in the House. The government argued that the presentation of that draft bill to stakeholders, being environmental groups, et cetera, was necessary for full consultation to ensure there was an understanding and to ensure we had the best possible bill come forward.

I use that as a parallel, as with the urging of those who are participating in this debate, that there should have been broader consultation even before this bill came in. Now the members are arguing, very forcefully, that we need to have the input of the grassroots, as the member for Nunavut said, so that women and children can live safer and healthier lives, and that we need to do it the right way and we do need to consult fully.

However, I am concerned, and I do not know whether the member shares my concern, that the government has simply dismissed the requests and the urgings to have full consultations during the committee process and is urging members simply to pass the bill because it is a good bill. I do not agree with that approach and I wonder if the member has some comments to add.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that good presentation on the nature of our concerns. Our concerns lie with the enabling nature of this bill on this very important topic. We tried very diligently in the agriculture committee to put forward conditions that should be attached to the kinds of directions we are to take. If we are trying to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country, then the bill should make that part of the solution.

This particular work on biofuels was also part of Bill C-30. Within the larger bill there were opportunities to set the conditions within the industry for the direction that we are taking. This bill, without Bill C-30, has none of that. This is a piece of work that was stripped bare and rammed through the committee against the good advice of many people who support the biofuel industry, and now we are ramming it through Parliament and we do not have a chance to take a look at the meat, the regulations.

I can support this bill if we have the opportunity to make sure that we do a good job for Canadians. I would ask my colleague to give me some of the reasons why the Liberals and the Conservatives might not want to support this simple effort to make sure that we do the right thing here.

Business of the House

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question with regard to the Thursday question.

Having looked over the House calendar very carefully, the first thing that is obvious is that there is a real dearth of new legislation, which leads one to the conclusion that the government certainly seems to have run out of steam and ideas. There is really nothing there. In fact, some pieces of legislation that the government did introduce are actually provisions that were previously approved but did not get through, so they are just a reintroduction.

I would like to ask about two bills that have gone through the House but have yet to come back. Bill C-21, deals with human rights for aboriginal people. From the first session of this Parliament, there is Bill C-30, the climate change bill. Both of these bills have been through committee. We are waiting for both of them to come back into the House. I think the government should give us an explanation as to why these bills are not coming back to the House.

I also wonder if the government House leader would illuminate us as to whether or not there are other opposition days. We know that there will be one when we get back, but I wonder if he would tell us if he is allotting the other oppositions days and what days they will be.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. He mentioned clause 10 a couple of time in there; I'm not sure if he actually commented on clause 10. He gave a pretty big lecture about the politics of the environment, but we do have important privileges here in how we arrive at these bills in terms of process. It's not simply about having the votes around the table, but the opportunity to fully debate this particular issue, which brings me to the issue at hand with clause 10, as amended.

We've been involved in some pretty important discussion here at this table. Certainly this side is interested in fully debating this and exploring the ramifications of this particular bill, as well as this particular clause within that bill. I want to zero in.

Of course clause 10 as amended mentions a number of potential tools available to the federal government as it addresses the issue of expected reductions. It talks about targets, emission limits, mechanisms, fiscal incentives, and things like that.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to start with one of the ones mentioned, the so-called just transition fund. I think this is an important mechanism. It is important first because of its name. The opposition says there's a need for a just transition fund; the implication, of course, is that the transition for industry and working families under this particular bill will be anything but just.

What does an unjust transition for working families in Canada mean? Well, I think the cold, hard truth, Mr. Chair, is that a mechanism such as the one mentioned in clause 10 would translate into job losses.

That's not just a flight of fancy stated by an opposition member here today, Mr. Chair. We've heard testimony at this particular committee. Take, for example, Mr. David Sawyer, an economist at EnviroEconomics. He was asked to speak about the economic implications and suggested policy measures perhaps similar to those mentioned in clause 10.

Here's what Mr. Sawyer had to say in front of this committee. In terms of achieving targets and with respect to Bill C-377, which includes, of course, clause 10, he said that we couldn't achieve these--and here's the quote--“without significant economic dislocations”. That's on page 4 of the testimony before this committee on February 6, 2008.

“Dislocations” is a bit of a sanitized word, but what it really means is job losses. That translates into a very important human cost, one that the opposition intentionally designs in naming a just transition fund. Remember, they accept in clause 10 that the transition under this bill to these targets will be anything but just for working families.

Let's go a little further into Mr. Sawyer's testimony before this committee. He referred to his economic modelling, which he didn't think was extremely costly. I'm going to quote here again; this is page 5 of the testimony from February 6. He said, “This national picture masks some sectoral and regional variations.” He said that there will be “competitiveness impacts”. He says, and I quote, that for industry, “...competitiveness impacts will be real and significant for some segments of the economy”. He implies further in his testimony that at least partly a factor that could contribute--and that's jobs for working families--is manufacturing moving to China. He said there were many factors in that particular trend, but this is certainly one of them.

In terms of a “just” transition, for example, how just is it to put an auto worker out of a job today without any guarantee or certainty about where they're going tomorrow? How do you lead a family through troubling times like that, Mr. Chairman?

When illustrating this point, I'm reminded of my own time as an auto worker. I worked on the assembly line at Chrysler and then DaimlerChrysler, and eventually Chrysler again, for six and a half years. It was a very difficult time for the industry. One of the plants I worked at closed down. The years leading up to the closure were unbelievably stressful. I don't think it's easy for some to truly appreciate job loss in that sector, or what it means to be living with that kind of uncertainty day by day in a family. As a young family at the time, we had two kids when the truck assembly plant closed down. We had just taken out our first mortgage. It was a time of enormous stress and uncertainty, and we had tough living conditions day to day.

The plant finally closed. I was blessed in the sense that I had some collective bargaining rights to move to a different factory, but very many were without a job. That's what the economists call “dislocation”. This dislocation is anticipated by the opposition, forced by the opposition, when they talk about a so-called “just” transition fund for industry.

I think we have to anticipate the challenges of the industry. There are already difficult, challenging factors for the automotive industry. Consumers in the United States are battered; in many cases they are bankrupt or their credit is overextended, and they're not purchasing our vehicles anymore. That's a particularly troubling point for the automotive industry. That's one of the competitiveness factors Mr. Sawyer refers to when he talks about “competitiveness impacts”. We have to consider that as context for these types of tools and what this bill is proposing to do: force an unjust transition on Canadian workers.

There are additional effects. What about the automotive supply chain? What does an unjust transition look like for them? These are important things to spell out, Mr. Chair, because this could get to the scope of a just transition. How big would this just transition fund have to be?

It's not just the auto assembly jobs that are potentially affected by this measure in clause 10. Here's what the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association highlighted to another committee of the House--on February 6, 2007, interestingly enough. I'm reading from page 20 of the testimony before the Bill C-30 committee. At that particular point they talked about the auto industry; Mr. Nantais, who was representing the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, expanded on it. He said it's not just the assembly jobs, but “...we look to our full supply chain”. That's everything from impacts on “...mining the ore in the ground, through to steel production, plastic productions, and petrochemicals”. The supply chain is vast, and the number of working families supported by that....

I know the opposition takes great delight in the debate around Bill C-377, in a sense kicking the oil sands in the shins an awful lot, but the extraction and refinement of petrochemicals and their uses in plastics that go into vehicles are all supporting workers not just in the extraction end of it in Alberta, but also in the struggling Ontario economy.

This is a critical time, and they want to impose an unjust transition. They want the government to take up a just transition fund, which I would suspect, Mr. Chair, would be of a very significant scope and magnitude.

In fact, I had the opportunity to probe that question with Mr. Sawyer before this committee. A little bit further on, I was boring down into the economic modelling that Mr. Sawyer had conducted and presented to this committee. His original costing was done on sort of a percentage of GDP basis regarding what it would cost this economy annually.

Getting down further into the numbers, I said to him--and it's on page 18 in the February 6, 2008, testimony before this committee--

By GDP assessments, do you mean simply the cost of compliance, or do those include the income replacement cost you talked about?

Income replacement, of course, is for those who are dislocated and those who have lost their jobs in an unjust transition.

I went on to say:

There is job loss and increased costs for energy, for example, that eat into fixed income for seniors. Are those costs reflected in your analysis of cost, for example?

He said “No, they're not.” He did say that those are the types of questions that need to be asked and answered.

And yet, Mr. Chair, when we debate clause 10 and we get into the substance of proposed mechanisms, we ask whether there should be costing done on some of these things. Of course the opposition says no, we just need to ram this thing through and leave it up to the government to decide--in effect, leave it up to the government to deal with the wreckage that they hope to create among working families in Canada, forcing an unjust transition on them.

These are important things. Mr. Chair, I would suggest that the best transition, the most just transition for workers in this country in fact is in the balanced targets and plan of the government in the Turning the Corner plan. It's a pretty comprehensive plan. I think it addresses some of the issues that are mentioned, perhaps some of the mechanisms here in clause 10. I want to point something out, and you don't have to take my word on whether the Turning the Corner plan with its mechanisms addresses the concerns of the auto industry.

Maybe this is painful for Mr. Cullen to hear, and for his party to hear. And of course maybe it's difficult for the two New Democrat MPs in Windsor, Mr. Comartin and Mr. Masse, to hear. Of course maybe this is difficult for his Liberal friends over there who are also pushing this unjust transition on auto workers, but maybe they'd like to hear what Mr. Hargrove has to say about our Turning the Corner plan.

I'm going to quote from the May 1, 2007, Toronto Sun. Here's what Mr. Hargrove says about the Turning the Corner plan: “It's realistic. They”—meaning the Conservative government—“understand it is going to have to be a long-term solution that will take some time.” He further goes on to say: “I think John Baird”--that's our environment minister—“is right on the money.”

He further said, in the National Post on April 27, 2007, that the environment minister, Mr. Baird, “listened and paid attention to the industry concerns in bringing in the changes he's proposing today”.

That's our Turning the Corner plan and our mechanisms, some of which may have some overlap with this clause, many of which don't.

Buzz Hargrove, head of the CAW, Canadian Auto Workers Union, fighting for automotive jobs in our region, across Ontario, says the government got it right. He didn't say the opposition has it right with Bill C-377 or clause 10 of Bill C-377 or any part of Bill C-377. He says we got it right with our plan. I think that's an important thing. I know it may be painful for the New Democrats and the Liberals to hear that today, but this is important.

What does an unjust transition look like? I'm going to come back to the government's Turning the Corner plan and some comparison of mechanisms we've approached versus clause 10 in just a moment.

I want to go a little further. Let's start with Mr. Hargrove, again to talk about some of the challenges the auto industry is facing. I think the context is important when we're talking about the transition that is necessary here. Mr. Hargrove is laying out some of the context for where the auto industry finds itself. This is only one industry that's potentially affected by Bill C-377. Of course there are many others.

I am the chair of the government's auto caucus, and this is one area of particular interest that I want to focus on--an area that's extremely important for Essex and Windsor. Mr. Chair, let's talk about the contribution of the auto industry. Here Mr. Hargrove is talking about the scope of the industry. This is right now. It's going to be profoundly affected by an unjust transition from Bill C-377. But here's where they're at now. He's talking about the “big three” within the auto industry, which manufacture here, and he's talking about the industry providing 80% of the jobs, buying almost 85% of the automotive parts, mainly in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. He says they're all struggling. It's difficult times for the industry.

Of course the opposition.... What do they want to do through Bill C-377? They want to put their foot on the throat of a struggling automotive industry in Canada, and they want to finish it off. Those aren't my words; here's what Buzz Hargrove said. And don't just take my word for it. I know a lot of people say, well, that's Jeff; he's biased about this. Here is what Mr. Hargrove says. Let's go back to February 24, 2007. He is talking about shutting down the auto industry. That's the effect of the climate policies of the opposition parties. He says it's suicidal for our economy. These are significant statements. It's not my hyperbole, Mr. Chair.

On CBC.ca, on April 26, 2007, he talks about doing these environmental changes “in an intelligent fashion that doesn't jeopardize thousands of jobs in the auto industry or the overall economy”. Clearly he is concerned. This is a critical time for this industry.

On February 06, 2007, when he was talking about the industry before the legislative committee on Bill C-30, he said:

Whatever we do, it can't be so onerous that it takes already crippled companies that are providing jobs for people and undermines their ability to survive.

It's pretty significant: “undermining their ability to survive”. It's a difficult transition time for this industry. This government wants to see them get there. Our plan is balanced, in juxtaposition to Bill C-377 in clause 10 and these measures. We took a balanced approach. We're going to help them make the transition; we're going to help working families make the transition.

What else did he say about this particular industry? He talks about vehicle emission standards, for example. He's talking about targets and standards that need to be “achievable, effective and constructed in a manner that compels improvements at the same time as they strengthen Canada's automotive industry”.

This Bill C-377 imposes an unjust transition on the industry--an unjust transition that's causing job losses. That's not strengthening Canada's automotive industry. That's putting an end to the industry here.

It talks about some of the North American context of this industry. Here's what he said in his testimony before Bill C-30, just over a year ago:

We're the only country in the world with an auto industry that is fully integrated with that of another country that is 90% larger in market and production.

What happens in the United States affects us. The types of measures we take, the standards we take up and implement, and the targets are all critical for this industry, that we do it in a way that helps the industry get along in a way that recognizes the integrated North American nature of this industry and also some of the threats from within that integrated market.

That's what we're doing, Mr. Chair. That's what our government is doing. We're taking a responsible approach, unlike Bill C-377 in clause 10.

He goes further, talking about some of the specifics of the industry, itself. This is what we're transitioning from to where the NDP wants to take us. He says that more than 80% of the engines we build in our plants in Canada are V8 engines. The rest are V6. We don't build a four-cylinder engine. To take a V8 engine plant and rebuild it to produce four-cylinder engines requires at least a billion dollars, and you need to have a market that is not there today. So there are some real competitive challenges.

As Mr. Sawyer said before the committee, competitiveness impacts will be “real and significant” for some sectors of the economy if you're trying to force this kind of change, as the opposition is trying to do, on the industry. Here we have an industry, with words like “crippled companies”, with some competitiveness issues. And Bill C-377 comes along with these particular mechanisms. They want to force an unjust transition on the industry.

Beyond that, we've raised it time and time again to the uncaring and unsympathetic ears of the opposition. Remember, if they're willing to force an unjust transition on workers, they don't really care. That's the reality, Mr. Chair.

Clause 10, Bill C-377, hasn't been costed. What are these measures going to cost? How big is this just transition fund?

Quite frankly, the NDP doesn't care to cost it. They want to leave that to the government, perhaps, or to others. In other words, they want to leave the bad news to this government. They want to force the requirement on the government and leave all the bad news with them, to bear the responsibility.

No, Mr. Chair, we're not going to accept that. It's our moral responsibility to oppose what the NDP are trying to force on working families in this country. They don't even care to cost it. They don't want to tell Canadians the truth about how big this just transition fund will be. They want to govern, the New Democrats in concert with the opposition, without the responsibilities or the prerogatives of the government.

What kind of price are we talking about? Let's put some numbers to how big the cost could be. The carbon price was stated by Mr. Sawyer when he testified. I think he said that the carbon price was going to be $200 a tonne, and then he said plus 50%, or it could be more, even $300 a tonne. That's a big cost, of course. There has been no costing of the instruments, though, in clause 10.

There's a significant amount of uncertainty, he further goes on to say. I'm going to quote again from Mr. Sawyer that there's “a significant level of uncertainty in these numbers”.

So what's missing, Mr. Chair? There are no costs around these measures in clause 10. These are the costly Bob Rae economics, where the Treasury be damned for rigid ideology. That's what they pursue over there. They don't care. They don't want to tell Canadians how big a just transition fund could be or how much money is going to have to be spent to put workers out of their jobs and then find them jobs later on. They don't want to talk about that. So much for the human cost.

Mr. Chair, I was listening to debate today on the budget implementation bill. The NDP were crowing about the triple bottom line, how they consider the human cost in everything they do. So much for the triple bottom line, Mr. Chair. They forgot the human cost inherent in Bill C-377 and these measure in clause 10. They forgot about that.

The reality is that when push comes to shove and the principles of that party are on the line, about defending the interests of workers, the New Democrats are completely off the bottom line in their calculations, Mr. Chair.

I say shame on them, absolutely shame. I know that Mr. McGuinty over there is mocking me, saying shame. I'm waiting for him to tell this committee, of course, when his brother is going to shut down his coal-fired plants, but we'll leave that for another day, even though we're helping him. Mr. McGuinty didn't like that, but that's all right.

Do you know what these clauses, like clause 10, represent in Bill C-377? They represent a disturbing pattern of NDP and Liberal disregard for workers and their families. It starts with their support of Kyoto after doing nothing about it for 13 years, Mr. Chair. This is part of the pattern. Bill C-377 is part of this pattern.

Here is what Buzz Hargrove said. Let's come back to him, because we're talking about the auto industry. Mr. Hargrove sets one of the first points of this pattern of disregard. Here's what he said about honouring the country's original Kyoto commitments. It would be “suicidal for our economy”. He said “you'd almost have to shut down every major industry in the country from oil and gas to the airlines to the auto industry”. He's not saying you'd have to close down a couple of plants. You'd have to shut down every major industry, including the auto industry. And he says that just “doesn't make sense”. That was quoted from The Windsor Star of February 24, 2007. He goes on, of course.

We can go a little further. On the Bill C-30 committee, the clean air committee, there was a relentless pursuit of the California emission standard by the opposition parties--the NDP and the Liberals. Here is what Buzz Hargrove had to say about that in the Edmonton Journal of April 14, 2007. He talked about “the insanity of the environmental movement--everybody's trying to outgreen each other”. He said “Politicians have...the green god and now they're running with it for the next election”.

And here's what he says about California standards. And you'll have to forgive me, as there is a bit of a curse word in this, Mr. Chair, but these are Mr. Hargrove's comments. He said it "would mean every God damn product we build can't be sold here except the Impala".

He means here in Canada, for all the products we build. He said of those California standards, “If I sound upset, I am.... We're losing ground. Everybody seems to have given up on the auto worker.”

Of course, he's talking about the opposition. We already know what he said about our Turning the Corner plan.

He says that the New Democrats, the Liberals, and the Bloc Québécois have “given up on the auto worker”. Those are his words, Mr. Chair. This is part of that disturbing pattern of New Democrat and Liberal disregard for workers that we see here in Bill C-377, clause 10 being part of that, of course.

That's Buzz Hargrove on the California standards. First it's Kyoto and how bad it is, shutting down the industry. Further is their relentless pursuit of this California standard, meaning that every product we build except the Impala can't be sold here. Those were Buzz Hargrove's words.

What else did Buzz Hargrove say? This is testimony of February 6, 2007. I'm going to turn to page 11 and quote Mr. Hargrove as he's talking about the California standard a little more and what these measures may mean.

If I could answer again, Mr. Chairman, California makes up about 10% of the North American market. Canada is slightly under 10%. Over 60% of their market in California is bought from Japan or South Korea or the European Community, so they don't have any auto industry to speak of. They have one assembly operation. So Governor Schwarzenegger can say he's going to bring in tougher standards, and it doesn't throw a lot of people out of work. There are three or four other states that do the same thing.

He goes on to contrast. He said:

We have an industry that is so successful that we produce one and a half vehicles for every one we sell.

This is a valuable question, and the opposition is not listening, of course, Mr. Chair, because they don't care. He says “Why would we want to throw a lot of people out of work?” That's a very valuable question. That's about the unjust transition they want to force the government to enact for them. That's what this is all about. Why would we want to force a lot of people out of work? That's a very valuable question, Mr. Chair.

He goes on to say, “This is not California. It's a much different environment.” It's a context, of course, lost on the Liberals and the New Democrats.

He goes on further, Mr. Chair, with respect to the California standards, again, from page 14 of Bill C-30 testimony of February 6, 2007, to say, “Let me give you the example that was outlined to me recently.” The question, of course, that he's answering is the one I had asked him about the impacts after the announcement of two plant closures by Ford in the city of Windsor. I said:

In the short term if the standards outpace the ability of technology to be put into the vehicles, particularly with respect to engine technology, what does that mean for a plant like the Windsor engine plant, which has 2,500 employees?

It was a very specific question for my constituency.

I asked Mr. Hargrove to tell me what a typical research and development cycle looks like for the auto industry from the time they get an idea for something to the time it's actually being put into a vehicle. It's important to consider when we're looking at the measures that could be available to the government for addressing policy issues. It's a very important question. This is where policy hits the road.

Mr. Hargrove answered:

Let me give you the example that was outlined to me recently. If we were to move to the California standards by 2009, that would mean the Silverado that we build in Oshawa and is built in three other General Motors plants in the United States could not be sold in either California or in Canada. So 20% of the market is gone from General Motors. That means we have four assembly plants and one is going to go.

Common sense would tell you that if a country says you can't sell something in Canada and you have to close one plant, you are not going to close a U.S. plant and keep the Canadian plant open when you can sell the vehicle outside of California. So the answer is that there is a direct correlation between what the government does here on the large vehicles and the large engines in the short term without giving some time to accommodate this.

Of course, Mr. Chair, again, the opposition wants to force an unjust transition on the auto industry. I can't understand it. Buzz Hargrove says “Why should we be putting them out of work?” I think he's still waiting for his Liberal friends and the New Democrats to explain that to him: why put them out of work. Why put them out of work, Mr. Chair? It's a very valuable question.

Not only that, Mr. Chair. Bill C-377 and its clauses, including clause 10, don't capture the scope of the entire problem we're facing, and that is that all global emitters should be involved in the pursuit of this. Of course that helps with respect to the competitiveness impacts mentioned by Mr. Sawyer. We can't have our competitors having a competitive advantage over our industry here as well, so they need to be on board.

Here's what Mr. Hargrove said with respect to bringing others on board. This is from CBC.ca, April 26, 2007. I'm going to quote him. He says:

If we throw everybody out of work and we shut the whole economy down in Canada--we contribute about two per cent of the greenhouse gas problem--that will be offset by China, the United States and others, so there'll be no change at all.

He goes on to say:

Let's just transfer all the jobs out of Canada to those countries and we'll all sit around and try to figure out how to buy their vehicles while their people are working and ours are unemployed.

This is what the Liberals and the New Democrats want to force on the industry, Mr. Chair. That's what this bill is part of, Mr. Chair. That's what they want to do. We need to bring all the emitters on board. There's nothing with respect to this bill, when we're talking about climate change, when we're talking about what we do. We need to have them all on board—that's the other scope.

This is the pattern of disregard for Canadian workers exhibited by the New Democrats and Liberals, exhibited here by their lining up to support Bill C-377 and clause 10. Mr. Chair, that is just insufficient.

As I said earlier.... Let me see here if I can find.... Just a moment while I get another quote, more evidence, Mr. Chair, more witness testimony. This is the Bill C-30 testimony, Mr. Chair, page 20. Allow me a moment while I flip to that page.

In response to one of our colleagues who was asking about using a sledgehammer on the auto industry, asking what effect there would be on the auto industry, he says this is about the need of having others on board with us, Mr. Chair, having the proper tools, the proper negotiation, the proper agreements to bring others on board. That's what our government is trying to do, Mr. Chair.

I think this bill prejudges the outcome of that process, but we're at the table working on it.

This is Mr. Hargrove, page 20, February 6, 2007, before Bill C-30: “Even if Canada did everything possible, it couldn't do it by itself. If the United States doesn't do it, and if other major powers around the world don't move in lockstep, then you still have a problem.” And he asks another valuable question that the Liberals and the New Democrats just don't want to answer; he says “Why would we jeopardize everything that Canadians hold dear while others are going merrily along their way?”

I've heard the New Democrats. They worry about cars coming from China, from South Korea, which are going to take away jobs here in Canada, and yet they'll come to this committee, Mr. Chair, and they'll support a bill like this, while at international negotiations they'll support a pass for those countries. Let them continue emitting, let them build their economy at the expense of our workers. That's unjust, Mr. Chair. That's absolutely unjust.

Of course that's what the New Democrats are leading the charge for here at this committee. They want an unjust transition. They, of course, want us to bear the responsibility for that, but we're simply not going to accept that—absolutely not. That's why we have taken every opportunity in our power, at every turn, at every step at this committee, to do everything we can to oppose this bill. It is a bad bill. This clause within that bill is a bad clause, Mr. Chair. It's not going to get the job done, in terms of getting us to a transition for a better environment and allowing our economy to make the transition there. Our plan does that.

Now let's look at the measures in clause 10 and talk about our Turning the Corner plan and other measures employed by the government. Mr. Chair, some things are certainly mentioned in clause 10 in terms of things that are available to the government to address this issue. How do we tackle climate change? Let's talk about what this entails with respect to the automotive industry. Let's start there, Mr. Chair. It takes an auto policy, doesn't it, and this government has one.

They don't mention that, by the way, Mr. Chair. They don't talk about an auto policy helping. They don't talk about anything helping the auto industry specifically in clause 10. Maybe they don't want the government to consider the impact of the auto industry. But we have an automotive policy, Mr. Chairman. A few weeks ago, Minister Prentice announced the four pillars of this government's auto policy, talking about the first pillar being the best economic fundamentals of any economy in the G-7. Notwithstanding Mr. McGuinty's brother in Ontario, broadly speaking, in Canada, we have the best economic fundamentals.

Mr. Chair, that's the first pillar. We have to have low taxes. That's a fiscal measure. This clause talks about fiscal measures available to the government. We have low taxes for the industry, Mr. Chair. I'll remind the members opposite that they voted against that. Did the New Democrats support that, Mr. Chair? No, they didn't. Did the Liberals support that, Mr. Chair? No, they didn't. That's important. That's a tool available to the government, right?

We're talking about tools here: paying down debt; keeping our fundamentals good; keeping interest rates low. Lowering consumer taxes like the GST by two percentage points makes the purchase of a fuel-efficient vehicle that much more available to a consumer, which keeps somebody working on the assembly line and deals with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Chair. And that's only the first pillar of our auto policy: having the best economic fundamentals in the G-7.

The second pillar, of course, is dealing with things that recognize the integrated nature of the North American automotive market and building on those things through, for example, the security and prosperity partnership initiative, addressing competitiveness issues on the continent for the industry. It means building a new crossing at Windsor to increase trade throughput for the industry, and also to give predictability to the supply chain as they build these fuel-efficient vehicles for the next generation here, for Canadians, for people in North America, for people around the world. These are world-class products, Mr. Chair.

It also means dealing with a stringent fuel efficiency standard--a dominant North American standard--that will see this industry catapult ahead of our competitors, addressing the issues of climate change and emissions head-on while producing a competitive vehicle, and abating their costs across the entire North American market. That's an efficient tool available to them. That's doing it in a smart way. That's the second pillar of the auto policy. It is a tool available to government.

The third pillar of our auto policy is significant multi-billion-dollar investment in science and technology. We have a $9.7-billion science and technology strategy, and what did the NDP and the Liberals do when it came to that measure in our budget? We increased it by $1.3 billion in our last budget, and they voted against that. They didn't want more money for research and development into the next generation of green technologies for the auto industry, or anything else for that matter. They voted against it. The Bloc voted against it. Can you believe that?

That's a tool available in our auto policy. That's the third pillar: harnessing a significant portion of that research and development money to produce the green technologies to be built here in Canada. We want to commercialize that. We want to build those products here.

Here the government is saying we're going to partner with the billions of dollars of in-house, private research and development done by the automotive industry--most of it done not in Canada, unfortunately. We're going to work to bring that here. We're saying we're going to partner with those industries to produce not just the technologies that exist today, but the ones that have to get us beyond 35 miles per gallon.

Imagine an SUV or van that gets 35 miles to the gallon--that's incredible--and doing it in two product cycles. That's impressive. That's almost a moon shot in terms of the technology. I think one of the automotive executives said it would be like John F. Kennedy saying we're going to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. That's the kind of technological change we have to achieve with this industry, not the kind of “step on the throat and end the industry” with this bill that the opposition wants to see.

We're building an auto policy tool that says “We're going to partner with you and help you do that research and development”. That could be anything. For example, I know my colleagues on this side of the table are interested in the fact that Quebec is one of the leading jurisdictions for research and development in lightweight metals and materials. That's very important if you want to increase fuel efficiency. We have to find the kinds of metals and alloys that will have the durability and strength we need in vehicles, yet have less weight so we get fuel efficiency improvements. It's very important. We're saying we want to partner in that way. It's good for the province of Quebec, the auto industry, and our climate. It helps the industry make the transition. We're making investments to move this industry along.

Those are the kinds of tools we're using, not this unjust transition fund mentioned in amended clause 10 that we're debating here today. That's the idea of the opposition. And it's sad that the Bloc is also supporting an unjust transition fund for the auto industry instead of supporting this government's investments in that type of lightweight material research and development that is being done in their province. They're turning their backs on that industry; they're not supporting it. They should be supporting those types of tools, not the unjust transition fund.

I see Mr. Bigras with a wry smile over there. But that's okay, Mr. Bigras, we're doing something. These are the kinds of tools we're talking about.

And the fourth pillar of our auto policy.... And again, the auto policy is just one tool. We not only want to do the research and development into these next-generation technologies; we want to commercialize them here in plants in Canada for the benefit of our workers as well. We're thinking about the next step. The unjust transition fund says, “Put the worker out now. Maybe down the road a 'green job' will be created, but we're not sure what sector it will be in. Maybe we'll train you for it or maybe you'll have to go back to school.” Something very uncertain like that is not good for building strong families when you don't know what your future's going to look like.

We're already thinking ahead with the industry, in terms of our tools, about where this industry needs to go. We're not just doing the research and development, but commercializing it into our plants. This is what the $250-million auto innovation fund is all about, as announced in budget 2008.

I will remind Canadians who are looking in on this, of course, that the New Democrats, the Bloc, and the Liberals didn't support that. They don't want to see green technologies commercialized in our plants in the near future for the benefit not only of our environment, but also of Canadian workers and their families. They don't want to support that, Mr. Chair--$250 million to help these plants do the retooling in their Canadian operations to manufacture these fuel-efficient components. They could be engines. They could be transmissions. It could be the assembly of vehicles, or research and development programs. There is a lot there, Mr. Chair. This is important stuff for the industry as well as for the environment. This is good for families and good for achieving.... These are the types of tools that our government is looking at and that the opposition parties are opposing.

Instead, they like this idea of an unjust transition, and maybe the government should have a just transition fund. That's their idea.

Here are some other tools available: a $2 billion investment by the federal government in biofuels, which is very significant to the industry, very significant to Canadian families who are involved in both farming as well as the petrochemical side, producing biofuels that are low in emissions--E85 being one, soy diesel. Ethanol and soy diesel are very important. In fact, in my riding we have a trolley that runs on soy diesel fuel only. It's a very interesting thing. It's good for tourism down there, good for the tourism jobs.

This is the kind of stuff, a $2 billion investment by this government...which, I will remind folks who are looking in, is a tool rejected by the New Democrats, for example, who voted against that back home. Of course, that means that Joe Comartin and Brian Masse voted against these types of tools to help our environment as well as help the industry along in making a transition and helping our working families. I can tell you that there are a number of Chrysler vehicles, for example, our minivans in Windsor, that are produced with E85 technology and need this biofuel.

Our farmers have come through two of the roughest years under the Liberal government, with low commodity prices, selling off their equity, losing their equity in their farms. For them to be able to capitalize on a booming industry, with commodity prices for corn and soy beans that are going well for them, to produce these types of vehicles.... Our investments are helping to support that, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to sit here and say that's the only thing driving commodity prices, but we're contributing to that by creating demand for these products to be mixed into traditional petrochemicals to give us a much better fuel mix that's good for emissions and good for working families.

I know that my workers at the Windsor assembly plant, which is where I spent my last two and a half years, on the assembly line, appreciate the E85 technology.

It's not just making the investment in the biofuels themselves. What other tools are available to this government? Clause 10 talks about tools. We made some investments, actually, in supporting E85 infrastructure in the current budget, Mr. Chair. What did the opposition parties do? They lined up against it and they didn't support it. Shame on them. That is very bad opposition. I agree with Mr. McGuinty, who is saying “bad opposition” over there, “bad”. I agree with him. He's right. Shame on them for not supporting moving forward.

What does that mean for products like these minivans that are built with E85 technology? Where do they go? Can we use them on our own streets? That's the type of thing this government is involved in. They are good for emissions, good for reaching our targets. I'll remind folks at home that we have extremely tough targets, the toughest of any country right now, Mr. Chair. That's 20% by 2020, and between 60% and 70% by 2050. Those are very challenging targets. They are very good targets. They are good for the environment, Mr. Chair.

We are moving forward in a way that's good for lowering greenhouse emissions in this country and good for the auto industry.

What other tools are there, Mr. Chair? How about investments in public transit made by this federal government, not only in the infrastructure for public transit, but in transit passes to increase ridership, for example, to encourage people to get out of their cars and get into public transit; or investment in commuter trains from to Peterborough to Toronto, announced recently? How about the $500 million public transit capital trust 2008?

That's $500 million, allocated on a per capita basis. It's very significant for Ontario and Quebec, for example, my home province, who are dealing with these issues. I know it's one that Mr. McGuinty would be very happy about. I think they got $195 million for projects, making additional investments in public transit infrastructure. That's a pretty significant investment in public transport. It's good for the environment, good for our communities, Mr. Chair.

These are the types of smart tools being employed by this government. Of course, for the benefit of Canadians back home, let's remind them that the Conservatives, of course, supported these measures. They were in our budget. The Bloc didn't support it. The New Democrats didn't support it. The Liberals didn't show up to support it, and the ones who did voted against it. They're against those investments, multi-million-dollar investments, billions of dollars of investments. This builds on the $1.3 billion in budget 2006 in support of public transit infrastructure and the transit pass tax credit. These are very significant tools used by the government, very significant investments that are good for Canadians, good for the environment, rejected by the New Democrats, the Liberals, and the Bloc. Shame on them, Mr. Chair.

They rejected the approach of dealing with air pollution and pollutants other than greenhouse gases. Of course, we know, Mr. Chair, and you well know, Mr. Chair, that there's plenty of evidence, not only in your career, but plenty of evidence before committees of the House, the Bill C-30 committee being one of them. We know there are significant co-benefits in addressing climate change by making reductions in other air pollutants. There are very significant co-benefits both ways, Mr. Chair. An integrated approach is extremely necessary to the health and the climate for Canadians. We're taking that integrated approach, opposed of course by the opposition parties.

I alluded to our science and technology strategy a little bit earlier within the context of our auto policy—$9.7 billion for significant research and development on a wide variety of fronts, many of them on issues that are important for our environment. It may have been controversial, but you talk about clause 10 talking about fiscal incentives. We took a controversial one, admittedly, in assessing green levies, taxes, to discourage the driving of gas-guzzling vehicles. As well, we instituted measures to get old polluting vehicles off our streets. It's very necessary.

Are they changing consumer buying habits—sure they are—to more fuel-efficient vehicles, helping them get the old vehicles off the road and getting them into new vehicles? It's good for the environment, Mr. Chair. We know that tailpipe emissions, in terms of greenhouse gas, are only 1% for these new vehicles. It's the old ones we need to get off the road, and we're doing that. It's also good for employment, Mr. Chair, in our factories—people building components, assembling these vehicles. It's very important to get fleet turnover, getting people to get into newer vehicles. It keeps the jobs rolling on the assembly line back home. That's very important. Our government is taking action on those measures.

What did the opposition parties do? Of course, they opposed them. They reject those measures. They don't like helping the industry move forward and the climate to move forward. Instead, they want to force an unjust transition on working families. They want to throw auto workers and others in other industries out of a job into an uncertain future. They don't know when the green job will come for them. They just don't know. Quite frankly, they don't care.

How about accelerated capital cost allowance measures? There was a unanimous report—very rare, Mr. Chair, as we can see in committee proceedings in the House. The industry committee had a unanimous all-party report on how to address issues facing the manufacturing sector. The very first one on the list was an accelerated capital cost allowance for industries to purchase new technologies, to make intensive capital investments to move their industries forward, to keep their workers working, Mr. Chair, and to exploit new opportunities and new markets for products. It's very significant to make these investments and to make them now.

Our government, in two separate budgets, implemented that measure. What did our opponents do? You have to purchase these technologies to build green technology. You have to purchase these things in our plants now. What did the opposition say? They voted against them. They'd prefer this unjust transition for workers instead of supporting sensible tools that will help industry move forward productively and make the transition that we need to get them to where they're producing fuel-efficient vehicles, doing so in ways that are innovative and with low impact to the environment. This is very significant.

It's this type of thinking that our government is engaged in. We're thinking about the health of these industries. That's what our Turning the Corner plan is all about. It contains the measures we're implying. That's what our budgets are dealing with. It's extremely important. We're taking a very proactive and long-range approach on that.

I think it's important to highlight that it was at one time a unanimous report. The other parties did say that they supported these types of capital cost writeoffs. Again, when principle came to action, they either sat on their hands, like the Liberals did, or they voted against them. Shame on the opposition for not doing things to move the industry forward.

How important is technology right now, Mr. Chair? Let's go to the testimony. Don't just take my word for this. Don't just take my word because I've been an auto worker and I've been involved in this industry; don't take my word for it.

In Wednesday, February 6, 2008, testimony before this committee--

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day. To begin, I would like to reread the motion put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government.

At the outset, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this non-confidence motion because the Conservatives have clearly reneged on Canada's promise concerning the Kyoto accord. I expect that all over the world, governments that signed the Kyoto accord are wondering why the Conservatives have chosen to do this to Canada. Why did the Conservatives go back on our country's word, tarnishing Canada's reputation and, unfortunately, that of Quebec, on the international stage? More specifically, the Conservatives chose to ignore the fact that Quebeckers want Ottawa to comply with the Kyoto accord.

Even worse, since they came to power, the Conservatives have done nothing to step up federal efforts to fight against greenhouse gases. They should perhaps acknowledge this. They have been in power for nearly two years now. Yet they are constantly blaming the previous government, which, it is true, did not live up to expectations. However, the Conservatives are responsible for dealing with this issue now, and they have had more than two years to put in place a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they have not done so.

As I mentioned, since they came to power, the Conservatives have stubbornly delayed coming up with a credible plan, for example, by not bringing Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act before this House for final debate. The government is dragging its feet on developing a credible plan and implementing real, effective measures. Even worse, the Conservatives cut the few environmental programs the previous government had put in place. As I mentioned, these programs were relatively weak, but they were still a step in the right direction. In most cases, the government realized its mistake and reintroduced watered-down versions of the programs.

The budget provides fresh evidence of the Conservatives' approach, which is to cut a program, then realize their mistake a few months later and try to bring back a watered-down version of the program. For example, in the previous budget the government introduced a rebate program for purchases of hybrid vehicles, which are more compatible with our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Consumers were extremely frustrated with this program. I know that every member of this House must have received letters and comments about how long it took to set up the program. It was announced with great fanfare, but there was still no money, and there were no regulations in place so that consumers who bought hybrid cars could receive the rebate the Conservative government had promised.

This measure is slowly being implemented, but it is not yet as effective as it could be. Last week, it was announced in the budget that the measure will be withdrawn next December 31. It is just unbelievable and I am convinced that Quebec and Canadian consumers are wondering why the Conservatives are acting this way. What was useful last year is no longer applicable. We just laid the foundation for this program which, I am convinced, will be re-established by this or the next government.

We need these types of incentives. Many believe that the reason the Conservative government cut this program has more to do with the fact that North American manufacturers find it quite difficult to compete with Japanese auto makers in particular. I am convinced that that also applies to European car manufacturers and that this measure benefits Japanese car dealers.

I noted when Parliament resumed that most ministers who drive hybrids—and I congratulate them—own Toyotas.

This leads us to believe that the elimination of this program was prompted by the demands of North American car manufacturers. Once again, the government gave in rather than trying to have North American car manufacturers do the right thing and adapt to the new demands of consumers, who are aware of the effects of greenhouse gases produced by individual transportation. We know that we have to reduce greenhouse gases and support public transportation. When we buy a vehicle, if we decide to buy a green vehicle, the government should acknowledge that effort—particularly since these cars are relatively expensive—and recognize that state assistance is not at all inappropriate.

Even worse, as I mentioned, the government cut programs and then brought them back. As if that were not enough, the Conservative government tabled a so-called green plan designed to spare the major western oil companies, which is clearly not the objective of the Kyoto protocol. In short, the Conservative government completely ignored the clear will of Quebeckers, 75% of whom, as we know from poll after poll, support the Kyoto targets and Canada's commitments in that regard.

For that reason alone this motion deserves to be adopted and this government no longer deserves the confidence of the House.

I am thinking about the Conservatives' extremely ideological decisions that respond to the interests of certain industry sectors. Obviously I am referring to the oil industry. As soon as it was elected, the minority Conservative government showed its disregard for the Kyoto protocol, even though it was trying to say out of one side of its mouth that it would not renounce the government's signature. From the other side of its mouth it seemed to being saying—and we understood this quite well—that the Kyoto protocol targets were not at all on the government's radar.

This government's actions contradict Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol. Hon. members will remember that the Conservative election platform did not mention the word Kyoto once. That was already an indication for the entire population of Quebec and Canada that this government—and many of us are not surprised—prefers to meet the financial needs and appetite for profit of the major oil companies in western Canada rather than the environmental and economic needs of Quebec. This is also true for a number of regions in Canada. I am thinking of Ontario, among others, which is currently going through a major manufacturing crisis.

On October 19, 2006, after pushing back the presentation of its plan to fight greenhouse gases a number of times, the Conservative government finally delivered Bill C-30, presented as the Clean Air Act, to address the smog phenomenon, but it did not contain any fixed targets to reduce greenhouse gases or any timeline consistent with the Kyoto protocol.

Worse yet, in the notice of intent introduced at the same time to indicate the path the government intended to take in the application of Bill C-30, the Conservatives mentioned that they would hold consultations in three phases to determine the reduction targets with the provinces and industry, effective fall 2006. This would be staggered through to 2010, giving a clear signal that nothing would come into effect before the end of 2010. The first Kyoto targets are set for 2012.

Just in the way the government announced its very clear timetable in its notice of intent, it was already reneging on Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol.

As for long-term targets, the government said that it was determined to ask for advice on the feasibility of reducing Canadian emissions by 45% to 65% based on 2003 levels—not by 2015, not by 2020, but by 2050. This is a perfect example of how the Conservatives do not take this seriously, and these targets are much lower than the Kyoto proposals. This does not bode well for the future of the Conservative government's position in international negotiations.

Since the bill was completely unacceptable, in terms of targets, timetable and methods, and had no chance of being passed in its original state, on December 4, 2006, the Conservatives authorized Bill C-30 to be sent to a special parliamentary committee for amendment. However, it categorically refused to improve the bill and include the Kyoto targets, which clearly showed that the government was repudiating its international commitment and heading off on its own.

This time, it was not the international community or consumers, but all the members in opposition who wondered how the Conservatives could—based solely on ideology—go against the democratic will of this Parliament and of all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We must remember that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers voted for parties other than the Conservative Party. It is practically a coincidence that the Conservatives are currently in power.

This kind of stubbornness is very questionable. It not only shows an undemocratic tendency and the clear intention not to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but also represents an ideological straitjacket that will be very difficult to get out of, unless, as we hope, there is an election very soon.

The Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties had to reshape Bill C-30 in order to include reduction targets that comply with the Kyoto protocol and the territorial approach. It is extremely important to remember that we need the territorial approach, which Europe has been taking since 2005 with its carbon exchange. This approach would allow us to reward the efforts of Quebec's manufacturing sector and penalize companies that have been making no effort and have continued to pollute since 1990, the reference year for the 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Canada, with Australia, is one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. We need to ask these corporate polluters to increase their efforts.

I often refer to the following example, and the members of this House will understand. In a fundraising campaign, the first dollars are always the easiest to bring in. It is when we have nearly reached our goal that it becomes more difficult.

In Quebec, manufacturing companies have been able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20% to 25%. They have nearly reached their targets. Now they are being asked to make an effort as though they had done nothing already, and this will be the hardest part. The effort the oil industry is being asked to make, however, will not only scarcely or not at all make up for its lack of effort over the last two decades, but will also be the easiest action it could take. Not only is this completely unacceptable from an environmental standpoint, it is also completely unfair to Quebec and the sectors that have been making an effort since 1990, particularly Quebec's manufacturing sector.

Still stubbornly refusing to join the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government refused to proceed with further study of the bill. Finally, after months of waiting, countless delays and a campaign presenting Kyoto compliance as the economic apocalypse, earlier, during the last speech by a Conservative member talking along those lines, we heard a complete lack of credibility.

Only the American Republicans are falling for it—and at least they are more subtle. President Bush issued a directive stating that federal institutions should not purchase oil derived from methods that emit more than the world average of greenhouse gas emissions. This worries several of our oil companies in western Canada, and rightly so, since our oil sands extraction methods produce a great deal of pollution. Sure, this concerns only a very small part of the American market. But it sends the message that even Bush's Republicans are more progressive than this Conservative government and this Prime Minister.

The government has made the Kyoto protocol out to be the apocalypse. On April 26, 2007, it reproduced an action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution, but the plan is tailored to be gentle on the oil companies. As part of this plan based on reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, companies will have to reduce the intensity of their emissions based on the 2006 levels.

There are two problems here. First, the date they have chosen is 2006, and not 1990 as set out in the Kyoto protocol. Choosing 1990 as the date would honour the efforts made by the manufacturing sector.

This means that all that was accomplished in Quebec between 1990 and 2006 will not be taken into account, which is completely unfair, once again. Second, intensity is a measure of the reduction per tonne of emissions produced. But if a company produces five times more, it will contribute even more pollution than it does now. We need absolute reduction targets, and not intensity targets.

Even if the Conservatives like to believe that their plan will stabilize Canada's emissions between 2010 and 2012 and reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 relative to 2006 levels, we have to say, quite frankly, that this is not enough. Just as in a number of other issues dealt with this week and last week, whether it be the Cadman affair, the NAFTA leak or the Soudas affair, the government's explanations always come up short. In this case, it is very clear that with the plan presented to us on April 26, 2007, greenhouse gases will not be reduced in Canada and these emissions will continue to increase. Even if the Conservatives' most optimistic forecast is realized, that would allow Canada to achieve the level required under the Kyoto protocol by 2024, or 12 years after the deadline. Again, that is the most optimistic forecast. It will very likely be some decades later.

I want to reiterate that the Clean Air Act, as reshaped by the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, responds to the Kyoto protocol targets, the needs of Quebec's economy and a good portion of Canada's economy, and to Canada's and Quebec's environmental needs.

This legislation includes fixed targets for greenhouse gas reduction that are consistent with the Kyoto protocol. In other words, it calls for a 6% reduction of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions for each year from 2008 to 2012, with respect to 1990 levels. As I said, these are fixed targets, but this time for the post-Kyoto period. They include the creation of a carbon tax,which is extremely important for establishing a carbon exchange that would allow market forces to support government regulations; the creation of an independent agency to monitor and govern the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrial emitters, not only to ensure that we achieve the targets, but also to be able to establish this carbon exchange with the necessary credits that will be sold by those who perform well to those who perform less well; and finally, the fact that the territorial approach is recognized. This bill corresponds to the democratically expressed will of the Canadian and Quebec public, and responds to the needs of the public and to our international commitments. We therefore have no problem with the NDP motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that you are allowing me to continue my speech for another two minutes. I still have a lot of information that I would like to share with my colleagues, those from the Conservative Party in particular.

Galbraith, the Canadian-born economist who lived in the United States and served as an advisor to Kennedy, said something like “Democrats read only other Democrats; Republicans do not read at all”.

I think we have the same situation here in this House. Perhaps the opposition parties read only what the opposition parties produce, but the Conservatives do not read. This forces the opposition parties in the House to present documents that do not reach the Conservative members, documents that those members would likely be unable to read. I would therefore remind the House that the environment commissioner issued a report yesterday, a report that is extremely critical of the Conservative government's actions. The report contains 14 chapters and describes any progress made as quite mixed. Nine out of 14 sectors are completely inadequate. I will discuss at least one or perhaps two of them, if time allows. I will begin with the federal contaminated sites.

In Shannon, Quebec, a site was contaminated by the Canadian army and the Department of National Defence stubbornly refuses to decontaminate this land, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for years.

The strategic environmental assessment process is also the topic of one of the chapters on which the commissioner worked the hardest. We are told that it makes no sense at all. I hope to have the opportunity to quote part of this report during question period.

In closing, everyone in this House, in Quebec and in Canada is wondering what the Conservatives think they are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was here listening to the New Democrat speeches that started this debate and , therefore, heard the history that it was 17 months ago that the government introduced the bill. It went to a special committee which the leader of the New Democrats asked for. There was reluctance at first but then we as parliamentarians gathered round the table, brought ideas from all sides and rewrote the legislation from top to bottom, All parties, I remind my colleague, moved amendments.

A number of months ago, the NDP brought forward a motion to the House calling upon the government to bring the legislation back. The motion carried because the majority of members in this place, including those in the member's caucus, voted to bring it back.

We all put our best efforts forward, our best ideas and our best work, to make the legislation work in order to take on the issue of climate change, which many of us talk about, and this was the action in which we could back up our talk. This is what Canadians were looking for.

What is my colleague's opinion on the government's agenda in the absence of bringing Bill C-30 back? What has the government put in its place? Has it put something better that the member feels more comfortable with? Is there any sign of hope in the government's current agenda to deal with climate change in juxtaposition to what we were able to accomplish as parliamentarians together and that was the clean air and climate change act?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, and I thank you for your lenience. I would put to my hon. colleague that if he would like a copy of the report, it is available on our website.

We have a plan to move forward. We have devised a carbon budget plan that brings in the 700 largest polluters responsible for 50% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, a plan with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party for that matter, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We had to rewrite the feeble Bill C-30, the clean air act, but as I mentioned, the Prime Minister in his wisdom killed that when he prorogued the House and refused to bring the bill back.

We are going to continue by bringing in our new power production incentive to expand renewable power to 12,000 megawatts by 2015, instead of the 4,000 megawatts the Conservatives are planning. We want incentives for onshore wind, offshore wind, small hydro, geothermal, wave and tidal, solar and biomass energy. We want 10% of Canada's total electricity output from low impact renewable sources by 2015. That is enough for three million homes.

We are going to create a $1 billion advance manufacturing prosperity fund to help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. We are going to remain committed to the Kyoto protocol process and the UN negotiations that will set targets for the second commitment period post-2012. The fact is good environmental policy is very good for our economy, encouraging research and development, new technologies and lots of jobs.

In conclusion, it is no wonder that Matthew Bramley, the president of the Pembina Institute has called our carbon budget available on our website, “the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada”.

With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves. As we move forward, I look forward to working on behalf of Canadians to deal with the climate change crisis.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the NDP's motion today.

Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.

First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government.

In particular, this minority government has taken some effort to cover up what are now four raging fires out of its control: first, the in and out election advertising scandal; second, the Ian Brodie affair now spiraling out of control in the United States of America fed, in my view, by the leader of the NDP going on CNN international news just last night and telling the world about Mr. Brodie's conduct; third, the Cadman affair, where the Prime Minister refuses to refute what is clearly irrefutable, that is, his voice on tape speaking about offers to a tragically sick member of Parliament at the time; and fourth, the O'Brien affair, where the Minister of the Environment is now involved in having to defend himself repeatedly from all kinds of negative coverage involving his interference in municipal affairs.

There are other issues that are ongoing here that the government does not want Canadians to know about. Why is that? Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party.

So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts.

Let me turn now to the substance of the issue which is in the motion.

The motion is right in this respect: the reformed Conservatives cannot be trusted to do the right thing, either domestically or internationally, to fight the climate change crisis. They simply cannot be trusted.

We know the scientific evidence is overwhelming. This at a time when the government refuses to renew the funding of the climate change and atmospheric research foundation's programs and at a time when, last spring, the government cancelled the largest single university-based research initiative and effort in climate change science.

The world's leading scientists told us again in Bali that an increase in the earth's temperature of just 2° to 4° would lead to a catastrophic disruption of life as we know it today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that a 1° Celsius increase could lead to 10% of land species facing extinction and 80% destruction of our coral reefs. This is now very serious business, business that should not be couched, in my view, in partisanship, as has happened here through this NDP motion.

The IPCC's fourth report in May 2007 says it is possible to limit temperature increases to 2° to 2.4° but only if we stabilize within 15 years our worldwide emissions and we move to cut those in half by 2050. Here is the kicker: We know that the economic costs of taking action now, today, aggressively are much less than the costs in the future if we fail to act.

The former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, conducted a review on the economics of climate change for the planet. He concluded that the costs of ignoring climate change could be 5% to 20% of GDP, more than the costs of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined.

In contrast, the cost of tackling the problem can be limited to 1% of global GDP today if we act now. There are many effective low cost options already available: financial incentives to develop and deploy existing technologies; tradeable permits and carbon credits; renewable power investments; and voluntary programs, of course, which have been used around the world.

In 2007 the world's largest and leading management consulting firm, McKinsey and Company, showed that a great deal could be achieved in the fight against climate change without placing an undue burden on our economy, if governments provide incentives for the development and deployment of green technologies. It concludes that the annual worldwide cost for making the needed emission reductions to avoid worst climate change in 2030 is only .6% of that year's projected GDP.

We agreed to the Kyoto protocol in this country in 1997 and despite all of the desperate misinformation from the Conservative Party, it became international law in this country only in 2005, when enough countries had ratified the protocol. It set targets, yes. It also created a mandatory international trading system, one now abandoned by the government because it has unilaterally abandoned Canada, the only country of over 170 to abandon the Kyoto treaty. We have been completely isolated, as we saw in Bali, when we came together with the world to negotiate a framework for the second phase of the Kyoto protocol.

The Minister of the Environment went there and in the last two hours of a seven day meeting, he finally folded because he was under so much pressure to sign on to an international declaration calling for a 25% to 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. He was the only minister to hold out, working in partnership with the Republican administration which was not even part of the official negotiating sessions, but under pressure he finally folded.

Here is the problem with signing on to such a declaration. The government's own “Turning the Corner” plan runs completely in the opposite direction of that commitment.

Study after study, including the Conservatives' own advisory body, have shown that the Conservatives will not even meet their own modest targets and will allow our emissions to continue to rise until 2050 and beyond.

The Conservatives talk about regulations. We just heard one of their members say that they have the toughest regulations in Canadian history. Check the facts: There are no regulations. The government has tabled no regulations yet. Nothing has been brought into force on clean air. There are no regulations on climate change greenhouse gases. They have exempted new facilities by giving them a three year grace period. They are pricing carbon at a $15 a tonne payment into a technology fund which is grossly less than what it should be.

It has been a pattern that we have seen south of the border about denying, delaying and ultimately deceiving one's own people about taking action on climate change when in fact that is not happening.

First the Conservatives came into power in 2006 and killed all of the Liberal measures that were in play, but then they brought them back in a re-gifted fashion in half measure. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the National Energy Board and many others, their plan cannot meet their weak targets, and emissions will continue to rise.

The claim that emissions will peak in 2010 in their plan is baseless. The claim that it will meet its target of 20% below 2006 by 2020 is baseless. There are so many exemptions, loopholes, bogus compliance options and such lack of detail that there is no way to conclude that this framework will have any positive effect at all.

In fact, because of the overall weakness, Tom d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, representing 150 of some of the largest companies in Canada, came to committee just two weeks ago and said that the government's, I think negligence using my words, in this respect is actually harming Canadian industry by perpetuating policy uncertainty that hinders rational investment decisions so we can continue the transition that we started years ago to a carbon constrained future and carbon constrained economy.

Those are the facts about the domestic plan and our international performance. It is not even worth getting into the details of the minister's performance in Bali because that action speaks for itself.

What happened previous to the Conservative government arriving? While the Prime Minister was denying even the existence of climate change--he said that he did not believe in greenhouse gases--we brought in four increasingly aggressive climate change plans during the two previous governments, culminating in project green launched by our leader of the official opposition in 2005.

The Pembina Institute said at the time that project green was “over six times more effective” than what the Conservative government has offered today. We offered large scale funding for alternative energy. It was cut. We invested in biofuels. It was cut. We conducted a highly successful public awareness campaign to teach Canadians about the dangers of the climate change crisis. It was cut. We introduced energy efficient retrofit programs for Canadian homes and buildings. It was cut, particularly for the poorest in Canadian society who need the most help. That is the track record of the government since 2006.

Let us talk about where we want to go now. Let us talk about how we intend to deal as an official opposition with the climate change crisis.

First, we are going to have a comprehensive plan using the full range of tools to fight global warming. We are going to do that first and foremost by putting a price on carbon so the polluter pays. We are going to provide serious support for renewable energy and other ways to reduce emissions. There will be help for Canadians to conserve energy.

Here is a twist: We are going to work in partnership with our provincial governments on both mitigation and adaptation. We will not dispatch in this case our Minister of Finance or the Minister of the Environment to pick fights. Canadians are sick of the tawdry games. They are sick of the intergovernmental bickering. They want their governments cooperating not just on economic plans, but of course, on environmental plans, and we will do so.

That is why approximately a year ago our party, the official opposition, produced the “Balancing our Carbon Budget” plan. This plan is the backbone of the reworked and reformulated clean air and climate change act, Bill C-30, which the government killed. In fact, it is my theory the Conservatives prorogued Parliament in order to prevent that bill from coming back to the floor of the House of Commons to be debated openly. That has been raised by the leader of the official opposition several times. This--

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As a Canadian, I am very proud and always will be proud to be Canadian. I believe, unlike the member from the NDP seems to indicate, that we live in the greatest country in the world and I am very proud of that and have never been ashamed of my country, nor my flag.

The motion presented by the member for Toronto—Danforth calls into question the House's confidence in the government on the environment. Let me reassure the House, however, that the government is committed on delivering real results, real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment, which is so important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Climate change is, indeed, one of the biggest threats to our environment, to our people and to the future of our earth. This reality is clearer today than it has ever been and it is a threat that this Conservative government and this Prime Minister takes very seriously.

Here at home, unlike previous Liberal governments, we have taken real action and we are proud of these first steps. With our turning the corner plan, we will, for the first time ever, require industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution by implementing the toughest mandatory targets in Canadian history. I am proud of that.

The end result is that our national strategy will reduce in absolute terms Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. What is significant to note is that our plan is not only effective, it is responsible. Our plan marks a new era in Canadian environmental responsibility. Our approach takes our economy into account. It goes to great lengths to protect the standard of living of Canadians no matter where they live and it goes beyond any other plan to ensure it takes real action to protect our environment.

Our government also recognizes that Canada's north is one of the areas that will most quickly bear the burden of climate change. We have committed more than $80 million for science research on adaptation that will help the north deal with climate change. I have seen these changes first-hand and I assure Canadians that they are taking place. This will be of great help to the rest of the world as well because, in the Canadian attitude we share, we share the world's responsibility and we will help the rest of the world in understanding how to adjust to the new reality that we are all facing.

However, we admit that it has been an uphill battle to move Canada forward. We have been here for two years and we have had our work cut out for us. Thirteen years of complacency and mismanagement by successive Liberal governments crippled our environment, set us far back and it crippled our international environmental standing. We inherited a huge mess from the previous Liberal government. We inherited a landscape of patchwork environmental programs that did little, if nothing, to minimize Canada's carbon footprint in the world.

In fact, by the end of 2005, emissions had climbed to 33% above the target levels set in the Kyoto protocol. One of the toughest issues we have faced is how to meet the 2012 targets, given the situation Canada has been put in by the previous Liberal government.

Had that government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline. However, we have had to deal with 10 years that has been lost due to inaction. This fact has already been debated in the House repeatedly. In fact, all parties agree, even members from the Liberal party, including the leader himself, have said that they did nothing.

Our position on the subject was very clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne that was put before the House for a vote. I am glad to see that the Liberal Party supports our environmental policies and I want to thank the Liberals today again for supporting the government on a continuous basis through the budget.

They supported the Speech from the Throne, the mini-budget and, now, I am proud to say, this budget, which all contained great things to clean up the environment. It is clear that the Liberals support our government, our responsible position and our realistic approach to environmental protection. Again, I thank members of the Liberal Party.

I would like to also address the issue of Bill C-30, which is also mentioned in today's motion. The Conservative Party worked in good faith on the Bill C-30 committee to try to improve the clean air act. I know that for a fact because I was there. I was in every meeting and I saw what took place. All members of the Conservative Party worked earnestly and in good faith trying to get real positive results for Canadians.

Our government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes bringing forward concrete and realistic industrial targets to reduce greenhouse gases and improve the air we breathe and improve the health of Canadians.

In committee last year, the government supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act, and brought forward others of our own. We worked or tried to work cooperatively. We took politics out, unlike the other parties. Sadly, in most cases, we were opposed by both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on the North American market, the integrated market in which we live, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals do in return? They voted it down and knowingly played politics by imposing standards that would have been impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry.

The Liberals also played politics by writing Kyoto targets into the bills with no conceivable plan to achieve them, again, playing politics. It was hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had ever put in place a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago. Today it is even harder. As the Liberal member for Halton said:

I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”.

Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down.

Indeed, even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer the moon with no hope of ever delivering it. We know how they governed the country and Canadians certainly do not want to go back to that. Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is even easier for them to tell Canadians that they want to achieve Kyoto emission targets.

The opposition also gutted parts of the clean air act, Bill C-30. We told the opposition not to mess with the health of Canadian children and not to mess with the health and the quality of life of Canadians, the elderly and those suffering from respiratory illness. What did it do? It gutted those important sections of the clean air act. The opposition members should be ashamed of themselves.

What did Canadians lose in the rush to gut the clean air act, led by the Liberals and the environment critic, the member for Ottawa South? Canadians should know that the opposition removed many new regulations that would have helped to better protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We lost, for example, mandatory national air quality standards, mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards, increased research and monitoring of air pollutants, and tougher enforcement rules for compliance to air quality regulations. Shame on the opposition.

The government put forward 15 pages of concise new regulation making authority to protect Canadians' health and our environment, and the opposition just ripped them up. What did the Liberals add instead? They inserted clauses to delay action by implementing and requiring six months of consultation around a new investment bank before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. This was a delay tactic. The Liberals inserted complex and unworkable requirements that made it harder, not easier, for the government to act on air pollution.

Even worse, the Liberals inserted a clause that would have allowed political interference into air quality standards. For instance, the Liberals wanted the Minister of the Environment to exempt “economically depressed areas” from air quality standards for three years. Would this allow the Liberals to buy votes? Was it their intent in this particular section to exempt certain Liberal rich voting areas of the country from air quality regulations while punishing those areas that were not Liberal? We do not know what they thought but they were thinking the wrong thing.

The Liberals imposed the Liberal leader's carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. The health and the prosperity of Canadians depends on the quality of the air we breath, the quality of life. The integrity of our environment is tied so uniquely to that. It is very clear that only the Conservative government members were prepared to put the environment before politics.

However, all is not lost. Our government committed to bringing back the parts of Bill C-30 that had all party support. Unlike the Liberals, the government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air we breath and the health of Canadians. Our actions speak louder than words. We are getting the job done. We will take no lessons from the Liberals or members of the NDP who cannot get it done for Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches presented by both the leader of the NDP and the party's environment critic and what is interesting about their comments is that they are both confused.

On the one hand, the leader of the NDP is actively seeking the cooperation of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois at committee to pass his bill, Bill C-377, which cannot pass without the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.

On the other hand, he refers to Bill C-30, the backbone of which is the Liberal Party of Canada's balancing our budget plan. As the leader of the NDP puts it, the bill was originally punted to a legislative committee because he had a special deal with the Prime Minister. Then he realized that the Prime Minister was not serious whatsoever in seeing that legislative committee bring the clean air act to any successful completion and we brought forward the balancing, our department budget program and plan.

I am confused because one of the longest serving NDP MPs, the member for Winnipeg Centre, believes differently than his own leader. He says that the federal New Democratic Party may need to enter into some kind of informal coalition with the Liberals or risk, in his words, “political obscurity”. That statement came from a veteran NDP MP, one of the top and longest serving MPs in that caucus.

What exactly is the NDP's position here today? In the case of--

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

moved:

That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

It is an honour for me to speak to this important and serious motion today. This motion speaks to the priorities of families today. It speaks to an issue that has very serious consequences in Canada and will have profound consequences for future generations. It speaks to Canada's role in the world and our desire to be leaders—not laggards—on the world stage.

It speaks to the flawed and the failed agenda of the government. It speaks to the respect that is due to this House and the majority expression of opinion that has been delivered by the House of Commons.

Of course, I am talking about the issue of climate change, the government's flawed plan and the work that Parliament did to get the country back on track.

Seventeen months ago the Conservatives put forward their clean air act, Bill C-30. It was clear when it arrived that it was dead on arrival. It would allow climate change to worsen and worsen dramatically.

We did not want to accept continued inaction on the environment. That is why I asked and secured agreement from all party leaders that the bill be sent to a special legislative committee to challenge all of the members of the House to roll up their sleeves and get down to work to create legislation in which everyday Canadians could take pride and from which all of us could draw some hope and inspiration for the future.

With concern about climate change at an all time high, this is exactly the kind of action that Canadians wanted to see and this special committee did not disappoint us. It worked long hours. It was applauded by some as a rare example of the cooperation a minority Parliament is supposed to foster.

The committee finished its work nearly a year ago. Environmentalists were quick to say that the new clean air and climate change act was a “breakthrough”. It included major changes that the NDP has championed from the start, including real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the short, medium and long terms; a fixed cap for major industrial polluters, to reduce their share of emissions; a greenhouse gas emission pricing system; strict air quality standards for each pollutant; and strict vehicle fuel consumption standards.

Finally, we had a comprehensive environmental plan that would get results. They said it was impossible. The Conservatives put forward poor climate change legislation, but this Parliament put forward good legislation for Canadians.

We repeatedly called on the government to bring this improved clean air act forward for a vote. The heads of 10 of Canada's leading environmental organizations wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to bring this bill to a vote. They said that the bill represented “a huge step forward for environmental protection in Canada and an important leadership opportunity”.

Sadly, the government refused to listen. There was no stopping its stalling on the environment. That is why last May the NDP used its opposition day to call on the government to bring the amended Bill C-30 back for a vote as soon as possible. A clear majority of the House supported that motion: 155 votes to 121. I thank each and every member of Parliament who voted with us because it recognized how we reach important decisions.

However, the government still was unmoved. It prorogued the House and brought in a throne speech that abandoned the improved clean air act and our international responsibilities on climate change. That is just one of the reasons why the NDP opposed the throne speech.

That brings us to today, 10 months later and our next available chance for an opposition day motion. We have been constructive. We have been consistent. We have been determined, but we cannot wait for action on climate change any longer. We cannot have confidence in the government's environmental plans.

Ordinary Canadians across the country are getting more and more worried about the future of their kids and grandkids. They are seeing the air get dirtier. They are seeing the pine beetle devastating forests and the forest industry. They are having to tell their kids not to swim in our lakes.

This week, the residents of Salluit, a village in northern Quebec, were forced to consider moving their village because of climate change. Mudslides, buckled roads and sinking buildings are threatening the village. Because of the risk of natural disasters brought on by the warming climate and melting permafrost, residents are having to consider leaving their ancestral lands.

That is the reality of climate change today. The inaction of the current government and past governments has forced families and communities to make tough choices.

The government's failed approach on the environment needs to stop, but we see no indication of that happening. Its so-called “turning the corner” plan has been panned across the board. Its accelerated corporate tax giveaways to the big polluters in the budgets give no sign of hope. It refused outright to eliminate now the tax advantages to the tar sands and it sided with laggards like George Bush in international negotiations.

Even this week it is filibustering yet again my private member's bill that sets out targets for the period after Kyoto, the same targets that were embraced in Bali and based on the best available science. What did it do in last week's budget? Millions for unsafe nuclear power development and millions for pumping pollution underground. This is no solution.

Is it any wonder that on the 10th anniversary of the signing of Kyoto we are 30% above the limits that should have been established and honoured.

Canadians have no confidence that this government will deal with the crucial issue of climate change. Time is short. Every month, an estimated 65 megatonnes of greenhouses gases are emitted into the atmosphere. There is no time for more mistakes. With every delay, the crisis grows worse.

Most of the members of this House are well aware of this, and families today are as well.

They see the evidence everyday. The NDP cannot have confidence in a government that ignores these signs and ignores the signs that the climate change crisis is actually affecting our communities today. We are not talking about some far away time in the future.

The government is ignoring the conclusions of our best scientists and the best scientists in the world and those who have won Nobel peace prizes.

This government, like George Bush's government, is putting on the brakes and stopping progress to deal with the biggest crisis facing humanity today which is climate change. Yet, the Conservatives put the interests of oil and gas companies, the biggest polluters, in first place and help them out with our tax dollar subsidies.

It is very clear that we cannot have confidence in a government that is willing to turn its back on this Parliament, on the Canadian people, on the people of this earth at a time when decisive action is required. Could there be a more important time to express in this House a sentiment of non-confidence? I do not believe so and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

That is why we call on members of this House who believe as we do that this is a critical issue requiring a collaboration of action on the part of all of us here to send a message to the government that what it is doing to our climate is unacceptable to Canadians.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Great. We were just waiting for Mr. Cullen of the NDP. He was out of the room, in the bathroom, or with the media, or something.

We wanted to take a little more time, Nathan. This requires more time than what you're suggesting. You may be of the view that it does not, and maybe there could be an amendment to that effect. But we need more time to point out some of the flaws of the bill before us.

You would probably want to take this back to your leader, too. It was a very poorly written bill, as you know, since you've even had to introduce a bunch of amendments to your very own bill. It's uncustomary, I think you know from your time around this place, to introduce such significant amendments to your own bill. It's uncommon and uncustomary. People normally bring forward a good bill. They research it well before introducing it. They've had access to the Library of Parliament. Especially the leader of an official opposition party, you would think, would get it right the first time, because he has a major research bureau as well. If they're not prepared to do the work in advance, the careful research on something so important to Canada and to our environment, then it falls to us to do our duty and take the time. To be cutting us off in a five-minute span of time flies in the face of democracy. It flies in the face of due diligence. We have a duty to get these bills right.

Even the NDP leader admitted in committee that he hadn't bothered to find out how much the bill would cost Canadians in increased gas and energy prices. That's why we need more time. The mere five minutes allotted here doesn't give us time for that. We need to bring forward some costing issues, some constitutional issues. This needs to be done because others are not prepared to honour their responsibility to address some of these very significant things.

So five minutes per clause per speaker is very inadequate to the task.

We've had a number of witnesses before the committee, and some have made it clear that the bill was too badly written to proceed. This came from the mouths of witnesses before this august body. So I think this is the bounden duty, the task, the obligation, the responsibility of each individual member. We all come here representing tens of thousands of individuals. I myself represent some 80,000 people, and I would dare not shirk the responsibility entrusted to me to look at this bill. We need much longer than the five-minute look proposed here.

Mr. Cullen keeps darting in and out of this committee, and he's the one who proposed the motion. Nevertheless, he finds it convenient to be out elsewhere—on the phone or whatever—ignoring a good deal of the recent debate, the very arguments and rebuttals that might well persuade him to amend his own motion. This is not uncommon. It wouldn't surprise us to see the NDP subamending their own amendments. They've done it in respect of this particular bill, and I think they might well choose to do more of it if only they were to listen to some of the recent debate in the committee.

Witnesses attest to the bill being so badly written that it does not deserve to proceed. Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Regan, Francis, Bernard, and Marcel, Mr. Cullen—all have had adequate time to get it corrected. Francis is a friend and we're on a first-name basis, and that's why I address him in this familiar manner. I know he and others would take up the slack for the NDP. When you get Mr. McGuinty on a roll, bringing forward substantive things, talking eloquently, as he can do, about nothing, then we know we need more time than just five minutes. Five minutes is clearly inadequate. Mr. Godfrey, the esteemed scholar, will also need more time.

I ask you all to bear in mind that we've had a respected constitutional scholar, Mr. Hogg, tell the committee that this bill could reach into every area of Canadian economic and even social life, and that such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive, being unprecedented outside of wartime, should be a matter of political concern.

To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the other members, wartime is not upon us. Sometimes this committee denigrates or lowers itself so it might almost appear we're in that state, but really this is not war in the normal sense, if you will.

If Parliament were to enact a bill like this, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada, he says. And I know that would greatly distress my friends across the way, Mr. Chairman.

I know the Bloc members laboured diligently and are in fact doing research even as I speak in respect to ways they could turn and salvage this bill in some fashion to make it constitutionally acceptable, because it reaches right into Quebec life and intrudes into the provincial authority in a very significant way there.

So I know they are exercised about it. I know they are concerned about it. And for that reason as well, we need to take considerable time, more than the scant five minutes that's allowed, which is so inadequate for the task.

Mr. Cullen is back in the room again. He's back on the scene here, and he's listening carefully to these very considered, reasoned points that one makes in respect to his bill.

When he was out of the room I was inviting Mr. Cullen to consider maybe subamending his own motion. He would probably not find that a stretch, and he's in a mode to possibly do that.

André Turmel, from the Canadian Bar Association, said, in reference to targets.... And I think it's pretty important to hear what he has to say. He says that “targets should be linked to and coherent with targets set out in existing international law”. He said the targets in this bill are not. Very clearly, these targets do not have any coherent link with existing international law.

That's again reason, Mr. Chairman, why we need to have the more fulsome discussion, if you will, because these individuals have said there is not that level of detail, there's no possible linkage or coherence of these targets with targets set out in international law.

Because of that, you would expect that other members here would have something of an issue with that, something of concern to express to us in respect to that. Maybe the NDP, again, would be wise enough--one could only hope--to amend their bill even in respect to that, setting some targets coherent with international law.

I think it's important to know that when the NDP tried to write the same targets from this bill by Jack Layton, the NDP leader, and they tried to write those into the Clean Air Act, formerly Bill C-30, the Liberals across the way....

I'm not sure if Mr. Scarpaleggia was there. I think he was, actually. Mr. Regan, Mr. Godfrey, Mr. McGuinty, I think, Mr. Chairman, were probably there. They voted them down because they were unrealistic. And I think that stellar performance by Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Godfrey and Geoff Regan and Mr. Scarpaleggia on that night will go down in history as a notable and important thing to have done for our country, and so it should. The Liberals voted them down because they were clearly unrealistic, and months later, they now apparently--and I don't know what the change of mind is about here--have supported those targets.

That's why the time of five minutes, Mr. Chair.... I prevail upon you, I prevail--as a possible amendment of his own motion--on Mr. Cullen, because this is not adequate time to discuss the very meaty and weighty issue of the matter of the targets here.

As the Liberals knew and as they contended previously, they are unrealistic targets. I'm not sure what they might want to divulge to us, reveal to us, disclose to us, what particular research it is, what's got into their head now that they would support it, when in fact they were so very strongly against it. They opposed it unequivocally before, and now they're for it.

Five minutes is hardly enough time to understand something like that change of thinking and to get at why the Liberals would change their minds on that issue. To get into the head of a Liberal is a difficult thing, I suppose, in some circumstances. But that's what we would hope to do and draw out here, as members back and forth trying to bring about a good bill, if possible. That's a pretty high order in this case because of the significant flaws throughout Jack Layton's bill.

Mr. Cullen, who's been advocating for it, has again escaped the room. I'm not sure where he is. The NDP might want to send somebody else in here to do--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate the concerns expressed by Mr. Cullen. I was actually just about ready to quote Mr. Layton, so I'd like to continue to do that. He said, in his testimony, “I think of the people who thought about connecting one end of the country to another with a railroad.” This is an analogy he used to help us understand what his vision was for Bill C-377. He went on to say:

Do you think they had it all figured out as to how they were going to pull it off? Do you think they had figured out how they were going to pay for it all? Did they do it perfectly? The answer to all those things would be no, but they had a dream about where they wanted our country to be, and they took on the impossible and they focused on it.

What Mr. Layton has admitted is that he has no idea how it's going to be paid for. He has no idea on the substance of the bill. He even describes it as an impossible dream. And the Liberals break out in song.

We heard in testimony after testimony that this bill should be costed, and there should be an impact assessment. We heard that from every group of witnesses, including Mr. Layton himself. He said that the government should cost it.

The next witness after that was Mr. Bramley, and Mr. Bramley also said that it should be costed. When he was asked about it being costed, he said, “To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done”, referring to the costing.

And then it was actually Mr. Vellacott who said, “So you personally have not done any of the economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada?”, to which Mr. Bramley answered, “No”.

So we're not making up anything here. It's well documented in the blues that the bill hasn't been costed. It's void of substance. It will not stand a constitutional challenge. I believe it was even a member from the Bloc who said that this bill needs to be totally rewritten.

One of the greatest hypocrisies that the NDP could put on us is if they wanted to substantially amend their own bill, because a substantial number of witnesses who came before our committee said it was fraught with problems, and I've just touched on a few. So they brought to committee a bill that is poorly written, not costed, which will not stand up constitutionally, and now they want to totally rewrite the bill.

The motion I made is relevant because I think the bill needs to be totally redone before it comes back here.

I personally believe that Canada does have a turning-the-corner plan, which is supported by Parliament. It was part of our Speech from the Throne, and it was supported by this government and this Parliament. That is the Canadian plan, the turning-the-corner plan, which has very definite targets of absolute reduction of 20% by 2020, and 60% to 70% reductions by 2050. And those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

During the hearings on Bill C-30 the NDP tried to write in medium- and long-term targets that appeared in Bill C-377. The Liberals opposed them by saying those targets were too tough. You can check the record.

The fact is, I have a quote from Mr. McGuinty here saying,

I think we'd have some difficulty, Mr. Chair, in increasing this number for fear that it would not fit with so many of the achievable outcomes that we heard about from different expert witnesses.

And then he went on to say, “We do not accept the friendly amendment.”

That was on March 27 of last year in the committee studying Bill C-30.

I have another quote here, and it was from Mr. Godfrey. On March 27 he said,

Like previously, we certainly wish to be ambitious, but also we want to be realistic. But concern and prudence for giving ourselves a bit of room to manoeuvre, as we have done on the 2020 target, means that we can't accept this, much as we'd like to, as a friendly amendment.

He was referring to the amendment from the NDP. That was again at the committee studying Bill C-30 on March 27.

Yet four weeks later, on April 30 of last year, the Liberals voted to support those targets in the House of Commons. Do they now disagree with the targets that they wrote into Bill C-30? I'm not sure. There appears to be a flip-flop from the leader of the opposition and also from his environmental critic.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the NDP hypocrisy on the environment. Just what is the position of the NDP leader in short-, medium-, and long-term targets on greenhouse gas reductions?

Recently Mr. Layton and the NDP have supported two different positions: the targets they wrote with the Liberals into Bill C-30, which could have cost Canadian families and businesses 275,000 jobs and sent gasoline prices soaring to $1.60 a litre, and now even tougher targets on this bill that would harm the economy even further. The NDP are being hypocritical by supporting two different positions. When will they come clean with Canadians about their real position on greenhouse gas emission targets?

Mr. Chair, the turning-the-corner plan is the first time ever that the federal government focuses on mandatory requirements for industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We will take immediate action by implementing mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down. The turning-the-corner plan takes us in the right direction.

Another relevant piece I would like to introduce is a letter addressed to you, Mr. Chair, from Sheila Fraser. This is in response to Bill C-377 and what the NDP did in drafting this poorly written bill. This is the response from Sheila Fraser:

I am writing to provide you with comments on Bill C-377, which I understand is currently before your committee. In preparing this letter, I have consulted with the Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Ron Thompson. Although we appreciate the confidence shown in the work of our Office by the drafters of the bill, we do have serious concerns with section 13. Put simply, this section would require the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to undertake two types of work that are inconsistent with both its legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. First, paragraph 13(l)(a) would require us to determine the likelihood of certain measures attaining results in the future. Our audit mandate is different and requires us to examine and report on what has happened, rather than what may or may not happen. Second, paragraph 13(l)(b) would require us to give policy advice to the Minister or the Governor in Council. This is inconsistent with our legal mandate and accepted practice for Canadian legislative auditors. Our role is to provide Parliament with objectively determined and credible audit findings. I hope that these comments will be helpful to you and your committee. I would be pleased to elaborate on them at your convenience.

I think that might be helpful.

I'd like to share with the committee a few of the other comments. As I said, I asked each group whether there should be an economic analysis on this, and every group said yes.

These are some of the comments that I have highlighted from Professor John Stone:

I certainly have been very encouraged by the words that I've heard from the present government, Mr. Warawa, of their intentions to tackle the issue.

He was referring to our turning-the-corner plan.

Of course, we need to cost whatever plans they have from whatever party we have and in whichever country we're talking about. That's only good public policy. I will just have to assume that whatever plans are presented to Parliament and to the Government of Canada and to Canadians are properly costed. Yes, I agree with you.

So there's another example of Dr. Stone saying that it has to be costed.

We've heard from Jack Layton that it wasn't costed and that he wants it costed. He's recommending that it be costed.

So we're really putting the horse before the cart by going ahead without it being costed.

I brought this up a number of times, Chair, that it should be costed, and yet we're moving ahead. They're wanting to move ahead. It takes time to do this properly, but no, there's not an appetite to do this properly. They want to greenwash this bill.

Dr. Stone went on and said the following:

I don't see that Bill C-377 is necessarily inconsistent with where our present government is going, nor indeed with the aspirational statements I've heard from other parties. My sense is that slowly—and I emphasize slowly—we seem to be coming to a consensus amongst parties in Canada that in fact this is an issue we cannot afford not to tackle. I've been encouraged by what the present government is saying in its levels of targets and the like.

So we have, again, support for our turning-the-corner plan. Parliament has taken a position that the targets of 20% reduction, absolute reduction, by 2020—and these are post-Kyoto, post-2012 targets—and 60% to 70% reduction by 2050 are realistic and achievable, and they have been costed. The position of Parliament is that this is the plan of Canada.

For the NDP to introduce Bill C-377, a bill that hasn't been costed, that will not stand up constitutionally, that has no policy attached to it.... These are just vague, meaningless targets. The bill has to be totally rewritten. We've heard that it would give the federal government sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces, which would raise real concerns provincially and constitutionally.

So it's a poorly written bill. I think my motion that it not proceed, which would result in it going back to the House, is the right motion.

I look forward to other comments, particularly on the costing aspect and the constitutionality of this.

Budget

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about a lack of credibility, the lack of credibility of the Prime Minister goes well over just the economy and permeates everything.

Let us look at the so-called climate change plan. The C.D. Howe Institute has said, “The government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatonnes”.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply adopt a real plan, a plan that will work, the Liberal plan, Bill C-30, the climate change and clean air act that the government shamefully killed last fall?

The Environment

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is the worst ecological threat humanity is facing. Canada must do its best to fight it, but the government has done bad. Its so-called plan is so weak that it will not even meet its weak targets.

If the Prime Minister is serious about cooperation, why will he not bring back Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, which he shamefully killed last fall?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the plan put forward by the Minister of the Environment has been roundly criticized and is considered very weak, whereas Bill C-30 was widely praised for good reason. Moreover, it is based on the Liberal idea of a carbon budget. The Pembina Institute called it the best proposal any Canadian political party ever made to control industrial pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister this: what is preventing him from recognizing the excellent work done by Parliament and allowing a debate in this House on Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Afghanistan, the Prime Minister has shown a new openness, which we would like to see extended to other issues, such as climate change, one of the worst threats to humankind. The government killed the clean air bill, Bill C-30, a comprehensive plan to combat climate change.

Could the Prime Minister not resurrect this plan and hold a debate in this House on the basis of this bill, to prove that his new openness will not be limited to the issue of Afghanistan?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

On a point of order, in order to know if a bill is good or not you need something to compare it to. Comparing it to Bill C-30 or Bill C-288 is a proper line of questioning to determine whether the government has improved or not--to go forward or back. I think it's a fair question in this regard.

If you have a piece of legislation before you, what can you compare it to; what can you analyze it against? I think Mr. McGuinty's questions are in line with what's happening here today.

[Julia Langer]

I haven't done an exact comparison, but Bill C-30 did have some small improvements on the energy efficiency side. We have been pursuing that very aggressively and would give more ambit to setting energy efficiency targets. It's not that many of those things could not be done now, but it was interesting to see the ambit improved.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-33, which, in short, would regulate fuels. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of having the standing committee study this bill. In fact, passing the bill at second reading, the motion which we will vote on, enables the committee to directly examine this bill. The bill will not have an immediate effect on the content of fuels, but it will simply enable the minister to regulate the content.

The bill reflects some of the Bloc's concerns—and I say some—that we should wean ourselves off our dependence on oil. The Bloc Québécois, like all Quebeckers, believes our policy should be to increasingly reduce our dependence on oil. The bill also calls for an effort to be made in the transportation sector in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of agricultural and wood waste products.

Before the regulations are implemented, our party would like to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which calls specifically for legislative action to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada. The regulation would be very similar to the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

We know the Conservative government's stance on this, however. It has chosen to ignore the reform supported by those who are showing leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases. In his statement, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities instead endorsed the Bush administration's declaration, which is much less demanding and seems as though it was designed specifically to spare American car manufacturers. Once again, the Minister of Transport showed his loyalty to the Prime Minister's approach and the Conservative Party line, which lean towards the Bush administration rather than California standards.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels. It would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline. The proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 of the previous session. I would remind the House that the bill called the “clean air act” was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appear in the amended version of the bill.

The government already announced the following:

An amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations which will require five per cent average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations will also require two per cent average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

Clearly, we believe that cellulosic ethanol is the way of the future. In terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This process, still in the experimental stage and deserving of more support for research, uses a plentiful and inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground. Thus, research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose and fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses. However, it is a more complex process requiring specific enzymes and it is not cost-effective at present.

Iogen, an Ottawa company, has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years. The pilot plant in Sweden produces ethanol from wood chips. The production process combines acid and enzyme hydrolysis. The products obtained are lignin, which can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide, which is recovered, and ethanol, which is used to produce a biofuel.

Still in the experimental stage, ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste cannot yet compete with traditional products. However, it does represent an interesting possibility. In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec.

It is important for all parties, and all the men and women listening, to understand the Bloc Québécois's policy and program to reduce our dependency on oil.

Quebec can cut its oil dependency in half within 10 years. By oil dependency, we mean oil's percentage of our energy consumption. Since global consumption of energy—be it electricity, energy from biomass or less conventional energy—will continue to grow in parallel with economic growth, reducing oil dependency by 50% means reducing oil consumption by a third in absolute numbers. This is quite a challenge, but it is not impossible.

The Bloc Québécois estimates that this huge shift requires that six objectives be met: one, quickly help Hydro-Québec regain a margin of flexibility; two, continue encouraging individuals, businesses and industries to give up using oil; three, reduce fuel consumption in passenger transportation; four, stop the increase in consumption in goods transportation; five, reduce consumption of petroleum products as fuel; and six, make Quebec a centre for clean energy and clean transportation.

When we say that we need to focus on energy efficiency to restore a margin of flexibility to Hydro-Québec, which can no longer count on surplus electricity as it did in the past, the goal is to increase residential efficiency by 18% and reduce consumption by 15% in 10 years.

To recoup energy, we need to start by looking at the energy we waste. The best way to create some flexibility is to improve energy efficiency, especially in buildings. Older homes are must less efficient than new homes. Homes of equal size built between 1981 and 1996 lose 14% more heat than new homes built after 1996. The difference climbs to 27% for homes built between 1971 and 1981 and 43% for even older homes. Using fairly simple methods to improve thermal efficiency, we can reduce the difference between older homes and newer homes by 65%, according to the federal Department of Natural Resources.

Given the real potential to save energy, we need to look at introducing measures such as programs to encourage people to use alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, passive solar or photovoltaic energy; mandatory but free energy audits when homeowners apply for a permit for a significant renovation; and amendments to the building code to set thermal efficiency standards for older homes and require that homes be brought up to standard before any permit is issued for major renovations.

Our second proposal is to eliminate the use of fuel oil in homes, businesses and industry. The 10-year goal would be to reduce by half the number of homes that heat with fuel oil, to reduce their consumption by 60% through energy efficiency measures, and to reduce by 45% the use of oil as a source of energy in industry.

In 25 years, the number of homes heated by fuel oil in Quebec has been cut in half. In the past few years, the trend has slowed considerably, in part because there are no longer any incentives for converting heating systems, but also because the price of oil has been relatively low for the past decade. The price of oil has gone up considerably in the past two years and that in itself provides an incentive.

To accelerate the conversion rate, the incentives for converting heating systems that were successful in the past could be reinstated.

Third, we recommend curbing fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. Trucks consume far too much fuel and alternatives to trucking are not flexible enough.

The goal is to put a freeze on truck traffic at its current level and to focus on technological advances and on changing the standards and regulations, in order to achieve a 9% reduction in fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. This increased fuel consumption is directly related to the increased quantity of goods being transported by truck.

While the quantity of goods transported grows along with the economy, rail transport is not growing as quickly as production, and transport by truck is practically absorbing the entire increase. To reduce truck traffic in the intercity transport of goods, in addition to increasing the energy efficiency of trucks, the relative advantages of other modes of transport need to be greater and efficient infrastructure needs to be developed to encourage the use of more than one mode of transportation.

Creating programs to rebuild the rail system, immediately removing all federal obstacles to implementing a Quebec marine policy, building an efficient transshipment infrastructure to facilitate the use of more than one mode of transport—intermodal transport—and limiting the predominance of trucking are some avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

There is a second point to the third suggestion, which is to curb fuel consumption for the intra-city transport of goods, since nearly all oversized vehicles run on oil products. The goal would be to reduce the amount of fuel used for the intra-city transport of goods by 25%. Unlike intercity transport, for which it is possible to develop alternatives to trucking—since it is over a long distance, it is always possible to consider transport by rail or by water—trucks will always be difficult to replace in an urban environment. However, in many cases, the vehicles used for this type of transport are unnecessarily large.

According to a 2001 study by the Office of Energy Efficiency, delivery trucks in urban areas in Canada were on average driving with a load that was at 20.5% of their capacity. The Bloc Québécois thinks we should put an end to that.

Measures specially designed for this sector can be implemented, for example, developing plans to reduce the size of vehicles, in cooperation with the government, for transport and delivery companies. For companies to which this measure could apply, such as messenger companies, there should be incentives to encourage them to introduce as many electric or hybrid vehicles into their transport fleet as possible. This idea has already made some progress, since in a brief presented to the House Standing Committee on Finance on October 17, 2006, the association representing messenger companies indicated that its members were interested in introducing electric-dominant hybrid vehicles into their fleets, provided they would receive a federal tax credit to help them make up for the price difference between hybrids and gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Bloc Québécois' fourth suggestion is to reduce the amount of fuel used to transport people, which makes up two thirds of the total amount of oil consumed in Quebec's transport sector and of which a large portion, 83%, is used in urban settings almost exclusively by cars. Our goal is to halt the increase in the number of automobiles on our roads by promoting a 40% increase in public transit ridership, and to reduce the fuel consumption of privately owned vehicles by 17% and that of industrial and commercial vehicles by 30%. Automobiles are responsible for nearly all oil consumption used in passenger transportation. Reducing our oil dependency and contributing to the fight against greenhouse gases necessarily requires us to reduce the use of cars and reduce fuel consumption.

There are two paths to achieving our objectives. On one hand, we must come up with an efficient alternative to the use of personal cars in urban settings and, on the other hand, we must reduce the amount of fuel consumed by cars. This will obviously require considerable investment in public transit infrastructure, particularly, to establish transit-only roads, develop new lines for commuter trains, street cars and trolley buses, establish designated lanes for public transit and car pooling, all properly monitored, as well as car sharing and other initiatives. For the Montreal, Quebec City and Gatineau areas alone, these developments would require considerable investment.

It would also require regulatory changes in order to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of automobiles. Such a measure would target a 20% reduction in the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec within10 years. In order to ensure that the reduced fuel consumption of new vehicles is not offset by an increase in consumption by older vehicles, this measure would have to be coupled with mandatory annual inspections of all vehicles more than five years old or having been driven more than 100,000 km.

Once again, our regulations should follow the California model rather than what is being proposed by the Bush administration in the United States or the Conservative administration in Canada.

Fifth, we recommend that the amount of oil be reduced in fuels where biofuels, despite their interesting potential, are almost non-existent. The objective of our fifth suggestion is to reduce by 5% the amount of oil consumed throughout Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, like the federal government, is recommending that current oil-based fuels have a 5% biofuel content—biodiesel and ethanol, preferably cellulosic ethanol.

Sixth, we recommend that Quebec—a leader in some areas of transportation and clean energy—become a transportation and clean energy pole primarily by increasing investment in research and development and promoting the creation of technology poles. The objective is to gain the advantage on our neighbours and to be on the cutting edge of technology when this sector really takes off.

By further consolidating our assets in such sectors as public transportation, hydroelectricity and wind power, as well as substantially increasing support for research and development in niches related to clean technologies—in which Quebec has comparative advantages—Quebec could have an enviable position in the post-petroleum era because it would be less vulnerable to oil crises and it could export leading edge technology.

Over the next 10 years, achieving the objectives and recommendations that we have just listed would benefit Quebec in many ways. Quebeckers could benefit from a 32.8% reduction in oil consumption in Quebec and a reduction of close to 50% in oil used for power generation in Quebec, which would drop from 38% to 20%. They would also benefit from a 21.5% reduction in Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions, and a savings of $3.2 million on the cost of importing oil into Quebec. These measures would also make Quebec more competitive and stimulate growth, which would, in turn, increase employment and outside investment. Quebeckers would also benefit from increased wealth and an improved balance of trade.

Let us not forget that achieving these goals would effectively reduce Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2012 and by 21.5% by 2020.

Within a few years, these investments would produce significant results, particularly in terms of Quebec's balance of trade, the competitiveness of businesses here, household disposable income in Quebec, Hydro-Quebec's revenues, and employment in construction and businesses in the transportation and clean energy sectors. In short, investing to reduce our oil dependency will make Quebec richer and will generate revenue that will enable the state to cover the full cost of these investments, perhaps within as little as seven years.

It is important to understand that so far, Quebec has developed its hydroelectric generating capacity by itself with no funding from the federal government, which has contributed barely 8% to the development of wind energy. It is high time the government came up with programs that will enable us to invest in reducing our oil dependency, in helping people and in imposing the strictest possible standards for automobile manufacturing, rather than offering tax credits to help rich oil companies.

All the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois are achievable in the short, medium and long term. Just as it is already a leader in hydroelectricity and wind energy, Quebec could be a world leader in the fight against greenhouse gases, but especially in our desire to reduce our oil dependency. Clearly, this will require an effort by the federal government.

Quebeckers can cut their oil dependency in half within 10 years, but only if the federal government does not work against us and scupper Quebec's efforts by doing nothing, as it has done in the fight against greenhouse gases.

Moreover, in accordance with the constitutional division of powers, the federal government has responsibility for taking some steps to help achieve these objectives. Consequently, the government must correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all, mainly in the form of independent revenue, which grows with the economy and inflation. It must also continue investing in transportation, in particular by rebuilding rail lines and port facilities, building transshipment facilities to support the development of intermodal transport and improving transportation networks.

In short, with federal involvement, Quebeckers could avoid once again having to foot the bill themselves for developing new energy sources.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I will indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question was more from an actual science position, because I have heard from these gentlemen before, as you know, and I was wondering if they, in their expertise, looking at international examples, could advise on what has worked and what has not. So from a science perspective, it was definitely appropriate, notwithstanding the muddles from the other side.

I've heard much testimony on Bill C-30 in the environment committee before, and actually I think from three of the four gentlemen here today. It's fair to say that many people want the result, the result of cutting emissions no matter what, and are prepared to do so at any price—and we heard Mr. Weaver earlier. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people have that position, and other people have the position that they want to look at the price, and whatever is reasonable we'll cut that much.

Would it be fair to say that this government has actually taken a position that is fairly moderate and is more right down the middle, with, quite frankly, the most aggressive targets in the world that I'm aware of, mandatory targets, including the ecoAUTO strategy, and so on? Would it be fair to say that this government has taken a more middle-of-the-road approach than the two extremes that I've put out as hypotheses?

Mr. Stone.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was going to say that I recognize a lot of these overheads from Bill C-30 and was wondering how they in fact apply to the specificity of Bill C-377. Thank you for clarifying that.

Can I ask both of you to comment where Mr. Bramley left off?

Mr. Bramley, earlier the parliamentary secretary raised questions about you and about whether your fingerprints were all over this bill, as he implied they were all over Bill C-288. I think he's trying to draw a connection; I'm not sure whether he's trying to make a more pointed statement about it. But it's curious that it falls hard on the heels of the tongue-lashing that environmental NGOs received yesterday from the minister in a very public way about their being responsible for Canada's situation today.

I'd like to ask you both, though, about the comments Mr. Bramley made about science.

Mr. Bramley, you said your Case for Deep Reductions report and Bill C-377 were aligned with science, that this was a science-based approach.

Can you help us both, please, understand, in the wake of the comments made by Professor Weaver two weeks ago about the government not relying on the science—in fact, to quote him, he said he thought the government was drawing its scientific inspiration from an Ouija board.... The IPCC president said yesterday in Bali that the government is not following science, certainly not informing its negotiating position with science.

Can both of you help us understand, in the case of Bill C-377, and in the case of your overheads, Ms. Donnelly, and of your report, Mr. Bramley, is the government's climate change plan, which is the foundation we're standing upon in Bali today—the “Turning the Corner” plan—in fact informed with science, and is it based on the consensual science that now exists around the world?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Yes, I put this together over the weekend—as you know, our invitation came late—though most of the slides are slides I had already submitted to the Bill C-30 committee earlier, in February this year, as a witness.

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

It depends on where the solutions are to be found. If we can find a formula that takes territories into account—or territoriality, if you prefer—as well as the sectors that have the largest emissions, and if this formula enables us to meet our overall reduction targets, we are ready to discuss it. Nevertheless, if one part of Canada meets the reduction targets proposed by this bill while other parts of the country have a four-fold increase in emissions, we will not reach our ultimate goal. However, if the committee can help us to work out an acceptable formula, we are ready to discuss it. We said the same thing about Bill C-30 and the other proposals brought before the committee weeks and months ago.

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

Well, we would be open to that proposition. We supported Bill C-288, as you know, worked on it, and also Bill C-30. I think this suite, if you will, of pieces of legislation should be able to fit together in a way that accomplishes the goal. I think it's quite likely that coming out of Bali and those negotiations an end point of 2020 would not be a surprise, so we put a fix on that one with our 25% reduction there.

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

The way the process I envisage would work is that, just as Mr. Lussier has described, there would be a request to everybody to submit their names.

We accept the four chunks here, so that's all fine. My only suggestion is that when all the names have been submitted by the parties, before the invitations are sent out by Norm, there be a discussion by the steering committee just to make sure the thing is balanced, because you and Norm may not know the names as well as those who have submitted them. So if the four party representatives, including you, say okay, let's make sure we've got a nice balanced list for each of them.... Nobody's disputing what we're doing here; they're just trying to make sure this is the most efficient. And then, based on those negotiations, send out the invitations, let everybody know how it's going, and you've cut out a whole process. You can even have back-up witnesses. If A can't make it , B can make it. I just think you could do that in two hours. And we did it, as Mr. Warawa well knows, when Mr. Hawn was in the chair on Bill C-30. That's exactly what we did: we got all the stuff in, we looked at it, we did a certain amount of negotiation to make sure it was balanced, and then it was done.

That's the only time I want the steering committee involved, just to expedite the process. I have no hidden agenda here.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I agree with you 100%. I think this government is well on its way.

I had the opportunity to visit Reykjavik during the polar conference in 2004. As a statistician I was shocked and left very concerned by what I saw at that conference and with these most recent reports.

When I sat on committee onBill C-30 I had the opportunity to listen to experts. They seemed to indicate that the biggest impact in Canada is going to be primarily on infrastructure and transportation, especially in our north, but along the lakes and oceans. We heard experts' evidence that indeed investments in transport and infrastructure would reduce greenhouse gas emissions towards green space. I remember one person from Quebec who gave us very good evidence that a real investment in infrastructure and transportation would mitigate the effect of climate change.

I know it's not enough, but this government has moved forward with an unprecedented amount of $33 billion to invest in infrastructure over the next seven years, because of the $126 billion that we've been left with in infrastructure deficits from the prior Liberal government.

Would you agree, Dr. Stone, that investment in infrastructure and transportation is a way to mitigate in part--not enough, but one of many fingers that can be used to help--greenhouse gas emissions, and that infrastructure and transportation will have the biggest impact for Canada overall in the short term?

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

First of all, to be clear, the reason I'm not in favour of that is I think it leads to the very thing you're afraid of, which is the repetition of conversations. In order to have the vote, then we'll have the discussion, and if we've already had the discussion in subcommittee....

The ideal was how the thing worked before, which was the casting out of a calendar, looking at the issues that had come to us all as MPs and deciding which ones were to be proposed forward. Remember that we went through that on the Bill C-30 committee and on Bill C-28. Whenever we're looking at something specific.... We'll do the same for Bill C-377, which is in front of committee, I imagine.

To then put it into the prescription that we have to then take everything back to a vote.... Is it voting on each of the witnesses? Is it voting on the order? I think the best way to do this, as people have described tangentially, is to avoid the issue of voting. As the government has admitted, if the opposition chooses to just use that in concert, then the voting system doesn't work for their favour.

The reason I had originally posed my motion was to allow a government member on the table. The reason I had prescribed not a parliamentary secretary was to avoid what we'd seen last time, which was not the only factor but I believe was a contributing factor to the partisanship.

I think we should just vote on this motion as is. I appreciate you trying to achieve some consensus, but I think we have what we have and we need to try this and look at the Bali conference and the Bill C-377 legislation, which will likely be the first two areas of concentration. Try this at least until Christmas.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I really was looking forward to the government's throne speech. The government said when it prorogued the House that it would chart a new course for this country. I expected it to live up to those words. The government prorogued this House. That is a very serious act. That turned back the clock on many bills and motions that had been worked on for months by the members of this House.

I thought that since the government took this step, it would truly have a new direction, a new course, but I was disappointed. Once again the Conservative government looked in the rear-view mirror. It missed an opportunity. It is taking Canada in the wrong direction, the wrong direction on climate change and the wrong direction for seniors, for children, for first nations and for ordinary Canadian families.

The biggest disappointment was the government's complete and utter failure to address climate change. Last spring, my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, worked hard in an all party committee to improve Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, so that Canada could begin to move in the right direction.

All parties agreed that Bill C-30 was going to be a good start, but the government is not even bringing it back. In fact, it is bringing back only a small portion of it even though the majority of the House agreed on the changes to Bill C-30. What arrogance. What contempt for this House the government has. Once again it has broken the trust of ordinary Canadians.

I and many others from my riding and across the country are disappointed in the government's stance on the environment because we are running out of time. Ordinary Canadians are doing their part. They are changing their light bulbs. They are conserving water. They are converting to hybrid cars. However, no matter how many of us change our light bulbs, if the government does not change course all our efforts will be futile.

The government could have made a big difference if it had implemented hard caps on large carbon emitters. That would go a long way to meeting our emission targets. It decided to go with intensity based measures instead. With the expansion of the oil sands looming on the horizon, intensity targets will do nothing to reduce Canada's emissions. When we produce more oil from the oil sands, we also will be producing more greenhouse gases.

Another opportunity was missed by the government when it came to addressing the needs of seniors. My colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, introduced the seniors charter last year. It was debated and passed by the House, but the government has never enacted it. The government had an opportunity in this throne speech to implement the priorities of the charter, including primary care, long term care, home care and free pharmacare and dental care. These things would all enhance the quality of life for seniors.

However, once again the government has let seniors and all Canadians down. It is another broken promise. The governmentt said it would act on what was passed by the majority of this House.

When it comes to hope and fairness for ordinary Canadians, the government has done nothing on the issue of affordable housing and homelessness. We have just seen $14 billion in federal surplus. The government has announced that this year's surplus will be twice what it had anticipated. Quelle surprise.

With all that extra money in the coffers and with all the need for housing in my communities, and in fact with nearly two million Canadians across this country who do not have what is deemed to be acceptable housing, why did the government not make it a priority to invest in a national housing strategy?

I have been to many first nations communities in my riding. The housing situation there is even worse. For example, in Port Hardy, the Gwa'Sala-Nakwaxda'xw are in dire need of acceptable shelter. They live in mouldy homes. Sometimes as many as 25 people are living in one house and three families live together in a home built for single family occupation. These are deplorable conditions and they need to be addressed immediately.

The same goes for child care. I have been talking with parents and child care workers in my riding from Port McNeill to Courtenay, and they are telling me that there is a crisis. Failure on the part of the government to address the crisis has resulted in longer wait times for child care space and increasing costs. There is up to a two years wait for a space. That means we have to register our child before it is even born.

Child care centres need reliable, long term funding to provide the kind of access that parents and their children are looking for. That is why the NDP proposed the child care act that will soon be voted on at third reading. That is the kind of solution today's families are looking for, real commitments to child care in this country.

I would like to address two things that are crucial to Vancouver Island North, two things the government mentioned in its throne speech that it would protect. It said it would stand up for forestry and fishing, but on these two files, the government has a very bad track record.

The Conservatives sold out forestry communities and forestry workers in my riding and across this country when they signed the sellout softwood agreement. Because of that agreement, it is not profitable for companies to mill logs in Canada, so they ship raw logs to the U.S. or abroad and we get to buy them back as finished lumber.

The irony is not lost on the constituents of Vancouver Island North. Our communities are surrounded by forests, yet lumber mills are closing from B.C. to Atlantic Canada as more and more raw logs and jobs leave this country. Pulp and paper mills and fibre mills are having a hard time getting fibre because there are very few sawmills left to provide it.

I introduced Motion No. 301 to curtail raw log exports and to encourage value added and manufacturing right here in Canada. The natural resources minister said he recognized that something needed to be done about the situation that is killing our resource based communities, but again, the government has failed to act. I do not call that standing up for an industry, for workers or for our communities.

The other issue that I would like to mention is that the Conservatives said they would stand up for the fishing industry, but again, they are going in the wrong direction. Last spring, they introduced Bill C-45, a new fisheries act, without consultation with fishermen, first nations or anyone from our communities. That bill has gone now because of prorogation, but why did they bring it forward in the first place? No one wanted it.

They also said that they would decentralize the DFO and have more decision making on the coasts of this country. After almost two years there has been no movement on this promise. Instead, I have to ask the government if they are trying to kill our west coast fisheries.

Just a few weeks ago an order came down from on high to cut the Chinook egg take for the entire west coast. When asked why, the Conservatives said it was due to a lack of funds, but I remember last year when I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about a budget cut, I was told that it had not been cut, so there should have been lots of money there.

Thankfully, the decision to cut this egg take and to kill the Chinook fishery was turned around, but a decision like that should never have been made in the first place.

Also, a recent barge spill in my riding in Robson Bight is causing grave concerns because the fuel tank and vehicles are on the bottom of the ocean continuing to leak oil and diesel to the surface. Environmental groups, local businesses, students and concerned people from around the world donated money to carry out an investigation. We called on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to also carry out an investigation, but the ministry waited a full two months and finally, after the environmental organizations announced that they would do carry out an investigation, the government was embarrassed and had to come forward and say it would do one too. It finally did the right thing.

These oil spills are having a devastating effect on the waters and on the salmon in the Strait of Georgia. Salmon are the canary in the coal mines of our oceans. They feed whales and people, and are a source of cultural and ceremonial significance to first nations of B.C. The health of salmon is important to the west coast and we are in danger of losing them.

Enhancement must be increased. Monitoring of sport and commercial fishing must be increased if we are to have a clear picture of what is going on off our coast.

There are many reasons not to support the direction in which the government is going. I am speaking for the thousands of Canadians in my riding who oppose this direction. I and they have little confidence--

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would concur with my colleague that the Prime Minister has indeed lost his way, if he had ever been on the right way toward dealing with the climate change crisis.

I find it absolutely ironic that earlier in the debate, a member from the government caucus had asked about how we reform our democratic institutions. It seems to me one of the best ways to deal with democracy in the country is to act on the will of Parliament. Bill C-30 was that kind of opportunity. All parties had collaborated. We had a comprehensive bill that would tackle climate change in a meaningful way and the government decided to let that bill fall by the wayside and to introduce a watered down version that has all the right words but will not do anything to address this very serious problem that is top of mind for most Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I am familiar with his expertise in the subject matter, since we sat together on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. In fact, I hope we will do so again in the course of this new session.

I would nevertheless like to assure my colleague that the Liberal Party fully supports the Kyoto protocol. We must agree on that. But he already knows this, since it was our party that proposed the carbon budget that was included in Bill C-30, a bill that was passed by the committee.

Let us move on. I have a technical question for the member. A number of times now, we have heard that the government wanted to limit the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, create a carbon exchange. However, in order for a carbon exchange to really take root, we need absolute limits on greenhouse gas emissions, do we not? That is my first question.

My second question is this. Last week, the Globe and Mail revealed that business leaders and executives of Canada's largest companies want the government to adopt absolute limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The government clearly refuses to listen to the public or to Canada's business leaders. So, who does it listen to?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as leader of Her Majesty's official opposition, to rise today and lead the Liberal Party of Canada in responding to the Speech from the Throne to open the second session of the 39th Parliament of Canada.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Governor General for the elegance with which she delivered the Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, my congratulations will almost have to stop there. The meagre Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday is so vague, so full of holes and raises so many concerns that it warrants little praise.

Yet, somehow, in thinking about this a lot, I may find something relatively positive to say about the speech. It is not as bad as the one we would have heard from the Conservative Party if it had been a majority government.

As the Prime Minister's most trusted political adviser, Professor Tom Flanagan, recently described, if the Conservatives form a majority government, rural economies would be threatened by a fatal assault on supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. Health care would be subject to an agenda of Conservative “radical reform”. One may imagine what that means.

The work of our police officers and the safety of our citizens would be threatened by the absolute dismantling of the gun registry and our environment would be neglected by those who believe that, to quote Mr. Flanagan's incredibly irresponsible statement, “global warming may threaten the planet, but it actually improves the weather in Canada”.

Canadians can count on the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party will never form a majority.

The throne speech we heard yesterday, with all of its weaknesses, has to be assessed in light of the fact that Canadians do not want another election right now. They want Parliament to do its job.

Three general elections in three and a half years, not to mention the provincial elections held recently or to be held shortly, would be too much in the eyes of Canadians.

The Prime Minister and his government may be increasingly frustrated by an opposition that prevents them from implementing their ultra-Conservative program; but we, the official opposition, are determined to make Parliament work. That is what Canadians want.

Let us look at the more positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne. It is encouraging to see that the government intends to expand the scope of the Action Plan for Official Languages, which linguistic minorities are in the bad habit of calling the Dion plan. We hope the government will keep this promise and table a robust plan that it will not have to call the Dion plan II.

But why stop there? Why not revive the court challenges program that has done so much to protect minority rights? And why not reinstate the bilingual requirement for officers of the Canadian Forces?

We are pleased to see that the government has finally decided to offer an official apology to the victims of the Indian residential schools. This does not in any way discharge the government of its obligation to right the terrible wrongs caused by its rejection of the Kelowna Accord, which delayed urgently needed measures in education, health and infrastructure, and by its refusal to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are also pleased with the government's interest in Canada's North and we support its intention to set up a world-class research station there. However, we would like to know the location of the site, the budget and the deadlines for achieving this plan.

It was high time for the government to keep its promise of mapping the Arctic seabed. It made that promise 18 months ago. We would like to know how the government intends to respect the crucial 2013 deadline to show that the continental shelf falls within Canadian territory, which our country is required to do since it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The government also talked about expanding aerial surveillance in the North, but then why not deploy fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, as the previous Liberal government planned to do?

One may also ask why the government makes no mention of the building of small craft harbours in the Arctic, when such a measure could create jobs and increase trade and tourism in northern Canada.

And why not take a collaborative diplomatic approach to assert our interests with the Arctic Council, the only international organization of circumpolar countries, which can deal with major Arctic issues, and within which Canada must still play a leadership role?

Finally, to conclude on the North, how can one talk about the North without talking about enhancing the quality of life of its inhabitants, the quality of life of the Inuit people and services that are provided to them, particularly at a time when global warming has such a profound effect on their way of life?

In another positive point in the Speech from the Throne, we were pleased to learn that the government was committed to supporting our veterans. However, the throne speech does not contain any provision to enhance the quality of life of active members of our armed forces and their families, particularly to help them overcome the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder that often follow their deployment overseas.

We take note of the government's intention to modernize the Canadian armed forces. However, we have some concerns about the way that it wants to do so. Will the government continue with its troubling reliance on contracting without tender? Contracts of $30 billion have already been awarded in this manner.

It is good to learn that the government has decided to make a commitment toward Haiti, but it remains vague on the exact nature of this commitment. Is it financial aid for basic health care? Is it funds for reforestation? We still do not know.

Of course we applaud the decision to grant Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi honorary Canadian citizenship. This is an idea that we fully support and that our colleague from the Yukon has been promoting for months.

Let me now turn my attention to the more problematic sections of the speech, starting with the absurd expression that the Prime Minister keeps repeating. Let me tell the Prime Minister that when he argues that “Canada is back” he diminishes the fine tradition of Canadian peacekeeping and international leadership that long preceded the Conservative government's election to office.

And for that, Canadians must wonder where the Prime Minister was back when Canada obtained an international treaty banning landmines; when Canada was a main architect of the International Criminal Court; when Canadian armed forces airplanes were the only ones operating an airlift in and out of Kigali during the Rwanda genocide; when our soldiers fought to protect Bosnia's civilian population; or when Canada hosted the world in Montreal and rallied it around the Kyoto protocol.

The government's continued ambiguity on the mission in Afghanistan is also disconcerting. The government is being deliberately ambiguous about the length of the mission in Kandahar. In fact, it does not want to mention the word Kandahar. Nor does it mention the words “combat mission”. It refuses to call the Canadian mission in Kandahar what it is: a counter-insurgency combat mission in which our troops are required to proactively seek out and engage the Taliban.

The Prime Minister now wants Canadians to believe that this combat mission is a training mission. It is not. If the government wants to transform it into a training mission after February 2009, that could be an acceptable option, one that we have advocated for since last February and one that the blue ribbon panel on Afghanistan has been instructed to consider.

Still, the government should immediately notify NATO and the government of Afghanistan that our combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009. By refusing to do so, the government makes it more difficult to replace our troops and to prepare a new Canadian mission.

There is another question on Afghanistan. Why has the government asked the Manley panel to look at four options while the throne speech already chooses one of the four options: accelerated training of the Afghan army and police? Perhaps the Prime Minister should inform the panel that its work is done.

The mission in Afghanistan is an important one, but we cannot remain silent, as the throne speech does, on our other responsibilities around the world. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on Africa? And what does the government intend to do in Darfur?

Beyond these international issues, we also have important domestic challenges to address. I would like to discuss the important issue of our federation, which has recently been affected by the Prime Minister's breach of trust with so many provinces.

The throne speech states that “the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected”, but the Prime Minister should start by respecting premiers. It is inconceivable that after 19 months in office the Prime Minister of Canada has refused to call a first ministers meeting with the premiers. This is not open federalism. It is simply “my door is closed” federalism.

Hence, the Prime Minister wants to go ahead with his unilateral reform of the Senate despite the fact that many provinces have expressed serious disagreement with his proposals.

Now he is announcing that he will introduce legislation to formally limit the federal spending power. The Prime Minister should understand, however, that he must convene the premiers to discuss this most important issue. Otherwise, he would simply be guilty of more closed-door federalism.

Could I humbly suggest that the Prime Minister consult me on the issue of the federal spending power just as he consulted me before introducing the motion on the Quebec nation within Canada?

When he does, I will tell him that the federal spending power as he described it in the throne speech falls short of the present limits to that power that I myself, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Chrétien, introduced in the throne speech of 1996. More importantly, the proposed limits fall short of the social union agreement of which I was the architect.

To continue with my exercise in humility, I will add that no federal politician placed greater limits on the federal spending power than I did, but I did so without reducing its usefulness.

Let us hope that the Prime Minister's objective conforms with the spirit of the social union framework agreement; that is, to use the federal spending power as a tool both for social progress and for partnership between the governments of our great federation.

In Canada federal spending power has been instrumental in building the Canada-wide social programs that all Canadians value, such as medicare. It has been essential in promoting equality of opportunity for all Canadians, helping to ensure access to social programs and services to Canadians wherever they are in Canada.

The social union framework agreement, SUFA, recently helped to successfully negotiate the early learning and child care agreements with the provinces and territories. These agreements have, sadly, been cancelled by the Conservatives, depriving millions of children and families of billions of dollars in funding to improve their early childhood development opportunities.

We Liberals will make sure that the initiatives of the Conservative government do not in any way diminish the value of the federal spending power as a tool to promote social progress for Canadians and good partnerships between governments. We will not allow the Prime Minister to build a federalism of firewalls.

Let me also remind the government that today in Canada more than half a million of our senior citizens live in poverty. The men and women who built this country deserve better.

Today in Canada, more than one million children live in poverty. We cannot waste a generation. All of our children deserve to share in the bounty of our nation.

A plan to fight poverty is urgent and, let me tell everyone, it will be at the heart of our Liberal agenda.

Earlier, I mentioned our health care plan, which is the result of a wise use of the federal spending power. In the throne speech, the government congratulates itself—not really honestly, I might add—for the progress it made in shortening wait times. Unfortunately, we do not see any such progress. In fact, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, the average wait time for surgery in Canada now stands at 18.3 weeks, the longest it has ever been.

Now, I come to the economy. The Conservative government inherited an unprecedented economic dynamism thanks to the efforts of Canadians and to a decade of sound financial management by the previous Liberal government. The economy has not been in such good shape since Confederation. This is the longest growth period in decades. We have the highest growth rate of all G-8 countries with major job creation, balanced budgets, a trade surplus and a reduction of our national debt. Our country is the only one to have succeeded in putting its pension plan on a solid footing for the long term.

Over the past 19 months, the Conservative government has been content with just riding on this strong economy without having any plans or convincing scheme to enhance our economy's potential. That is what I call being near-sighted. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that there will be no end to the current growth. The fact is that this government has done more harm than good in terms of Canada's international competitiveness. It is about to allocate $12 billion per year to cut the GST by two points, a measure that will not allow Canadians to bring more money home, does nothing to combat poverty and does not make our economy more competitive in any way.

The Conservatives' interest deductibility proposal is a frontal attack on the competitiveness of Canadian companies and has been denounced as the worst tax policy in 35 years. It will cost Canadian companies billions and will serve mainly to enrich foreign governments. The Prime Minister has not listened to common sense, but it is not too late for him to do so.

It is not the time to make such mistakes. The parity of our currency with the U.S. dollar, the uncertainty of the U.S. market, the high cost of energy, and the new powerhouses of India and China are all putting pressure on our economy and on the exporters and manufacturers that generate the jobs upon which we depend to maintain our high standard of living. Nearly 80,000 workers have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector this year alone.

To maintain these jobs, and to enhance this standard of living well into the future, we must find ways to improve the innovation, competiveness and productivity of our businesses and workers.

The throne speech mentions infrastructure. It mentions post-secondary education. It mentions science and technology. It mentions the manufacturing, forestry, fisheries, mining, resources, tourism and agriculture sectors. But a mention is no substitute for a plan. We hope that the fall economic and fiscal update will provide clarity on how the government will improve Canada's competitiveness.

The throne speech promises tax cuts, but the government actually raised income tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 15.5%. This decision costs Canadians over a billion dollars every year.

On international trade, the government did not explain why it closed consulates in key markets such as St. Petersburg, Osaka and Milan.

The government went to lengths to hide the flawed softwood lumber agreement, an agreement that cost the Canadian industry at least $1 billion, which is being put in the hands of those now using the money to sue our companies.

On the matter of criminal justice and security for Canadians, the government laments that much of its legislation did not pass. What the government always fails to mention is that for months it systematically refused Liberal offers to fast track the majority of its legislation. Of the six bills the government wants to reintroduce as part of the tackling violent crime bill, we already support five.

It is the government that obstructed the passage of these bills, causing them to die on the order paper at prorogation, and it did so to the detriment of the security of Canadians. Hopefully the government will be more cooperative in the coming session. We urge the government to stop playing politics with the Criminal Code and to stop putting partisan politics ahead of the safety of Canadians.

Further, with respect to the tackling violent crime bill, we obviously want to see exactly what the legislation will say. We could support it if includes measures that would make Canadians safer. We Liberals are tough on crime and we are tough on the causes of crime.

As for the Anti-terrorism Act, the government has not indicated what changes we can expect. We hope that this time it will be informed by the 100 recommendations made by the House and the Senate in their recent reports and that it will not renew its attempts to play politics with such an important issue.

This brings me to the most disappointing aspect of the Speech from the Throne: extremely weak environmental protection measures.

Once again, the government missed an opportunity to meet the challenge of fighting global warming, the most serious environmental threat facing humanity today.

In this Speech from the Throne, the government said that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions could not be reduced to the level required under the Kyoto protocol for the first phase of implementation, that is between 2008 and 2012. One thing is sure, with this government's so-called plan, greenhouse gas emissions are bound to continue increasing in Canada.

Let me outline the damages the Prime Minister and his government have caused to Canada.

All I need to do is sum up the Sierra Club of Canada's Kyoto report card for 2007. It explains that last year the Conservatives cut over $5 billion worth of investment in environment and climate change programs. The Sierra Club said:

Federal programs were slashed, and the importance of addressing global warming was downplayed.

An entire year was lost.

The Sierra Club goes on to say:

--Canada had a plan for reaching its Kyoto targets. This plan, Project Green...had provided a foundation for action upon which new Conservative initiatives could have been built.... Instead of improving Project Green, the new government shredded it along with its programs and its institutions, in March 2006.

This is what the government has been doing to Canada. It has spent all of 2007 trying to reannounce the programs it scrapped in 2006, changing their names and their logos with less money, less commitment, no coherence and incompetence in implementation.

This is what the Conservatives have done to Canada. Now look at what they have done to the world.

Let me again quote the Sierra Club:

The current government also inherited the presidency of the International Climate negotiations, which had been led by former environment minister [the Leader of the Opposition]. The Canadian government’s efforts at the international climate change conference in Montreal won Canada international praise.

Under the new Conservative government, Canada quickly went from hero to zero. At an international conference in Bonn, Canada attempted to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol.

It is what the Prime Minister means when he says that Canada is back.

In contrast, in 2007, the official opposition proposed an enhanced climate change plan to conquer our industrial emissions, the carbon budget. When we launched this carbon budget in March 2007, the Pembina Institute said:

This is the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada.

--it sets the right targets and the right timelines....

The Climate Action Network said:

This is great. It's hard to ask for much more

It is important to recognize that the other two opposition parties agreed to include this regulatory plan in Bill C-30 on air quality and climate change.

On August 23, I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him not to scrap Bill C-30 after proroguing the House. The Prime Minister did not even deign to reply. On reading the throne speech, we can see why.

The Conservatives will only bring forward the minor parts of the clean air and climate change act, the ones they allow their members to support. As a result, the regulatory framework to cut and bring down gas emissions is gone. The regulatory framework to improve air quality is gone. The autonomous emissions standards are gone. This is a step backwards in the face of a major global challenge.

What are we left with? We are left with a government plan that has been panned by all credible experts in Canada and abroad, a climate change plan that has been panned by all the experts, like the new Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, who called the Prime Minister's plan “a complete and total fraud, designed to mislead the Canadian people”.

The Pembina Institute, that once rated Project Green, the Liberal plan killed by the Conservatives, would have delivered almost seven times more reduction than the government's current approach.

The Deutsche Bank said, “We think that the Canadian government has materially overstated the cost of complying with Kyoto. Under current policies, we would expect Canada's industrial gas emissions to continue rising over 2006-2020".

According to the C.D. Howe Institute, with the government plan, “overall emissions in Canada are unlikely to fall below current levels” until 2050 and beyond.

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said:

--targets set by your government are so easy to meet that oil companies could end up with a windfall of $400 million worth of easy credits.

Under the Conservative plan polluters do not pay; polluters get paid.

I could also quote the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which also harshly criticized the government's plan.

The throne speech states that national regulations to reduce emissions will be implemented this year. We do not know what the government is talking about, since its own regulations will not see the light before 2010 at the earliest. Does this mean that the government has changed its mind and will assign a monetary value to carbon in 2008?

Let us hope that the government understands that it must significantly strengthen all its initiatives to protect the environment and fight climate change.

Canadians can count on the official opposition to press the government to take action and be accountable. The government must understand that any deadline set for meeting our targets for the first phase of implementation of the Kyoto protocol, which ends in 2012, can be corrected during the second phase, after 2012. But to do that, we have to start today. That is why the government has to significantly toughen its measures to fight climate change.

The official opposition will cooperate fully with the government to help it reach real targets. Canada must remain a party to the Kyoto protocol, the only international accord to fight what is a global threat.

The official opposition certainly remains very critical of the throne speech but never before has a federal government fallen on the basis of a throne speech.

Canadians can count on the official opposition to do everything it can to make this Parliament work. To that end, we will propose amendments and we will not make the government fall on its throne speech, which would cause a third general election in four years, something Canadians have clearly shown they do not want.

The amendments we are putting forward would enable us to support the throne speech. If they are rejected, we will do as the NDP when it decided on October 16, 2006 to abstain on the vote on the softwood lumber agreement in order to avoid causing an election.

As another leader of the official opposition said some years ago, “I believe it's not in the national interest to have an election now. What has become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things but it is up to us, our caucus, to decide whether the time has come to have an election. In our judgment and I think in Canadians' judgment it is not that time”.

Everybody will have guessed that this leader of the opposition, quoted on March 10, 2005, is our current Prime Minister when he was explaining his party's dissension to the 2005 budget.

I will now move an amendment that could even allow the official opposition to support the throne speech if it met with the approval of the House. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

and this House calls upon the government to recognize that any shortfall in meeting our 2012 Kyoto commitments would be a result of their decision to kill the previous government's innovative Project Green plan, followed by 18 months of inaction, and the government must replace its weak approach with real action to create the momentum required for Canada to catch-up in the second phase of Kyoto;

to announce now that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009 in order to facilitate a replacement, and begin discussions with NATO and the Government of Afghanistan on what non-combat role Canada can play afterwards to aid in the reconstruction of Afghanistan;

to end 18 months of inaction in the fight against poverty in Canada by building on the good work of the previous Liberal government that funded such initiatives as the Canada Child Tax Benefit, affordable housing, literacy, the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) and the Working Income Tax Benefit; and

to stop taking for granted the unprecedented strong economy and fiscal success inherited by this government from its predecessor and bring forward proposals to reduce corporate taxes and other measures that will improve the economy of Canada, especially in sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and lessen the impact of the government's egregious mistakes on income trusts and interest deductibility.

Motions in Amendment

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate on air safety. There is reason, though, to wonder why the government wants to rush this bill through despite its many flaws. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned. They should be seriously concerned about this bill.

It seems that people can say anything these days and get anything passed so long as it will reduce government involvement, as if that were a good thing in itself, without any care for the consequences. In this case, the consequences are very serious because public safety is at stake. That is something the government has apparently forgotten. It would rather worry about the profits of the big corporations than the safety of the general public. We should wonder, though, what the effects will be on public safety.

Canada has often been recognized—as other hon. members have said—as a leader in the field of public safety. There is an expression that when something is finally perfect, people often want to start changing it. In this case too, I have the feeling that the changes are for the worse.

This morning, my hon. colleague, our transport critic, who has done a lot of work on this, compared what happened in the railway system with what could happen in the airline industry if the government’s proposed amendments are passed.

In British Columbia where I come from, there have been many accidents, sometimes virtually weekly, on the railways. We know that these accidents started to increase after the safety system was simply handed over to the companies. The government more or less just offloaded its responsibilities.

The law that is proposed in Bill C-6 contains many flaws. The policy issue that is important to note is that this will have impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada, WestJet and others have been preferred and that is going to be the factor in setting safety levels in the sky.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as a general overseer of safety management systems. That is why I asked, with the government saying it is going to reduce government intervention, is that in itself a good thing when public security is being sidelined for commercial interests?

Let us talk a bit about the impacts of Bill C-6. It seems to enshrine the safety management systems which allow industries to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept, tolerable levels of risk in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety established by the minister acting in the public interest. Safety management systems allow the government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards.

The government seems to think that because it says something it makes it true. We have seen that all too often in the way the government has acted on accountability and in the way it has acted on Bill C-30 in tackling environmental issues. The government takes half measures and proclaims it has acted in the interest of public. Canadians are not fooled by this kind of talk.

The bill does not exempt whistleblowers. A worker who identifies a problem, for example, a loose wing nut, and I will not talk about the kinds of wing nuts, reports it and no action is taken, he or she will be silenced. That is a problem with what the government has proposed.

Furthermore, the government would like us to think that companies will automatically report any problems to the public. Any of us who have negotiated with the private sector knows there are many financial interests to protect. The private sector is very guarded in anything that will affect its financial bottom line. I fear very much for transparency, for what Canadians will find out about some of the problems that can occur.

While the NDP agreed to an amendment in the transportation committee, which emphasizes reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than tolerating risk, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations. Acting in the public interest is still, as I see it, the responsibility of the government. It is not the responsibility of corporations. Their responsibility is to make money. By giving that responsibility over to corporations, the government is abdicating its own responsibilities.

Adequate safety costs money. Safety management systems will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked with high fuel prices. What will happen to safety when the need to make a profit and save money is paramount? I do not think the bill adds to that and it does not answer that question adequately.

I will close by asking one last question. What happened to the government's responsibility to protect public interest?

Afghanistan

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

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer have confidence in this Prime Minister or his government.

There has been no transparency about the prisoners in Afghanistan; there has been no action on Bill C-30 and climate change; there has been nothing done about ATM fees and the banks continue to rake in profits; the Accountability Act is meaningless when we have ministers concealing their travelling expenses; and the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages now has her very own sponsorship scandal.

How can Canadians have confidence in this government now?

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister reminds me of a school child who gets caught cheating on an exam.

Four reputable organizations, four independent reports, confirmed that the minister is deceiving Canadians. Even the government's own officials cannot back up his claims.

This ecofraud means consumers will pay billions of dollars for no real environmental or health benefits.

Why does the minister not just stop the charade and the schoolyard antics and bring Bill C-30 back to the House for a vote?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I take as our primary duty as legislators to consider pieces of legislation that have actually been put together through the work of people like the member for Edmonton Centre as the chair of that committee which logged all of those long hours.

It seems to me that our first duty as parliamentarians is to consider government bills that the government has asked us to rewrite after second reading. I acknowledge once more the skilful work of the member for Edmonton Centre. It seems to me that ought to be our top priority, to bring back Bill C-30.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It was my understanding that the member asked for unanimous consent that Bill C-30 be added to the extra hours of debate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent time with my hon. colleague from Don Valley West on the committee that dealt with Bill C-30 and we got along quite well. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that an expert is someone who agrees with one's beliefs and if that person does not agree, the person is obviously not an expert.

Why did all the leaders in the G-8 have so much praise for our Prime Minister and Canada's position of leadership and the only people who seem not to be able to praise it are the people on the opposite side of the House?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking about extending the hours and we are prepared to stay as long as it takes to debate those issues, including Bill C-30 that he was talking about, but there are also many other important pieces of legislation at hand here.

If we clear the slate the way the Conservative government wants to, the government is under no obligation to honour and respect the bills on Kyoto and Kelowna. We know the government has difficulties with honour and respect. As we saw with the Atlantic accord, the words trust and integrity mean so little to the government.

I would ask the hon. member this. Does he feel there are other single pieces of legislation that Canadians should be concerned about, given the government's stubborn, bullheaded approach to governing?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me do two things.

First of all, let me respond to the hon. member. I heard no members present in Berlin, from other legislatures, say anything of the sort about the Canadian plan. First of all they did not understand it. Second, they did not ask. Third, everybody who has looked at it and has understood it says it is a fraud, so we got no such international endorsement from other legislatures at all. I think what we got was disappointment that Canada has not been more ambitious.

Second, let me take advantage of this moment to ask the House for unanimous consent to put forward a motion that in view of the interest in Bill C-30, that within the hours that will be extended, the House consider Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite inspired by the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. We support extending the hours of Parliament, because that will give us an opportunity to consider Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act. I want to pick up on what the member for Wascana said. The time has come to consider the debacle of the Prime Minister's speech at the G-8 meeting last week in Heiligendamm. Extending the hours will give us an opportunity to correct the situation. Now we may finally have time to study Bill C-30.

In the wake of the G-8 meeting, Canada's problem is the lack of consistency between the Prime Minister's international statements on climate change and the reality of the domestic regulations on industry proposed by the government about six weeks ago to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill C-30 has had a curious history. It was originally proposed by the government in October, with a series of regulations. Then, it was attacked from all sides: by NGOs, the media, economists and all three opposition parties. The government withdrew the bill. Then it was sent after first reading to a legislative committee chaired by the member for Edmonton Centre.

To everyone's astonishment, the process worked very well in the case of BIll C-30 and produced an extensively amended bill that was stronger, more coherent and more ambitious. What has happened? Once again, the government is refusing to present Bill C-30 and is instead substituting weak, empty regulations under the existing legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The parliamentary secretary has spoken several times today about the importance of taking the work of parliamentarians seriously. He was suggesting that one of the arguments in support of prolonging the hours of Parliament was to allow a report to be made concerning the activities of a group of parliamentarians, of which I was one, when they took part in a meeting before Heilingendam in Berlin of legislators from the G-8 plus five countries.

However, as I indicated in a previous intervention, while that is important work and while the results of that visit are worth knowing and those discussions should be referenced, how can that compare with the work which many of us, including the parliamentary secretary, put in on Bill C-30?

The hours and hours of debate, the hearings, the extra sitting hours into the evening and all of the work which went into it with the highly successful result under the skilful leadership of the member for Edmonton Centre, to whom we must give credit for helping to get this much improved clean air and climate change bill through.

Surely, the member for Edmonton Centre, even though he is on the government side, would love to see the fruit of his work honoured after putting all that effort into it.

This is a good reason to extend the House sitting hours. The government has now twice failed to bring forward a meaningful climate change plan. The regulations that were proposed instead under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, are a complete ecofraud. There are, as the Pembina Institute has pointed out in a very thoughtful piece of analysis, at least 20 loopholes in the entire package that undermine any claim that can be made about greenhouse gas reductions. Until these loopholes are plugged, I can give but a brief example. Pembina says:

In reality, the regulatory framework’s effect on emissions cannot be known with any certainty, because (i) its targets are expressed in terms of emissions intensity, not actual emissions; (ii) we do not yet know how targets will be defined for new facilities; (iii) “fixed process emissions” are exempted but have not been fully defined; and (iv) some of the “compliance options” that companies can use to meet targets will not result in immediate emission reductions, and some may not result in any real emission reductions at all.

That is simply an example of some of the 20 loopholes. The government has misrepresented to Canadians about what this plan will actually achieve. There will be and can be no absolute reductions by 2012 and no absolute reductions by 2020. Not a single government official, when summoned before the environment committee, could guarantee that the so-called plan's claims could be met and it is clear that little analysis has been done. The analysis that has been done was shrouded in secrecy and not a single, independent expert has been called in to verify the so-called plans claims.

Indeed, a leading German investment bank, Deutsche Bank, has produced an extensive report on the subject and it comes to exactly the same conclusion. It says in plain language:

We do not think the Government's alternative plan will succeed. Setting aside the Kyoto target of an absolute reduction of 6% in emissions over 2008-12 against the base year of 1990, the Canadian Government has published a plan that re-defines its GHG emissions-reduction targets.

The turning the corner plan takes 2006 as the base year instead of 1990 and imposes reductions in the intensity of Canadian industry's emissions rather than reductions in the absolute level of emissions.

That means that the redefined targets are much less ambitious than the Kyoto targets. Yet, because the turning the corner plan allows for the offsetting of emissions at what we think is too low in price to incentify investments in new low carbon technologies, we think that even these much less ambitious targets will probably not be achieved. In short, under current policies we would expect Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions to continue rising over 2006 to 2020.

The point is further reinforced by a document from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research entitled “Climate Change Policy and Canada's Oil Sand Resources: An Update and Appraisal of Canada's New Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions”, with the same conclusions. Tomorrow, just to put the final and fourth nail in the coffin, the C.D. Howe Institute will be releasing a detailed and critical analysis of the turning the corner plan.

In other words, four major studies continually make the same point that the plan that is on the table now will not do the job and that we need to get back to Bill C-30.

What do we have after 16 months? We have something that is worse than nothing at all, because we have created tremendous uncertainty that will prevent industry from making the rational, long term investments that are necessary for deep greenhouse gas reductions. After 16 months, all we have on the table is a shell, not a single regulation and no promise of regulations for up to 18 months for greenhouse gas reductions, and nothing until sometime in 2010 for smog.

The former government's project green, as has been noted by the Deutsche Bank, not only would have created certainty for industry, but it would have produced almost seven times the reductions proposed by the current government's plan.

Certainly, we need a better plan in place before we break for the summer. Therefore, government should bring Bill C-30 back to the House, so that we can get on with it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

As my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst has said, this is about slashing the court challenges program and any number of really good programs that the government has taken an axe to, both in this budget and in previous policy decisions.

We started hearing last week that the government members were in a panic, that they had to get Bill C-52 through the House. Wait a minute, we said, the government has had well over three months to work this through. My colleague from Vancouver, our House leader, has detailed this. The government has had a number of opportunities to bring the bill forward for full debate at second reading, report stage and third reading. This is the budget. This is the biggest item for any Parliament to deal with.

What did the Conservatives do? They just kept putting it off. They brought forward other bills. This was completely within their control. They brought forward 11 other bills and said the House would deal with them first. Now we are going to deal with this one, they said, and then we are going to deal with that one. They brought forward 11 different items on 11 different days when they could have brought forward Bill C-52. Now it is panic time for the Conservatives and they are saying they have to get the bill through.

I want to address what seems to be a suggestion that somehow these programs are all going to collapse, along with this new funding, if the bill does not get passed in the next 24 hours. That is just not true. This money will be spent when Bill C-52 finally gets through the House. The flow of that money may be postponed by several days or several weeks, but it will get spent because obviously both the government and the Bloc Québécois have indicated that they are going to support the bill and they have the numbers in the House to get it passed.

Constitutionally, the government again putting around the panic that the Senate somehow is going to block this bill. That is not going to happen. It may be delayed a bit, but the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to block a money bill. Specifically, it has no authority to turn down a budget. That is not going to happen either.

What this is really about is the fact that the Conservative government is tired, it does not have a program, and it wants to get out of here. If they can get away with it, Conservative members are going to move adjournment of this House as soon as they get Bill C-52 through.

We do not have a problem with debating Bill C-52. I have here about 20 items that I would just love to be able to get into. If I did, I could be here for many hours showing the flaws in this budget. That is not what this is about. This is not about this opposition party or, quite frankly, the other opposition parties being shy about debating the contents of Bill C-52 and all that it lacks.

What this is about is the government's unwillingness to face, in a realistic fashion, what is going on in the country. It continuously gets beat up, whether it is on the climate change file or whether it is on Afghanistan. We can go down the list. The government is just tired of being here.

I could not help but think of the hypocrisy of some of the statements coming out of the mouth of the House leader when he addressed this motion earlier this afternoon. He said that we should believe the Conservatives because they did not intend to have an election. Of course he did not address the fact that their airplane was lined up, with a contract for it, and their campaign office was open and substantially staffed. They were ready to go to an election. Quite frankly, if the Canadian people and the opinion polls had not made it clear what was going to happen if they took the country to an election at that time, we would have been in an election now.

What has happened is that the Conservatives did not have a fallback position. They did not know what they were going to do if they did not have an election. They do not have an agenda as to how they are going to deal with it. They want to get out of here so they can regroup and see what they might do when we come back in the fall. They want to get out of here as fast as possible. That is what the motion is really about.

I want to say very clearly on the record that the NDP has no problems whatsoever with staying here until June 22, which is what is scheduled. Quite frankly, we have no problem with extended hours. What my party and I are concerned about is that Standing Order 56.1 will get used probably as early as Wednesday and the House will adjourn.

I know that most Canadians do not fully appreciate the amount of important work that happens outside this chamber and particularly in committee. Again, in many incompetent ways, the government kept pushing crime bills through the justice committee, through the two special legislative committees it set up, and also in some work that we have been doing in the public safety and national security committee. There is a lot of work going on, both in terms of bills that have come from the government itself and in terms of a large number of private members' bills on specific crime issues, which we have been dealing with.

A number of those, probably three, four or five, and both private members' bills and government bills, would be dealt with and completed if we stayed sitting in committee until June 22. If in fact we adjourn earlier than that, all of this work will be postponed into the fall. As well, depending on whether the government actually prorogues sometime through the early fall and comes back with a new session of Parliament, which is the rumour is floating around, some of those bills may be ended completely and never will see the light of day.

Thus, it is quite important for the House to continue to sit. We in the NDP understand that. We as the NDP are quite prepared to sit here. We as the NDP will do whatever we can to thwart the government's attempt to adjourn the House early.

The motion, though, is misleading for the public when it tries to let the public know that the government really wants to work longer hours. That is not what it is about. We believe very clearly that if we do not stop the Conservatives the House will adjourn in the next few days.

Specifically with regard to Bill C-30, it is one of the bills that badly needs to get in front of the House. All three opposition parties are supportive. They have gone to great lengths and have done a great amount of very good work in amending the bill into a form that in fact will allow the country to deal with the crisis we are confronted with as far as global warming and climate change are concerned.

In that respect, we would very much like the government to commit this week or next week to bring that bill forward for a fulsome debate at report stage and third reading. It is ready to go. All the background work has been done. In that regard I am proposing at this time to move an amendment to the motion before the House which would read as follows: “That the motion be amended to add immediately after 10 p.m. the following: 'and if the government calls Bill C-30 at any time, the House shall continue to sit until the bill has been decided at all stages'”.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to allow the House leader for the Bloc to go ahead of me in the usual order.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to spend a few minutes laying out what is going on here.

First, we are all aware, as members of the House, that we receive a calendar every year. The calendar is very clear in that the House is intended to sit until June 22. We all agreed to this, all parties, through the whips. It is something with which we are all familiar.

We also are aware that on this day the government can, as it has done, move a motion for the extension of hours. We are debating a motion now as to whether the hours should be extended from June 13 to June 21 to 10 p.m. every night. The question that is really before us is this. Is this a warranted measure? After hearing the government House leader, this is a crisis that the government has manufactured.

Let us be very clear about what has taken place. This is happening because of the incompetence of the government in the management of its legislative agenda, its lack of consultation with opposition parties and its lack of calling its own bills. For example, we heard the government House leader talk about the budget bill, Bill C-52. He has said that he wants to get it through. There were 11 days when the Conservatives could have called the bill for second reading and they failed to do so. Instead they brought in all kinds of other bills that were quite inconsequential. If the budget were so important, they had ample opportunity to bring the bill forward for second reading.

I point out on the record that once it went through second reading, when the Conservatives finally brought it forward into the House and it went to the finance committee, the finance committee met for four sessions only to hear witnesses. It in effect fast-tracked that bill. It heard witnesses very quickly on a budget bill, which is core to our whole reason for being here. Then it was brought back to the House. We had one day of debate on the report stage. Now we are now debating third reading.

When we look at what has happened, it is clearly a manipulation by the government itself on its own agenda. I think what is happening is the Conservatives have brought forward this motion today for extension, even though they are saying the extended hours would go to June 21, so they can cut a deal to get out of here early. If we get out of here early and they get their budget bill, which we know they want, there will be no committees, no question period and no debate on other bills. That clearly needs to be put on the record.

In terms of management of other business, we have heard the government House leader say today that all these justice bills have to come forward. If we look at the agenda of the justice committee, the government made it a priority to deal with private members' business. It has taken up the valuable time of the committee to deal with private members' bills. Now we are being told it has all these other bills that it wants to get through. It really does not cut it. It does not make sense.

I really appreciate the position you took on Friday, Mr. Speaker. At the very last moment on Friday, the government tried to bring in a very rare Standing Order, used for emergency debates, to deal with Bill C-52 and extend the hours to rush the bill through. To your credit, you listened to what members in the House had to say and you made the correct decision in the end. I want to thank you for that. These things are really important. We have to play in a way that is open and transparent, and I do not believe the government is doing that at this point. Therefore, we are very suspicious and skeptical about the agenda.

Again, another irony is the Conservatives are saying that they want to extend the hours of debate. Yet we have never seen the light of day for Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change bill that came out of committee. The bill was amended by the opposition. It is a bill that would work, and it has the support of the majority of members in the House. However, the government itself is refusing to call it forward. We will stay here for as long as it takes to debate that bill. We consider it is an urgent matter that Canadians want us to address.

We will stay here for as long as it takes to debate that bill. We consider it is an urgent matter, which Canadians want us to address. It is a priority that goes beyond all partisanship, but I did not hear the government House leader mention that bill.

The Conservatives would rather get out of here, not having to bear the public scrutiny in question period and committees and not debate all the other bills. They just want to get the budget through. I fear they have made a deal with the official opposition. I do not know that, but I can almost guarantee, even though these extended hours will be approved, in a couple of days, maybe Wednesday, they will find a way to adjourn the House. That is really their agenda.

As the Bloc House leader has mentioned, one bill that we believe must be brought forward is the ways and means motion. It used to be called Bill C-55, which was the wage earner protection bill protecting workers from bankruptcy. This has been an outstanding matter.

The government, again, has not engaged in adequate consultation with the opposition parties, which want to get this bill through. It was passed in a previous Parliament, but was never given royal assent. It is an absolute injustice that today workers still do not have protection from bankruptcy. Millions of dollars have been lost, legitimately earned and deserved wages of workers because they have not had the protection of that bill.

I want to put on the record today that this attempt by the government to bring in extended hours is really about adjourning the House. It wants to get a very bad budget bill through. It looks like the official opposition is now complicit in getting through a budget bill, which, as we have seen, is a disaster in Atlantic Canada in that it has broken the accord. It is a disaster in terms of so many other areas, whether it is housing and homelessness, student summer programs or the environment.

We know the government wants to get the budget passed and that is all it cares about. I am very concerned we are facilitating its agenda under the guise of extending hours when really what it will do is rush to adjourn the House. We know it does not want to be accountable or go through question period.

Let us not forget that the Conservatives were filibustering in the committees. The Conservative members were making the committees dysfunctional. Why? Because they did not want business to go ahead in committees.

We found out about their 200 page playbook, a handbook for all the tactics that its members and chairs could use in the committees. This is further evidence that the Conservatives real game plan is not to deal with all the legislation about which the government House leader spoke. They want to rush through a bad budget bill that has barely been debated.

Nobody is holding up the budget bill, by the way. There are no tactics being employed by the opposition to hold it up. We want to have an adequate debate. We want to ensure that people can say, on the record, what they think about the budget because we have a lot of criticisms about it.

Let us be very clear. The motion today is under the guise that government members are ready to work and extend the hours of the House until 10 p.m. every night. Really it is about getting out of here, for the Conservatives to get beyond public scrutiny, to shut down the House, committees and question period once the budget bill is passed. That is what we will see happen.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Joliette's comments about Catherine, who works in the lobby for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to say that she really worked professionally with all the political parties. I would like to wish her good luck.

I have a question for the Bloc Québécois. The House Leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about many important bills. I know that the budget is very important to him since he is voting with the Conservatives on it. This is very important for the Bloc members. But my question is about the other bills, such as Bill C-30.

I know that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie worked very hard on environmental issues. The government could introduce a motion to adjourn the House before June 22. Even though the calendar shows that the House can sit until June 22, it could be done pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. We need to have 25 members here. Since the Bloc Québécois is very disciplined, it will have no problem keeping 25 members in Ottawa. Will the Bloc members work with the other parties to ensure that there will be 25 members in the House of Commons so the Conservatives will not be able to adjourn before June 22?

It is all well and good to extend the number of hours per day, but if we adjourn on Wednesday, it will not do any good. Bill C-30 will be gone, Bill C-59 as well, and Bill C-29 will no longer be there. There is also the bill for workers.

Can we have a guarantee from the Bloc Québécois that they will keep 25 people in the House of Commons to ensure that it will not adjourn?

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

Mr. Speaker, further to the question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I want to ask the hon. member the question.

As far as extending sitting hours is concerned, given the choice between discussing the trip to Berlin by the legislative group—which I was a part of with other members—and discussing Bill C-30, which would take an incredible amount of parliamentary work and countless hours of sessions, how would he prioritize these two choices?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi was a member of the Berlin mission and really appreciated the work that was done there. However, with respect to the report, I do not see the problem. Nevertheless, we must not evade the issue. We are not very proud of our Prime Minister's performance at the G-8 with respect to achieving phases I and II of the Kyoto targets.

As such, I think that all of the parties agree that the government should bring Bill C-30 back to the House as soon as possible. This bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We have to continue the debate on this issue because the government has no allies in this House when it comes to environmental issues.

If we take a serious look at the proposals made by the Minister of the Environment, by the Prime Minister at the G-8, and by the Minister of Finance in this House, we will find that they do not meet the Kyoto targets. Furthermore, they do not include the territorial approach that would enable Quebec to take into account its efforts in past years in order to meet the Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels.

As we all know, the Prime Minister said at the G-8 meeting that he found the European community's territorial, country by country approach to negotiating targets very interesting. Despite the parliamentary secretary's question, I think that this issue must be addressed. The problem is that the government's approach is no good. It has not agreed to a territorial approach; it has no absolute intensity targets; and it is allowing greenhouse gas emissions to rise.

There has also been talk of opening a carbon exchange in Montreal to trade derivatives and take care of this economic and environmental aspect that would help our manufacturing industry. That said, in order to have a carbon exchange, we need absolute targets. The government does not seem to have understood that yet.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are few issues of greater import to this House or greater import to Canadians than a successful battle against climate change. In respect of the work of this Parliament and the work of our standing committees, one of the finest bits of work that was done was the rewriting of Bill C-30.

The bill was obviously dead on arrival when it was first presented in this House last fall. Everybody agreed, whether they were in Parliament or in the NGO movement or in the private sector or in provincial governments, that Bill C-30 as originally drafted was an utter disaster.

Now a parliamentary committee has gone to work on Bill C-30 and has actually made it a good piece of work. I am glad to say that it includes the vast majority of what my leader first proposed in terms of the concept of a carbon budget and the other measures to get serious in this country and around the world in the battle against climate change.

I think it would be very useful if the government would now pick up the good work that was done by the parliamentary committee, bring Bill C-30 back to this House, so we can have a real debate on the things that need to be done to actually deal with the climate change issue.

In addition to that, I would also hope that we would have a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government, in proposing this motion today, has chosen once again to maintain its habitual lack of consultation and reluctance to attempt a collaborative approach to organizing the business of the House.

On more than one occasion, as I think the Chair will remember, I asked directly whether the government intended to make use of Standing Order 27. As other House leaders can confirm, the reply was, “probably not”. I do not think we would be off base in the opposition in expecting that if that were no longer the case, if the government had in fact changed its mind, that it would have decently given us a heads-up that it was going to propose this motion today, at least given us that notice some time earlier than around one o'clock this afternoon.

Frankly, as we saw the government House leader making his travels across the floor of the House, I will not say where he went, the heckling and yelling as he departed the chamber obviously indicates the kind of demeanour of which we have to deal.

I do not see what there is on the order paper at present that this motion will get through the House any more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. I presume, judging by the government House leader's remarks, that the government is principally concerned with Bill C-52, the budget bill.

It has represented to the House and to the public that the government is now extremely concerned the bill will not receive royal assent in time for certain expenditures to be booked in the appropriate fiscal year. Let us be clear. The fiscal year the Conservatives are talking about is 2006-07, and that is the point.

The issue is retroactive fiscal bookings for the last fiscal year, not the future fiscal year, as members would have gathered from the remarks of the government House leader. If there is concern about the lateness of the date, the government really has only itself to blame.

Usually federal budgets are delivered in or about the third week of February, which then permits the introduction of a budget implementation bill by the end of that month. If things are properly managed, this would permit the bill to be in committee before the end of March and to be passed at all stages by the end of May or, at the very latest, the beginning of June.

This year the government chose, for its own partisan reasons, to delay the budget until the third week of March. We did not even see it until then. Then it unilaterally interrupted the budget debate. Then having finished that, belatedly, it interrupted, again, the second reading debate on the budget implementation Bill C-52. That interruption lasted for three full weeks, getting the bill to committee only in the middle of May.

As a consequence, the government then bulldozed the bill through the committee, breaking procedural agreements, denying many interested and informed citizens and groups the right to testify on the bill. Let it be clearly understood that any procedural issue on Bill C-52 is a direct result of government breaking the agreement on the process, which had been fully settled by members of the committee.

Nevertheless, the bill is now only in its third day of debate at third reading and there is every indication that the third reading and final stage would come to an end in debate in the House by the end of business tomorrow at the latest.

It is important to underscore what these dates are with respect to the budget. Remember that the House resumed in the final week of January. The budget was not presented to the House until March 19, fully eight weeks into the parliamentary sitting. That was followed by a ways and means motion and the introduction of the budget bill, but that was delayed because the government interrupted its own budget debate on the financial principles of the government.

Its budget was late, the budget debate was unilaterally delayed by itself and then it finally got around to introducing the budget bill on March 29, which was debated at second reading for the first time on March 30. It was then debated in a haphazard, sporadic fashion, brought forward to the floor by the government, until April 23, and then it was hoisted altogether. The House did not see it again until May 14, full three weeks later.

Finally, it went to the committee, not as a result of any filibuster by the opposition or any party in the opposition. The delay was entirely the procedural mismanagement of the government. It was there for less than two weeks and one of those weeks was a break week when Parliament was not even sitting.

It finally passed through the committee, rather expeditiously, thanks to the cooperation of the opposition, and it was brought back to be debated at report stage on June 4. For how long? One day, that is all the report stage took. Now it is at third reading where there have been three days of debate, and probably a conclusion could have been arrived at very easily by the end of the day tomorrow.

This is why I made the point at the beginning of my remarks that there really is nothing on this order paper that could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of business without the measure the government House leader has introduced. Obviously it is a tactic to blame the opposition for the delays that lie entirely within the control of the government.

What is it then? If it is not Bill C-52, what is it that causes the government to move the motion today? Despite frequent requests for the government to outline its realistic legislative priorities before the summer, all we have heard repeatedly from the government House leader and from others on the government's side is a flow of partisan rhetoric. Legislation has in fact been moving along through the House and through committees, despite the government's erratic management of its agenda.

In fact, the most controversial bill on the order paper, and this is what gives me perhaps a little hope here, is probably Bill C-30, the clean air act, as it has been revised by members of Parliament. Significantly, only the government has been stalling it up to now. However, now we will have some extra time, some extra hours of sitting every day beginning on Wednesday.

Can we then conclude that the extra time the government is seeking is to facilitate the work of the House in consideration of Bill C-30? I certainly hope so. It is in this fervent hope that I indicate to the House that my party, the official Liberal opposition, will support the minister's motion for the extension of hours.

In the time available, in addition to Bill C-52, which will probably be done tomorrow, and in addition to Bill C-30, which I hope the government has the courage to recall and put before the House once again, the official opposition also looks forward to making progress on Bill C-11, lowering freight rates for farmers, on Bill C-14, dealing with foreign adoptions, on Bill C-23, dealing with criminal procedure, on Bill C-29, dealing with Air Canada and the use of official languages, on Bill C-35, dealing with bail reform, on Bill C-47, dealing with the Olympic, on Bill S-6 and Bill C-51, dealing with land claims and on Bill C-40, the private member's legislation that would provide free postage for mail from Canada to our troops in Afghanistan.

Then there is an item that was referred to in question period today. This is the bill we are anxiously awaiting to see, the one dealing with wage earner protection. I hope the government will follow through on the commitment given in question period, that it will table the bill in amended form so it can be passed at all stages and brought into law before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Let me mention one other matter, which is outstanding and which should be dealt with by the House, or at least dealt with by the government when the House is sitting. This is the examination undertaken a few weeks ago by Mr. Brown in connection with the matters that have been of great concern to Canadians in respect of the RCMP pension fund.

As we understand it, there is a report due from Mr. Brown on June 15. That was the original undertaking given by the Minister of Public Safety. It would be very important for us to know that the examination is on time, that we will hear from Mr. Brown on time, and that the Minister of Public Safety will take the step that he promised to take and make that report public immediately.

Perhaps the government might also consider, in whatever time that remains before the summer recess, reforming its approach to the mood in the House. The mood could be improved if the government would refrain from certain of its more hostile practices. For example: no more gratuitous attack ads, no more broken agreements on how witnesses will be heard, no more manuals about dirty tricks for disrupting parliamentary business, and no more devious games to misuse Standing Orders of the House. A little good old fashioned good faith could change the mood for the better.

Environment Week

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honour of Environment Week. Unfortunately, this year Environment Week is a reminder that the Conservative government celebrated its return to power by slashing over $5.6 billion in environmental spending.

Following a strategy of deny, delay and deceive, the government released a climate change plan rejected by 9 of 10 provinces and not endorsed by any independent third party. True to form, it allows emissions to increase well past 2010 and contains gaping loopholes for the oil sands.

After rewriting the clean air act, Bill C-30 has been suppressed and debate around it censored. Just an hour ago, at the environment committee, we confirmed that the Minister of the Environment misled all Canadians by claiming that his ecotrust funding had been delivered.

After all the photo ops, after all the gimmicks and after all the bravado, now we learn that his department cannot confirm the status of $1.5 billion while the Prime Minister works to weaken G-8 commitments abroad.

It is Environment Week. How unfortunate that Canada has been tossed into complete uncertainty about its environmental future.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan constitutes a step backward. Environmentalists and the international community were not impressed by the Prime Minister's speech at the G-8 summit, and rightly so. The plan does not respect the Kyoto protocol, nor does it respect this Parliament.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to sell a bogus product to international communities? We have a solution in the form of Bill C-30 on climate change. Why is the Prime Minister abandoning the Kyoto protocol and reneging on a commitment made by Canada?

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

You heard me make the suggestion to the minister when he was in front of the committee discussing what parts of Bill C-30 he liked and what parts he didn't, and those sorts of things. So we're obviously open to the concept. There are certain rules under which we all operate in private members' bills, because there are certain things you can't bring into a bill, and certain things you can; we operate under those rules.

The idea of this is to begin the next conversation in this country, which is at least a decade delayed, I would suggest. When we go to GLOBE we will see that other countries have had this long-range and medium-range conversation about targets at least five years ago, and most of our European partners have.

So of course we're always open to amendments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Mr. Cullen a question. With respect to the motion, at some point in the past—I think in committee—he said he was anxious or interested in examining the extent to which this bill might be amended and whether there was any possibility of migrating parts of, for example, Bill C-30—the now suppressed Bill C-30—into this private member's bill. I'm not sure if he's given that any more thought, or if he can help us understand this, or whether, through you, Mr. Chair, he's spoken to the legislative counsel or clerk to get a sense of the kind of amendable approach he wants to bring to this. Secondly, how amendable is this bill?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm right on topic, Mr. Warawa. Thank you very much for reminding me.

There's huge uncertainty, and this speaks directly to this bill. We cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. You cannot. We must examine this bill in the context of Bill C-30, in the context of Bill C-288, in the context of CDM, and in the context of what's happening this weekend in Germany. We have to. We have to examine this in a more fulsome context, a larger context. I'm strongly supportive of examining this bill precisely because of the uncertainty created by the government's plan. There is uncertainty internationally, uncertainty in the provinces, uncertainty in the financial markets, uncertainty with industrial players. There's great uncertainty in Canada now. This is where we've arrived.

I think Bill C-377 is going to take us more time rather than less time. I support Mr. Cullen's idea, for example, to bring the IPCC forward to give us some clarity on two-degree, three-degree, five-degree changes going forward. I support the idea of examining the California plan. We heard yesterday that the California plan is to a certain extent aligned with Bill C-377. It's clearly not aligned with where we're going as a country, but it's aligned with Bill C-377, and it's certainly more aligned with Bill C-30.

There's also uncertainty in the European Union. The French president is now saying they're taking the notion of trade sanctions to the European Union to react to countries like Canada, who unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the treaty they've signed. There's uncertainty.

I think this is something we have to examine in some detail. I don't know whether we're going to get to it, Mr. Chair, and get to all these witnesses before the government decides to have the House rise. There's even uncertainty as to when the House is rising.

We're now in a situation where if we can roll out a plan that makes sense, I want to table it.

I think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that we cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. It does speak to a larger question, and once again the greater uncertainty created domestically and internationally by the government's plan.

Thank you very much.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to support the comments made by Mr. Cullen and Mr. Bigras.

I think this is an important bill to examine closely, because we're in a period of great uncertainty.

We asked the minister on Tuesday of this week whether we're going to see Bill C-30 arrive on the floor of the House of Commons, as it should, and the answer was no.

We asked the minister if he was prepared to work with us on examining whether Bill C-30 could be even further improved. The answer was no.

For meaningful debate, as Monsieur Bigras said just moments ago, there is the question of Bill C-288: where is Bill C-288 going, and how does the government intend to treat Bill C-288? Also, what are the government's constitutional responsibilities? What is it intending to do with a bill that may or may not receive royal assent? The government has been silent so far.

There is great confusion around the potential use of CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. As the minister let us know on Tuesday, he's not clear about how we will or will not participate in CDM.

There is huge uncertainty in the financial markets. I was speaking this week to—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am more or less in agreement with what the government is proposing. On the substance of it, I want to remind you that my party supports the principle of Bill C-377, even though we consider that it has major flaws. One would be that the first greenhouse gas reduction period, for 2008 to 2012, does not appear in clause 5 of the bill.

Given that we managed, in committee, to amend Bill C-30 and to pass Bill C-288 which has a 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal for the initial period, I feel that this bill deserves study and major amendments, particularly as far as clause 5 is concerned, so that we could incorporate the 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal, which is not part of Bill C-377.

As far as the approach is concerned, I agree entirely with Mr. Warawa. I think that we must wait for the G8 meeting in June, which will probably give us more information. We also have to wait to see what the Senate will say and what will happen to Bill C-288. If it were to come into effect, that would perhaps change the aspects we would want to work on in Bill C-377.

I am suggesting more or less the same thing as Mr. Warawa. When we look at our agenda, we can see that we have little time left. We know that several committee members will not be here on June 5^th, because they will be in Germany. In the full knowledge that there will probably be a proposal that we'll have to vote on in a few minutes, I think that we will, indeed, have to draw up a witness list and prepare a schedule to study Bill C-377 at the steering committee, as Mr. Warawa has moved. I believe we will be in a position, when we return in September, to study the bill with a witness list and a well-structured agenda.

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

That suggestion sounds fine to me. I think it's the best way to work things out quickly. I think we did the Bill C-30 witnesses that way. Everyone presented their options, we vetted them, and then we presented them back to committee.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

One of the reasons I asked is that the clerk has prepared a list of the witnesses who came for both Bill C-288 and Bill C-30. He has copies of that for the members who wish to have the list. Shall I ask him to distribute that list?

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

The question is then to put forward a series of folks from whom we think we need to hear. We've looked over Bill C-288's and the Bill C-30's witnesses. We don't want repetition.

There will be some witnesses who we will suggest to hear from again, only because it's a different conversation. Everything we heard from on Bill C-30 and Bill C-288 was first round, first target-setting. This is all about much further into the future, into 2050, which has different industrial and economic implications.

Certainly we're going to suggest that we hear from the IPCC, in terms of some of their long range; from UN science representatives and their long-range predictions regarding impacts of certain degrees, temperature change, and those types of things; from the UNFCCC; and from some assortment of national domestic environment groups—and balance this with some of the industrial players who will have some comment.

We think there's some interest with Mr. Schwarzenegger's visit yesterday, in looking at what California's plans are. There seems to be some interest from the government side, and certainly from those of us in opposition, towards understanding. It seems that California is taking much of the lead in U.S. domestic policy and is likely to have some effect on Washington.

Maybe we could look at inviting some official American delegation from the federal level in Washington. The reason is that there's been much talk from both the previous government and this government not to be offside what the Americans are planning to do.

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question for the parliamentary secretary before but I will give the answer to the hon. member for Labrador who spoke so eloquently on his heritage and his people's heritage in the beautiful part of Labrador and attached to Newfoundland regarding the aspect of the fisheries and what it has meant to the survival of his people for over thousands of years.

When we asked about consultation on the bill, we know there was none, as we have proven already in the House. We have asked the parliamentary secretary to table the documents in the House but so far the government has refused to do it.

However, we do have indications here. I will take the province of British Columbia. There is a gentleman by the name Byng Giraud who is the senior director of the Mining Association of British Columbia. The new bill has 253 different clauses with 107 pages, a lot of it written in legalese. It takes someone of very high academic standing quite a long time to go through the bill and to understand it.

This was tabled on December 13, 2006 in the afternoon here in Ottawa. On December 14 the B.C. Mining Association issued a press release saying that it was pleased with the new act.

How can these six reputable organizations, the B.C. Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the forest industry, the Mining Association, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the B.C. Agricultural Council, say that the bill is great after only 12 hours from the introduction of the bill? How did they have that analysis?

We find out that in August 2006 they made recommendations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the environmental aspects of the bill. Now we find that of the 16 recommendations they made, close to 14 of them are in the bill.

It also turns out that Byng Giraud just happens to be on the National Council of the Conservative Party for British Columbia. The government would not talk to fishermen in his riding. It would not talk to the fishermen in British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It would not talk to the families, the people who are involved in the fishing industry.

I keep reminding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, not the minister of mining.

My hon. colleague is absolutely correct when his colleague from Gander brought in the hoist amendment. We challenged Bill C-30. We took it to a committee and rewrote it and it is something we are proud of. The government is not. We ask the same for the fisheries bill. We ask that it be brought before the committee before second reading where fishermen and their families will be able to debate it. Let us write a new act that we can all be proud of and let us all move forward.

The Environment

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of the eco-fraud that the government keeps dishing out.

Yesterday the Pembina Institute punched holes through the environment minister's plan. Today the minister was caught saying there were fewer greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants while he was a member of the Ontario government, when in fact there were more. The government's environmental agenda has no credibility.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that Parliament created a better plan than his minister did? Why will he not bring back Bill C-30 for a vote in the House?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we saw two bad changes made to Bill C-30. Let me tell the House about each of them.

Bill C-30, as amended by the Liberal Party, contains an unlimited license to pollute. That is wrong. If there is an unlimited licence to pollute, where countries can simply buy their way out of actual greenhouse gas reduction, that will not cut it.

I also take great offence and have great concern with the Liberal approach to allow the Minister of the Environment, with the stroke of a pen, to allow pollution to continue to rise in some parts of the country. That is wrong and it is bad for our environment.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the current Prime Minister said:

I will always bear in mind that the people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government.

It is time he practised what he used to preach.

The opposition parties built a strong plan to fight global warming and wrote it into Bill C-30, but the government refuses to bring it back to Parliament for a vote.

When will the Prime Minister live up to his 2004 commitment and bring Bill C-30 back for a vote in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government tried to convince us that at the G-8 summit it would support the demands to reduce greenhouse gases by 2050. However, in order for Canada to meet its obligations, there are only two plans to ensure that the 2^o C global warming limit is not surpassed: our bill on climate change accountability, and Bill C-30, the amended clean air and climate change act.

Which of these two plans will the Prime Minister be taking with him to the G-8?

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, there have been some attempts to address the needs of updating the Fisheries Act, and that is why all the members who have spoken have made it clear that there are substantial areas of concurrence, but there are some that are not.

The member will know that I brought before the House a disallowance motion with regard to an aspect of the current Fisheries Act with regard to basically law made through a regulation.

I can read into the record the quotes from the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who berated the then government for breaking the law, but when the legislation came back again in this Parliament, the same person, now the fisheries minister, argued totally on the other side, saying that the government will take care of everything, but there is some disagreement there.

When the Fisheries Minister came before the joint Commons-Senate scrutiny of regulations committee, he promised that we would deal with this stuff.

The bill is already in difficulty. I am hoping that the minister will recognize that he still has an existing Fisheries Act which is in violation of the laws because it makes laws through the regulations and it should not. It is a simple amendment. A two line amendment to the existing Fisheries Act would solve it, but it has significant implications to licensing.

The minister has had different positions, depending on where he is at the time of day. He will tell us one thing, but is not afraid to tell us a different thing if he happens to be in government or in opposition. He will tell us that it is okay to send a bill to committee before second reading if it suits his purpose. This one does not suit his purpose and he is not afraid to say that right here, even though Bill C-30 goes to committee.

The minister needs to come clean. The minister has to understand that there are significant areas of question and possible weakness in the bill that members would like to have resolved. Those things may have to be resolved prior to a second reading vote.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I genuinely had hoped that we could have found a balanced approach with Bill C-30. I think you know that. I think you know I made best efforts to try to find a bridge to get a bill that all parties could support. We didn't find that consensus.

The premiers—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a fishery in my riding, it does border on Lake Ontario where there is a fair bit of recreational fishing going on. I listened to the debate this morning and there obviously is some disagreement among the members with regard to the appropriate process which Bill C-45 should undertake. Let me address a couple of the points that have been raised in debate which deserve some comment.

First of all, the issue of a bill going to committee prior to second reading has been the representation of a number of members with regard to this bill. It has to do with the fact that the bill has not been amended in some 36 years. It has to do with the fact that there are numerous stakeholders. Fisheries in Canada are extremely complex and there are many stakeholders as has been pointed out.

We have heard the argument that the bill should be hoisted and go to committee for some consultations. The allegation is there have not been consultations and it would appear that representations made by various stakeholder groups would tend to support that allegation, that consultations should have taken place. I should note that even in the summary of the bill it is stated:

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.

I do not know how some members define collaboration, but I would suspect that it does constitute to some extent, maybe a great extent, that there has been ample consultation with regard to a draft text or at least the principal issues.

The question with regard to second reading has to do with once the House has passed a bill at second reading, Parliament has given the bill approval in principle. The bill then goes to committee where witnesses are called. There is an opportunity at committee stage to propose amendments from time to time. Sometimes there are an enormous number of amendments made and many of them are ruled out of order. The reason they would be ruled out of order is that they would be contradictory to the decision of Parliament that the bill had received approval in principle. Effectively committee stage amendments are meant only to correct errors or to make certain modifications which are compatible with the fundamental principles of the bill.

Today in debate members have provided a number of examples of changes they would like to see to the bill as it is right now as we debate it at second reading, which in their view and I suspect in the view of the committee clerk, would be out of order because they are beyond the scope of the bill or amend the fundamental principle of the bill which has been approved by Parliament.

It is a very important question. I wanted to comment on this because the fisheries minister himself rose in the House in posing a question in which he dismissed referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. Subject to checking the record, if I could recall his statement, it was basically that it would be an opportunity for a whole bunch of people and virtually everybody would want to come before committee and hijack the process and we would be subjected to listening to all the input from various stakeholders who might be environmentalists, fisher persons, regulators, jurisdictional representatives from the provinces or whatever.

I have two points to make. The first point is that is consultation. That is listening. That is an important part of the process of making good laws and wise decisions. On my second point, I would refer to what the member who is now the Deputy Speaker said in the House, that delay is an essential part of the legislative process. It is part of democracy to filibuster, to debate fully, to raise as many questions as one may have. To some it may be viewed as disruptive to the flow of business, and apparently the minister views it that way.

When members feel strongly enough about an issue related to a bill, they have tools they can use. They have the tools of debate. They have the tools to make motions. They have the tools to call witnesses. Under our Standing Orders, they have the tools to be very thorough and exhaustive in their attention to a piece of legislation.

The minister has made it clear on the record that he does not want to hear from all the stakeholders in any great detail. This bill was tabled in December 2006 and has been languishing around. I do not know why it did not come up sooner, because it is an important bill. There are a number of outstanding issues and it is very important that they be dealt with. The minister clearly did not want to hear from all of the stakeholders who would have all kinds of questions, ideas and concerns. That is what the legislative process is all about.

I dare say that many members in this place will not have had an opportunity to read Bill C-45 in its totality. It is over 100 pages long. This bill replaces the existing act fully. It repeals the old act. If we are going to do the job properly, we have to go through the bill clause by clause to determine what has changed and to determine whether or not there is an understanding of why it may have changed. It is very difficult. Even in the brief 20 minutes that each member is given to speak at second reading, a member would not get into very much in terms of the essence of some of the details.

The first speaker raised some very important points. One had to do with transferring a licence on retirement. Another was the role of the tribunals. Another one that I thought was quite interesting was the delegation of the minister's responsibilities to DFO officials. This is a whole new regime. There was a suggestion that there have been cases in the past of abusing that authority to grant or to refuse licences.

If we think about it, there is a lot on the table for parliamentarians. There is a hoist motion, which basically asks Parliament to cease this process at second reading and to send the bill to committee for consideration. Interesting enough, when the minister made his argument on why we should not do that because he did not want to hear from all the stakeholders, from the various groups, aboriginals or commercial fishermen or jurisdictional individuals, et cetera, he forgot about bills like Bill C-30.

Bill C-30, when it was first tabled in the House, was the government's alternative to Kyoto. It is the environmental plan. It was leaked to environmental groups so that they could have an opportunity to respond. A week before the bill was even tabled in the House, they critiqued it in its totality and it was unanimous that Bill C-30 was a failure and it was never going to get anywhere. The bill was tabled in the House, but we did not have a debate on it. We have never had a debate on that bill because the government decided to send it to committee before second reading.

As we know, Bill C-30, a very bad bill, the clean air act, was totally rewritten by parliamentarians who heard a plethora of witnesses to make sure the bill was going to deliver in terms of our international commitments, and the appropriate processes and targets for our greenhouse gas emission undertakings.

That bill was totally rewritten by the committee. It was based on expert testimony and the best work possible by the members who were selected by each of the parties to be on this special legislative committee.

If consulting with Canadians on the clean air act is appropriate before second reading because it is complicated, there are a lot of diverging views, there are areas in which it is not overtly clear to members why certain steps have been taken, sending it to committee is the place to do it.

The minister makes his argument about it not going to committee before second reading because the Conservatives do not want to hear from these people and yet the government itself referred another bill to committee before second reading. In fact, that is not the only one. One cannot have it both ways. One either recognizes the circumstances a bill is in or one risks losing the bill and having to find another way to do it.

We cannot afford, quite frankly, to lose this new Fisheries Act because there are many changes that have taken place and many new areas that should be dealt with that are currently not in the existing legislation. One that I happened to notice and something that I have spent a fair bit of time on in my involvement with the International Joint Commission has to do with alien invasive species. In part 3 of this bill it actually refers to aquatic invasive species.

Canadians may be familiar, for instance, with zebra mussels, which are an alien invasive species or what is called an aquatic invasive species. I understand there are some 30 of these species in the Great Lakes system and they destroy the fish habitat. In the work that is being done so far, for every one alien invasive species that is treated, dealt with and gotten rid of, another one appears. How does it appear? There is certainly speculation about how they come in but it has to do with ship ballast. They are brought in by ships that come from abroad.

I noted in this area that it is an offence to transport an aquatic invasive species. I wonder what would happen if a ship coming to Canada has a listed aquatic invasive species that it is not aware of but is discovered. I am going to be very interested in seeing the regulations on how to deal with it. I suppose it could even involve a court case in terms of whether the ship owners knew or ought to have known that in the normal practice of managing the ballast of a ship, they would have probably collected certain species that would be classified as an aquatic invasive species.

There is certainly that area. The International Joint Commission is a group made up of representation from Canada and the United States which share common waterways. It is responsible for conducting studies and making observations to determine what the issues are and to suggest and discuss possible solutions.

The only problem with the IJC though is that it has no authority and no power because half of its members represent the U.S. government and the other half represent the Canadian government. It cannot unilaterally take charge of a situation and do something about it, so it takes a lot more work. I would be very interested to see how the responsibilities and the authorities that the minister has in the bill would be able to dovetail with the responsibilities of the IJC.

In part 3 clause 69.(1) states that: “No person shall export, import or transport any member of a prescribed aquatic invasive species”. When I read further, clause 70 states:

The minister may, subject to the regulations--

And regulations will be made at some future date.

--destroy or authorize any person to destroy, in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Minister, any member of

(a) a prescribed aquatic invasive species; or

(b) any other species that the Minister considers to be an aquatic invasive species as defined in the regulations.

I would think that this may be a problem because when the minister now has the authority to designate any other species to be an aquatic invasive species, we are probably making law through regulations and I am not sure that is going to get by the scrutiny of regulations committee but we will have to see on that.

In any event, even the small section which is only about four clauses in part 3 on aquatic invasive species, I could think of numerous questions that I would have of the IJC, that I would have of those who import and export and have ships using the waterways of Canada.

The other area that I want to comment on has to do with what was raised by one hon. member as an example of what can happen during second reading. As the member had indicated, we had Bill C-257 which was a bill related to replacement workers. It was to be amended at committee. There were some amendments. Ultimately, it came back that in the opinion of the Speaker, in consultation with the clerks, that the amendments made at committee were beyond the scope of the bill. Even though they were certainly directly related but what they did was they touched upon another bill which was not mentioned in Bill C-257.

Therefore, there are even good amendments which do not get incorporated into a bill on technical reasons. This is a very good example. In fact, right now a new bill on the same subject matter related to replacement workers, Bill C-415, has been ruled to be non-votable by a subcommittee of procedure and House affairs for the reasons that it is same or similar.

I can understand the argument that the vast majority of Bill C-415 is identical to Bill C-257 which was defeated by the House. Therefore, we could argue that the majority of that bill has already been defeated by the House and to put the question on those provisions again would be redundant and therefore the bill in the subcommittee's view is not votable.

It has now been appealed and it is still under review, but even something as simple as a reference to another piece of legislation may be enough to undermine the acceptability of changes at the committee stage.

I have to say in my experience of almost 14 years now that it is extremely difficult to get changes made at committee which are substantive. I think the members know that. I think the minister knows that. I think the minister also knows that should we have the kind of consultations that members have been asking for, that changes are going to be required here. He should also know that there is a great deal of support for the vast majority of the bill but there are some areas of weakness and members have raised those.

I believe that in a minority situation, this is a prime example of where the parties should be collaborating on the areas in which the bill can be improved. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Let me speak very directly to that.

We do believe that technology is a major component in helping us reduce greenhouse gases. So does the Liberal carbon budget proposal. It has this technology fund, these green accounts, which are not compliant with Kyoto and won't deliver anything, as you've suggested either, immediately.

So here's what we've done. With our technology fund, we're capping it at 70%. You can only put up to 70% of your investments into technology, and it goes down each and every year. By 2020, no contributions can be made to technology. It is capped and it goes down, and it gets stronger and tougher and better each and every year.

What we hope is that those investments in technology will begin to yield real reductions in greenhouse gases, things like carbon capture and storage, things like more renewable power, things like different industrial processes and harnessing that.

Bill C-30, which you voted for, had an unlimited licence to pollute. I don't agree with that. I think it's wrong. That's why our plan is tougher.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No sector is exempt from the regulations we brought forward. I know, sir, that you voted for an amendment to Bill C-30 that would allow the minister, with the stroke of a pen, to exempt certain areas. So I'd ask you, did you conduct that same thing?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the name Josephine Kennedy comes up now and then, a good woman from Cape Breton who represents a fair number of fishermen in the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia area.

This is an individual who cares about one thing and one thing only: the livelihood of fishermen and their families in these small coastal communities in Nova Scotia. She has said exactly what the hon. member has said, that what we want is that strategic pause. We want a chance to seriously look at this bill and what it means for them, their families, their communities and their futures.

They have already had this since December. It is almost June and they do not like what they see.

I would remind the Minister of Fisheries that he talked about consultations on Bill C-30. That was the clean air act which we in the NDP took to a committee before second reading, rewrote it and brought it back, so the minister may want to correct himself on that one.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria a question. Does he think that it should be the fishermen, their families and their communities from coast to coast to coast, especially those first nations individuals in Cape Breton and others right across the country, who should have a say? They are the ones who should write the act. They are the ones who should come before us and say, “Here is how we want to see the fish habitat protected. Here is how we want to see the fish managed for our future, because we are the ones who do the fishing”.

Does he not believe that it should be up to them, in a parliamentary democracy, to tell us that they want to see and how their lives should be managed in the future?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. Thank you for being here this morning.

Minister, you're here today to address Parliament's questions about Environment Canada spending and your so-called “Turning the Corner” plan.

The parliamentary secretary has kindly assured us that you will take questions on all related matters, so thank you for that.

Minister, as you know, numbers released by your own department earlier this week confirm that this country turned the corner under the leadership of Stéphane Dion, not only stabilizing industrial greenhouse gas emissions but reducing overall emissions year over year from 2004 to 2005. Liberal leadership put this country back on track to have a national carbon budget in 2006. You will have received a copy of this document, which, as you know, was subsequently migrated into Bill C-30. The legislative committee has worked hundreds of hours, if not in fact thousands of hours, which your government has conveniently suppressed and censored. The bill has yet to see daylight.

Obviously, your government chose not to take on the responsibility of capping our carbon emissions. The subject of climate change, Minister, has never been more important, and Canadians have very high expectations. To be frank, Minister, your government's performance on this file has been, objectively, terribly disappointing. Internationally, last year our climate change negotiators were instructed to block the second round of Kyoto, acting as saboteurs within the process that we were chairing, as president, internationally.

Likewise, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister refused to take a proactive stand on Germany's strong post-Kyoto plan. Domestically, Parliament was handed a clean air act, as I said a moment ago, in need of serious repairs. When you were brought in, the all-party Bill C-30 committee made those repairs, but this plan has died, as I said, in the hands of your government.

Funding was cut, left, right, and centre, on climate change initiatives, from home retrofitting to wind power.

Let's get started, if I could, Minister, and I would really appreciate it if we could all follow the chair's advice on short questions and short answers.

My first question to you speaks directly to the main estimates, Minister. Can you tell us how much federal money will flow this fiscal year for climate change programming? That is for 2007-08.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to my colleagues in the NDP for ensuring that Bill C-30 sees the light of day.

My question concerns previous comments made by a Liberal colleague who said that this bill in fact was unnecessary and that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act ensures environmental protection.

It is my understanding that one of the reasons the previous Liberal government failed to act on the environment, even after signing the Kyoto accord, was because these decisions had to be made under this act, under CEPA, behind closed doors, and even the environment minister could not get support for initiatives on the environment.

Could my hon. colleague comment on the changes in Bill C-30 and the importance of public accountability on environmental issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I am taking part in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day.

The opposition motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, given the desire of Canadians that this Parliament meaningfully address concerns about air quality and climate change, the government should call Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, for debate and decision at Report stage and Second reading as soon as possible.

From the outset, I would like to indicate to this House that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this motion, which, according to our party, is essential. It is essential for facing the climate change phenomenon, which will have consequences for the environment, our ecosystems and our natural resources.

Global warming will have a very negative economic impact if we do not soon start to correct the situation, if do not soon force those who are considered major industrial emitters responsible for increasing greenhouse gas emissions to commit to a real change in their production methods, and if we do not soon reduce our dependence on oil. Major economic consequences will result from our inaction.

We needed to proceed with consideration of Bill C-30 quickly. It was the responsibility of the opposition to amend the bill to meet the expectations of the people of Quebec and Canada. On October 19, 2006, when Bill C-30 was introduced in the House of Commons by the former Minister of the Environment, this government tried to have people believe that Bill C-30 was an adequate solution to combating climate change and that just because this government introduced a bill on air quality, which did not integrate the Kyoto protocol targets or targets for the short and medium terms, that the public would give it a blank cheque.

The response was exactly the opposite. In Canada and Quebec, there was an unprecedented angry outcry against this government, a government that decided to scrap the Kyoto protocol targets. Quebeckers reacted strongly, in the streets of Montreal, for example. They reacted through their civil society, through community organizations, as well as in the business community, the Cascades company, for instance, and through other Quebec businesses that saw that the government's decision to do away with the Kyoto protocol would have serious repercussions for the Quebec economy.

This became clear when the new President of France, Mr. Sarkozy, clearly indicated during a debate and again following his election that he planned to impose a carbon tax on all countries that refuse to comply with the Kyoto protocol. This is no trivial matter for Quebec. Forty percent of Canadian exports originate in Quebec. What is this, if not a telling blow against inaction? To not take action against climate change will not only decrease business opportunities for Quebec companies that wish to sell carbon credits they have amassed as a result of changes made to industrial processes, but the tax will also have repercussions for our economy, if the WTO deems such a tax legitimate.

The government is trying to make us believe that implementing the Kyoto protocol will lead Canada into one of the worst economic recessions ever; however, the opposite is true, Madam Speaker.

We have had a change in the chair occupant. We seldom have a woman in the chair, and I congratulate you.

It is not true that implementing the Kyoto protocol will lead to economic catastrophe. Some say that it will be worse than the 1929 crash. That is what we were told in recent weeks by economists hired by the government. We would have to look back 60 or 70 years to find a catastrophe of such proportions. The reality is quite different. It is inaction that will lead to economic decline.

It will be a lasting decline because we will not have adjusted to this paradigm shift, the change in the development of our economy, which was originally based on investment in natural resources. Given that climate change is a phenomenon which must be addressed with urgency, it is not right that we learn today that the government is thinking of buying the Mackenzie pipeline. Two years ago, it was valued at $7 billion and today we learn that it is valued at approximately $16 billion.

What hope do we have of this government fighting climate change when it is thinking of saving from bankruptcy a project whose sole purpose is to develop the oil and gas industry, which, in future, will contribute to the increase in greenhouse gases? It makes no sense for the government to table a plan that looks at greenhouse gas reductions in terms of emission intensity and not in terms of absolute results. It does not make sense to promote reductions by production unit. It is not right to try to make Canadians believe that they want to decrease greenhouse gases by 18%. On the contrary, the facts show that greenhouse gas emissions in one industrial sector alone—the tar sands—will increase by179%, and that increase will have an impact on the Canadian economy and the Canadian reality.

So, this is a government that must side not only with Canadians, but also with international opinion and consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps releasing new reports. There is confirmed scientific evidence that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is, at 90% to 95%, an anthropogenic phenomenon, that is, caused by human activities. There is increasing evidence to that effect, yet the government refuses to take action in the short term. That is totally unacceptable.

That is unacceptable, because we, the opposition, had decided to act responsibly, despite what the government would have people and the public believe. As early as November 1, after accepting the Prime Minister's invitation to refer Bill C-30 to a legislative committee, the opposition had decided to act responsibly. The word “responsible” must be remembered, when we look back to the review of Bill C-30. We set aside the partisanship that sometimes comes into play here. In this House, we do not always agree with the Liberals or the New Democrats, but the one thing on which we do agree is that climate change requires immediate action.

We will not accept a plan—or a bill such as Bill C-30—which pushes back to the year 2050 the greenhouse gas reduction targets. We, on this side, and this includes the NDP and the Liberal Party, are making a solemn commitment to make the fight against climate change a priority, and rest assured that we will remain focused on that objective.

We made that commitment consensually, by telling the government that we want greenhouse gas reduction targets of 6% based on 1990 levels. We did that by setting a medium-term greenhouse gas reduction target of about 20% for 2020, again based on the 1990 levels. We also increased this Parliament's sense of responsibility, by setting a longer term objective of between 60% and 80% reductions.

We did not limit ourselves like the government did by setting a long term objective because we set short and medium term objectives and we also reiterated our commitment to setting up a carbon exchange. This is essential for Quebec and it is the best tool available to help us achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This is a growing market, and we think it will be worth over $70 billion in a few years.

The government believes in implementing the market system, yet when it is time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to apply this market theory to environmental policy, the government is not on board. The reverse must be done.

If it works for Europe, which has six exchanges that enable it to meet its environmental targets while keeping the impact on its gross domestic product below 1%, why would it not work for Canada? If we continue to delay, Canada might no longer be competitive in foreign markets.

Protecting the environment is not a constraint. Since when have development and technological innovation been an economic constraint? On the contrary, this is a golden opportunity for Quebec to develop new markets. We must not leave this to others. If we take up this challenge, Quebec and Canada will come out on top. Canada has every opportunity to become one of the most competitive countries in foreign markets.

We believe in this exchange because it is better than a carbon tax. I think this exchange will enable better trading. The European experience has shown that the exchange can meet the targets. We believe in absolute targets, and we reject intensity targets. Large industrial emitters emit between 40% and 50% of our overall emissions, which means that implementing a system based on intensity reduction targets does nothing more than let big industrial emitters off the hook and make it more difficult for us to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

So we must jump into this fight and push for absolute reduction targets. We must also actively and confidently jump into a carbon market system currently estimated at more than $20 billion by the Business Development Bank of Canada. We must give an opportunity to companies like Biothermica in Quebec, which wants to sell its credits outside the country, and which wants to be recognized for the efforts it has made in the past as part of a Canadian plan.

We must also let Quebec implement its own approach and plan. We must trust the provinces, who are responsible for natural resources. Quebec and Manitoba are examples of what a province can do when its government decides to attack climate change. Quebec's previous governments have shown this, from Robert Bourassa to Jacques Parizeau. All of Quebec's governments, regardless of their political affiliation, have shown that when we implement a plan to fight climate change with clear goals, we can succeed in keeping greenhouse gas emissions in check. We are also able to strive for and respect our Kyoto commitments.

This is what Bill C-30 is calling for. Some people think that the Bloc never makes any progress. But after negotiations with the Liberals and the New Democrats, the Bloc was able to incorporate a territorial approach into Bill C-30. Under this approach, if a province, such as Quebec, decides to meet its greenhouse gas reduction target, it can implement its own climate change plan.

Why are we demanding that? Not because we are so attached to the principle of sovereignty, but simply because this is the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gases. For every dollar invested in the fight against climate change, we must maximize greenhouse gas reductions.

It is not true that a dollar invested in Quebec will lead to the same reduction in greenhouse gases as if it were invested in Alberta. Quebec does not have the same energy policy as the rest of Canada. We generate 95% of our power from hydroelectricity; 95% of our energy comes from renewable sources. When we invest in energy efficiency in our homes, that does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, whereas in the rest of Canada, increased home energy efficiency reduces the use of fossil fuels and consequently greenhouse gas emissions.

This example shows that we need a shared commitment in Canada, but that each province needs to take its own approach to meeting that commitment so that this plan to fight climate change is adapted to the realities across the country. That is what Europe did when it set a reduction target of 8%, negotiated in Kyoto in 1997. I was in Kyoto. I saw the Europeans come prepared. All the sovereign members of the European Union were in agreement at the time. They had a plan and targets. They knew how to address climate change because they had reached agreement with their partners, because they had understood that there could not be a target for Europe without equitable territorial reduction targets.

That is the commitment the Bloc Québécois made when it introduced this territorial approach, which aims to set a common target for Canada—we hope it will be the Kyoto target—but with a different approach for each province. Some greenhouse gas-emitting provinces have made huge profits in recent years. How did Alberta get rich? By developing an industry that, unfortunately, causes pollution. What we are asking for with the territorial approach and an emission credit trading mechanism is that the government apply the polluter-pay principle rather than the polluter-paid principle.

That is what we want. We want Quebec's efforts—because Quebec did not sit on its hands—to be recognized. Furthermore, we believe that Bill C-30 meets that expectation and we want it to be debated and voted on as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to what the initial question was. It is basically a who said what.

Our position from the get-go was that Bill C-30 was not necessary to achieve the objectives that were put forward. We agreed with the NDP that this was so.

We then agreed with the NDP to give it a try, to bring the bill to a legislative committee after first reading, although we always had grave doubts about this. Those grave doubts have been fully satisfied by the behaviour of the Conservatives. We never thought for a moment that they would accept a modified Bill C-30, but we worked with the NDP and the Bloc to give it our best effort.

As we said from the get-go, we did not think the Conservatives would do it. They did not need to do it, and we have wasted about six months doing nothing.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for talking about the historical aspects of Bill C-30. However, he needs to recognize that when Bill C-30 first came to the House, the Liberal Party supported it to get it to a committee. It was our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who objected to it, saying that it was terrible, that it needed to be rewritten and that it needed to go to a special committee.

The Liberal Party at that time, along with the Conservatives, said that it could not be done. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proved that it could be done, and we want to thank him very much for it.

However, I would like to give another shot at the Conservatives for the fact that they have been climate change deniers for years. The member for Red Deer, their environment critic, said that global warming was a myth. Does he believe the Conservative Party still believes that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points.

First, on the environmental assessment that was referenced in the hearings, the question was whether they followed the full cabinet proceedings, which necessitates an environmental assessment of a certain kind, and the answer was no.

The second point, which is on the intensity target, is we recognized that project green was intensity based when it came to large final emitters. We also realize that is no longer sufficient because we have lost time and we now go to an absolute based system, as we should, in the new Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, historians looking back at the tangled story of Bill C-30, the government's so-called clean air act, will probably say that the chief lesson to be derived from the whole sorry exercise is “be careful what you wish for”.

Historians—and that is my profession, I must say, my occupational bias—will certainly take notice of the Conservative government's initial skepticism regarding the science of climate change.

Historians are going to recall a Prime Minister who described the Kyoto treaty as “a money sucking socialist scheme”. They are going to recall a Prime Minister who asked how we could possibly predict the climate when we could not tell the weather in three days. They are going to recall a Prime Minister who said about the science behind global warning, “It's a scientific hypothesis and a controversial one”.

This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle when the benefits are negligible.

Historians will also recall that it was the previous Liberal government that signed and ratified, in December 2002, the Kyoto protocol against the fierce opposition of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative, call it what we will, party that were in turn allied and abetted by most of the provinces at the time and a large section of the Canadian business community, which collectively rejected the very concept of climate change.

It is so ironic for the Conservatives now to say that we did not get the job done when it was their most fervent wish that we not get the job done since they opposed the very concept of the fight against climate change.

Historians, while noting that the Liberals certainly might have done more, will also recognize that the previous Liberal government did bring forward, in 2005, a green plan, which regulated and would have put in place regulations for large industrial emitters by 2008.

It was the Liberal government that negotiated an agreement with the auto sector up to 2011, which has been honoured and kept by the Conservative government.

It was the Liberal government that brought forward a number of other measures which would have helped provinces, such as the partnership fund, do their part to reduce greenhouse gases, and there were major projects foreseen in Ontario and Quebec.

The Liberal government created a climate fund for us to buy into projects in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases and to use international-UN mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Liberal government created a plan that supported the energy retrofit program, including EnerGuide for low income houses, to help Canadians save money.

It was the Liberal government that put $1.8 billion over 15 years into the wind power production incentive and the renewable power production incentive.

The Liberal government put in money for the sustainable energy and technology strategy.

All of these things were cancelled when the Conservative government came into place and then, with complete cynicism, brought back in a weakened and in feeble form in many cases, when it finally realized that it was out of step with Canadians.

Bill C-30 and its accompanying notice of intent to regulate only appeared in October 2006 as a desperate attempt by the Conservatives to reverse their previous strategy because polls told them that Canadians took climate change seriously and that they were on the losing side of history.

The Conservatives response was completely cynical. First, they muddled, deliberately, the issues of climate change and air pollution. Second, they did as much as they had to and as little as they could get away with. Hence we have Bill C-30.

The bill was so feeble, so universally condemned by non-governmental organizations, the media, opposition parties, and public opinion, that it was withdrawn in disgrace and sent to a special legislative committee after first reading, with an invitation by the government to the three opposition parties to re-write the bill to meet all of the objections that had been raised. “Be careful what you wish for”.

Following intensive and frequent meetings in February and March of this year, the three opposition parties joined forces, something rather rare in this House, to push for some amendments and respond seriously to the challenge presented by the Conservative government. Together, the opposition parties produced a much stronger, more serious and better bill. It is still Bill C-30, but the bill is now called Canada’s Clean Air and Climate Change Act.

Now irony of ironies, the government refuses to produce its own much improved bill, confirming the cynicism of those who said at the time, as my colleague from Ottawa South noted, that Bill C-30 was never necessary in the first place, that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provided all the resources, all the power necessary to regulate both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

On April 26 of this year, the government confirmed what we the official opposition had been saying since October 2006, by issuing a weak and incomplete climate change and air quality package of regulations, which was entirely dependent on the existing legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There was not in that document a single reference to Bill C-30, which the government had previously insisted was necessary in order to accomplish the changes through regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The three opposition parties have acted in good faith. They did improve both the climate change sections of the bill and the air quality provisions of Bill C-30, as the government asked us to do. “Be careful what you wish for”.

Canadians need to compare the strengthened, improved and ambitious new Bill C-30 with the pathetic, loophole ridden, muddle-headed, unambitious plan of April 26. However, we can only do that in a formal sense if the bill is brought back to the House as it should be.

Historians and Canadians will look back on the first year and a half of Conservative inaction on the climate change file and note the following: a 180° turn on the whole subject and a 90° turn on the Kyoto protocol itself.

What we notice is the replacement of one ineffective minister of the environment, who was undermined at every turn by the Prime Minister's Office, with an aggressive, partisan, and I have to say, uninformed and ultimately discredited and ineffective new minister.

We notice Bill C-30 introduced, discredited, withdrawn, reintroduced, amended, improved, withdrawn again. We notice the regulations introduced, discredited, withdrawn, amended, reintroduced, discredited, and the dreary cycle continues. We notice over the top attacks on phantom bills no one introduced in the first place. We notice the apocalyptic Chicken Little attacks on a fantasy and a phantasm.

Meanwhile there is complete silence and no analysis by the government of the serious carbon budget plan introduced by the Liberals as part of the new Bill C-30 and endorsed by the Bloc and the NDP.

The final judgment of historians may well be that by May 2007, after having been in power for 16 months, the government had run out of bullets and credibility on the subject of climate change. It has run out of new plans to introduce. Having used up all its ammunition attacking a phantom plan, it has nothing left to say about the reasonable carbon budget plan of Bill C-30.

Having attacked the Liberal green plan, then reintroduced in feeble form many of its elements, no one believes a word the Conservatives say.

The true colours of the government have been revealed. There is nothing more to do, nothing more to say, nothing more to hide. “Be careful what you wish for”.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today. The opposition parties are united in their desire to see Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, re-emerge from the government's politically induced coma, the coma that started when the environment committee substantially rewrote its weak and original effort.

Where can one begin on the merits of Bill C-30? Bill C-30 gives us a consensus based realistic plan that aims at meeting our Kyoto targets, something the government has adamantly refused to do. In fact, as every day progresses we learn that the government is ripping us out of the Kyoto protocol by stealth, by subterfuge and by the death of a thousand cuts.

Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation act, passed this week in the other place. Now we hear that the new president of France is considering taking to the European Union trade sanctions and potential carbon taxes on countries like Canada under the present government, which would presume to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of our Kyoto obligations.

In committee yesterday, we discovered that massive amounts of money have been spent by the government attacking Bill C-288, millions and millions of taxpayer dollars in a shock and awe communications campaign, mounted by the Minister of the Environment, not to bring any kind of light to the issue but to generate way too much heat.

When asked, government officials concluded and confirmed yesterday that there had been no analysis whatsoever of any kind, economic, environmental or social, on the government's own bill, Bill C-30.

Bill C-288 restates Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol process. The government signed the protocol, and Parliament ratified it. Now that Bill C-288 has passed through the House of Commons, the democratically elected members have shown twice that we are fully committed to this goal. The minister's comments were defeatist. His confused rhetoric talked about a more realistic way forward. What he meant was that he is not willing to show any leadership whatsoever. He could not get the job done and neither could his predecessor who was summarily dispatched for failure to do anything in the first year of this government's short life.

After saying that Canada needed a new clean air act, the Conservatives presented a plan that will allow emissions to continue to increase for the next 10 years. To do so, they decided to use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, completely contradicting their claims that Bill C-30 was needed.

The irony is simply too rich: the Conservatives' bill, their legislative committee, their admission that Bill C-30 was fatally flawed, centre overhaul, without a single substantive amendment put forward by any member of the government's caucus.

Thankfully, a lot has changed over the past few months. On February 8, the minister said that “This is bill is essential to protecting the environment and the health of Canadians”, referring, of course, to Bill C-30. If he really meant that, I guess we would be debating it today, and not as an opposition day motion.

However, the government, as we have seen and learned today, is more interested in censorship around the national climate change response than it is about putting forward a reasonable and defensible plan.

The minister said instead that our targets will be the toughest, a subjective word that he plucked out of a hat, and he is ridiculed for it by the United Nations head of the climate change secretariat, to guffaws of laughter in the 168 partner nations that have signed with us into the Kyoto protocol.

The numbers he shows are weak, and even these targets have no credible plan through which we can reach them.

We learned just yesterday that the mandatory, cabinet decreed, environmental assessment of the government's own climate change plan has not been performed. It has not been performed by the PCO, by Finance Canada, by Environment Canada, by Natural Resources Canada nor by Health Canada. There is no environmental assessment on this plan. It is in breach of its own cabinet decree.

The minister's comments are nothing short of defeatist. His confused rhetoric talks about “a more realistic way forward”. What he really meant was that he was not willing or, more likely, he was not allowed to show leadership because the PMO staffers who pull his strings tell him that he should control the message that more closely.

He cannot get the job done. His history of working to obstruct, no, to undermine, Kyoto is well-written. In partnership with thePrime Minister, who is an isolationist, triangulating between Canberra, Washington and Ottawa, a Prime Minister who is viscerally opposed to a multilateral, the only single multilateral response we have to an international phenomena.

Bill C-30 is the way forward. The centrepiece of it is a functioning carbon budget for Canada. Every family understands the importance of a budget. Income and expenditures need to be balanced. If we save, we can invest in our future, it is time to adopt such a strategy in order to reduce carbon emissions.

A balanced carbon budget is an innovative and bold plan enabling large industrial emitters to reduce, in a tangible and significant way, their carbon emissions. Our plan provides a concrete and effective strategy for significant reductions in carbon emissions.

It would also serve to stimulate the development of green technologies here in Canada, second only, globally, to the emerging ecotourism trade as one of the fastest growing sectors of the international global marketplace.

We know our businesses will seize those opportunities to promote environmental technologies. We know that Canada will seize the opportunities to become a green superpower.

Our companies are aching to take advantage of a new green economy, but only if they have certainty and clarity. They need to know in which direction our country is moving, especially those that have moved so aggressively to reduce their emissions of those greenhouse gases since 1990.

I will leave it to my colleague to follow up with some of the details in Bill C-30, which is the culmination of the cooperation, negotiation and mediation of 65% of the members of the House of Commons. We speak for Canada. The government does not.

It is important for viewers and Canadians to know that the government was bluffing when it brought the clean air act to Parliament. Worse than that, it deceived the Canadian people, an art of deception mastered by the minister at the heels of his previous political mentor, the former premier of Ontario.

The government was not ready but we were. It counted on what it excels at, division. We were not divided. We are united.

The Conservatives are isolated. They have struck out twice with two different ministers and it is now time for the House to accept nothing less than Bill C-30.

We call on the government to bring Bill C-30 back to the House transparently and accountably so Canadians can see that if it refuses it will speak volumes for the party opposite to defy the will of Parliament and remain foolishly silent.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will notice the great cooperation from this side of the House in relation to that last motion, and indeed that is what we are trying to do with Canada's environment.

We want to take serious steps to make the environment, the air that Canadians breathe, better. As such, I am going to continue on, notwithstanding that I said this just before question period. I am going to continue from where I left off, and that is, on the issue of asthma and the health of Canadians.

We know that asthma is increasing in our population and in fact, I stated that it more than tripled in children aged zero to 14 over the past 20 years. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma by a physician. That is 12.2% of children and 6.3% of adults in Canada. Indeed as I mentioned, my youngest child has asthma.

The quality of life for these people is dramatically affected by not taking action on the environment, by the previous 13 years of the previous Liberal government not taking action. That is why this government feels that we cannot accept what the NDP has put forward.

We want to take action now. We are done consulting. We want to make Canadians' health better. Indeed, it is clear that we need to take action to reduce all potential causes that increase incidents of illness and death, especially those which affect our children.

This government's approach will provide us with the authorities and tools which are so necessary in order to launch this fight against those terrible pollutants, to address the sources of both indoor and outdoor air pollution while setting in motion a very realistic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I am proud of this government's motion, of these great steps that this Minister of Environment has taken, and the real action plan to come forward. Our mandatory reductions will reduce the impact of greenhouse gases and air pollution on the environment and the health of Canadians, which is so important to all Canadians.

These regulations will have real tangible benefits and I think many people do not realize how important these benefits will be. The estimated benefits by 2015, from the Conservative agenda for the reduced risk of death and illness associated with our air quality improvements, will be over $6 billion annually. That is correct, over $6 billion annually.

This puts the health benefits from air pollution reductions in the same broad range as the economic costs of meeting the air pollution and GHG emission targets. These have been calculated at less than 0.5% of our annual GDP. Thus in the short term, the GHG emission reduction strategy that we have put in place is balanced by the air pollution benefits.

This government's objective is to minimize or eliminate risks to the health of Canadians posed by environmental contaminants in the air. That is our goal. It is a very aggressive agenda, but we will get it done. As has been seen by Canadians, we do get the job done and we will continue to get the job done.

I sat in on Bill C-30 and I saw what the NDP was doing. I saw what the Liberals were doing. I saw what the Bloc was doing. What they were doing was playing politics with Canadians' lives, with the health of Canadians, and we in this government are not going to let that happen.

I looked at the aggressive agenda of the NDP to play politics. It is sort of like watching a person play Twister, not getting anything done but making a lot of confusion in the process, and indeed that is not what this government is going to do.

That is why our government has introduced one of the toughest plans in the world today on turning the corner on greenhouse gases and air pollution. Our government is bringing in mandatory, not voluntary, targets. We are going to get the job done for Canadians on the issue of the environment.

Opposition Motion--The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee that looked at Bill C-30 and I listened intently to the witnesses. I went to every meeting and I spoke to NDP members at length in relation to what they were proposing. Today, we see they are asking us to call Bill C-30. I am prepared to call it something. I would call, quite frankly, a collection of really bad ideas and a couple of good ones. What the government is going to do is take the good ones and put them to work for Canadians.

I am also pleased to address the House on the issue of what our government has done regarding the establishment of greenhouse gas and air pollution reduction targets. This is very important to Canadians.

The government has brought forward a comprehensive and integrated regulatory framework, which not only addresses greenhouse gases, but which also calls for concrete action to reduce air pollution which affects the health of Canadians every day.

Canadians have probably heard this one time or two times before, but Canada's new government did inherit a mess of ineffective and counterproductive strategies for air pollution and greenhouse gases. The previous government's strategies just did not deliver what Canadians need, that is healthy air and a healthy environment. This government is committed to do that.

The inaction by the previous Liberal government and the failure to set and follow up on plans and priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reduction requires a more realistic approach. We want to get results. We are done with talking, and the motion calls for more of that. We are not prepared to do that any longer. We think it has happened enough and we will get results for Canadians.

That is why the government has brought forward a regulatory framework to significantly reduce GHGs and air emissions from industrial sectors. That is why we have and will continue to introduce additional measures as time goes to fight climate change and to fight air pollution, which is so important to Canadians.

For those people who are listening, do not take my word for it and do not take the word of the member opposite. Look at the legislation, look at the website and talk to the experts. Canadians will see that this government is taking real concrete steps to help the health of Canadians.

I underline the point that we are putting in place regulatory reductions, not voluntary reductions as the previous government did, of greenhouse gas and air pollutants in place. We are setting stringent targets, but achievable sector based targets for emission reductions. What is more, the government's approach ensures that there is actual accountability. We stand for accountability on this side of the House and these steps and this approach ensures accountability as well as flexibility to accelerate these actions, as required by this government. We are taking real steps and we are going to continue to do so.

I will turn my attention now to what I consider some key aspects on what this government approached is based, aspects that set it apart from the lack of actions that was taken before by the previous government.

Our goals are the goals of Canadians. We have listened intently to the goals of Canadians. The legislation we have proposed and the continued changes and advancements that we will making are clearly what Canadians want to protect the health, the environment and the prosperity of Canadian jobs.

We are getting the job done and getting it done the right way, for our future, our children and our grandchildren. Our government has set targets which contribute to significant reductions, not only of greenhouse gases but also of air pollutants which are so important. These reductions will provide immediate and long term health benefits for Canadians. Often the air pollutants and the greenhouse gases come from the same source, so it makes sense to do this as a collection of ideas that work toward a better quality of life for Canadians.

I want to also take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of regulating reductions in air pollution at the same time as we regulate greenhouse gas reduction. The health impacts of poor air quality are very evident. Until people are touched by those poor air quality standards and the health effects of those, people do not realize what is important to them. As a government we realize what is important to Canadians. Approximately 5,900 deaths or 8% of all deaths in eight Canadian cities can be linked to air pollution every year. The government will get the job done for Canadians to protect their health.

We are also aware of reported increases over the last few decades of certain diseases affecting our population. I have even seen it in my community and in my own family. This is a significant cause for concern and one that in certain instances can be related to the quality of the air we breathe.

We know that asthma is increasing in our population. In fact, over the past 20 years it has more than tripled in children zero to 14 years of age. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma by a physician. That is right, some 12.2% of children and 6.3% of adults have complaints of asthma. My youngest child Michael has asthma. Until we see what takes place with somebody with serious asthma and how it affects the qualify of life, we do not realize how important the steps are that this government is taking for Canadians.

It is clear that we need to take action now, not some six months or six years later as the NDP has proposed. We need to take action now to reduce all potential causes that increase incidences of illness and death, especially those which affect our children.

This government's approach--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I grin when I hear the rhetoric from the member. Maybe he did not notice what was happening. He was busy ordering a cake for the end of Bill C-30 and meeting with his media buddies. Maybe he should have paid more attention.

Maybe he should have paid attention to the witnesses. Every one of the witnesses said that what he was proposing could not be done, except for one, but he ignored that and got busy ordering a celebration cake.

This is what was said in the Globe and Mail right after Bill C-30 ended and while he was cutting his cake:

— what the opposition parties, especially the Liberals, did to this bill in committee before they returned it to the House of Commons...made a bad law worse. With dozens of amendments, they slapped a hefty carbon tax on industry and then assigned the money from that tax to a new agency with the clout to give it back—if satisfied with the polluter's progress—or to spend it elsewhere. Their overhaul was so drastic that they even amended the name of the legislation.

Bill C-30 was severely damaged. He talked about the national air quality standards. We support national air quality standards, not regional standards where there can be political interference. All Canadians deserve to have air quality, not just some areas.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That was the member for Halton, a Liberal member.

Even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer whatever people wanted but they had no intention of ever delivering.

Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is clearly easier for them to tell Canadians what they want hear, which is that they want to achieve the Kyoto targets, when in fact they cannot and had no intention to. It was 13 years of mismanagement.

The NDP takes the same position but it is hard to tell what the NDP's position is on short, medium and long term targets for greenhouse reductions because in the last six weeks it has supported two different positions.

First, there were the targets that it wrote with its Liberal buddies on Bill C-30. These targets would cost Canadian families and businesses over 275,000 jobs and send gasoline prices soaring over $2 a litre. These targets would be disastrous for the economy and the NDP supported them.

The NDP then introduced even tougher targets in a private member's bill sponsored by the leader of the NDP that would harm the economy even worse. Those targets were so over the top that when it tried to write them into Bill C-30 even the Liberals said that they did not make sense because they were so obviously over the top.

Canada's new government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes concrete and realistic industrial targets recently brought forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the air that we all breathe.

Let us look at what happened with the clean air sections of Bill C-30. The opposition members gutted those clean air sections. We asked them to work with us to protect the health of Canadian children, the elderly and those suffering with respiratory illnesses. What did they do? They gutted those important sections out of the clean air act.

What did Canadians lose in the opposition's rush to gut the bill? Led by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the Liberal member for Ottawa South, what did Canadian's lose? They lost mandatory national air quality standards, and members opposite are applauding that those were lost. Canadians lost mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards. Canadians lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants. Canadians lost tougher enforcement rules of compliance to air quality regulations. Finally, the opposition removed regulations that would have improved indoor air quality.

We heard from Health Canada officials at the environment committee yesterday about the importance of indoor air quality. Allow me to quote from their presentation:

Canadians spend about 90% of their time indoors.

In the built environments where we live, work, go to school, and play, Canadians are exposed to a variety of contaminants such as airborne moulds from excessive moisture, emissions from household products and building materials, and carbon monoxide from poorly vented oil and gas appliances.

These and other indoor air contaminants can cause or exacerbate many different ailments, including asthma, respiratory infections, and allergies.

Under the Clean Air Agenda announced last fall, the Government committed to develop a priority list of indoor air pollutants in partnership with provinces and territories, which will lead to guidelines and other measures to protect the health of Canadians from these pollutants.

Tragically, the opposition members removed indoor air regulations from Bill C-30. What did they add instead? They added delayed action by requiring six months of consultation around a new investment Bank of Canada, before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. They added complex and unworkable requirements that would make it harder, not easier, for government to act on air pollution.

Even worse, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, inserted a clause that would allow political interference into air quality standards. The Liberals would allow the environment minister to exempt economically depressed areas from air quality standards for two years. This would allow the environment minister to engage in political interference in setting air quality regulations. That is something Canadians certainly do not want.

It is also interesting to note that at the House of Commons environment committee yesterday, officials from Health Canada testified on the importance of national air quality standards as opposed to the regional patchwork as proposed by the NDP members and their Liberal buddies on Bill C-30.

Bill C-30 was key to protecting the health of Canadians and the environment. It is clear that the opposition picks politics over the environment.

The Liberals also inserted their carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. Unlike the Liberals, we believe actions speak louder than words. That is why we introduced the toughest, most realistic plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the world today.

For the first time ever, Canada's new government will force industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We have taken immediate action to implement mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down.

Canada needs to turn the corner because we went in the wrong direction under the Liberals. Since the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gases in 1997, they have only gone up.

Canada's new government is turning back the hands of time on the disastrous Liberal record and we will cut 150 megatonnes by 2020. We will impose mandatory targets on industry so air pollution from industry is cut in half by 2015.

The government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air that we breathe for Canadians today and tomorrow. Our plan is real. It begins now, immediately, and will lead to concrete results with challenging but realistic targets for industry.

There is no doubt that we all need to work together if we are to address our growing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Unfortunately, the motion seeks more delay and more debate, and that is why we will not support it.

The time for talk is over. The time for action is now and I look forward to getting support from all opposition parties to implement our tough new regulatory framework on air emissions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

He is still at it, I can hear him.

On December 5, Parliament referred Bill C-30 to a legislative committee of the House of Commons for review. As we all know, Canada's Conservative government worked in good faith in committee on Bill C-30 to try to improve the clean air act.

In committee we supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act. We even brought forward amendments of our own. Sadly, in most cases we were opposed by the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.

Vehicle emissions is one example. We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on North American market standards, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc do? They voted against it and then knowingly imposed standards that would be impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry. As for the Liberals' plan, Buzz Hargrove said that it would be disastrous but they did not listen.

We also cannot ignore the unrealistic targets that were put into the bill by the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals played politics by inserting Kyoto targets into the bill with no realistic plan to achieve them. The NDP supported that irresponsible action. It is difficult to stomach such gall from the Liberal Party. It is also clear that the Leader of the Opposition did not support Kyoto. His colleagues have repeatedly said this.

Liberal environment ministers, David Anderson, Christine Stewart and top Chrétien advisor, Eddie Goldenberg, told Canadians that the Liberal Party had no intention of meeting the Kyoto targets, that they were only paying lip service to Canadians on Kyoto. It is hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago and it is even harder today. The member for Halton said so. He stated:

I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”.

Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a member who has served on the Bill C-30 legislative committee and one of many Conservatives who is working hard for a cleaner environment.

I also want to thank the minister who, I believe, will go down in history as one of Canada's greatest environment ministers.

I am pleased to participate in today's opposition day debate introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, well-known as the member with over the top rhetoric and theatrics in the committee. It kept the committee very interesting.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, a dark place.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind about the most urgent issue our generation faces. One would think the Conservatives would understand the threat to our children and the urgency to act.

Yet the Conservatives and their friends in the oil patch dismiss the impact of our actions in Canada. They say that our emissions represent only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but they fail to understand that we are 0.5% of the world's population.

In other words, we are a dirty bunch, spewing out four times more emissions than our share. This is not the “punching above our weight on the international scene” that most Canadians have in mind.

We are told that this is the case because of our economy, so we get rich at the expense of the environment and at the expense of the rest of the people who inhabit it. This is certainly not the role that Canadians want to play in the world. It is a disgrace.

Bill C-30 offers a real possibility for a shift in direction. We are the only western country whose emissions are still rising, and the Conservative plan does not change that until 2020.

The Conservatives have us stuck on an escalator going ever upward. We are the only western developed country whose emissions are still rising and we are looking over at everyone else who is on the escalator going down.

The environment minister has said that he understands the urgency of the situation, yet given the lack of urgency of his actions and his plan, it is clear that he does not understand. He runs around claiming that the economic sky will fall if we aggressively tackle climate change.

However, a couple of days ago, a Canadian financial leader speaking at the Rideau Club said the following about those countries and those businesses who are too slow to join the green economy. He said that “the last into this will pay through the nose”. His company, VanCity Savings, is in the process of becoming carbon neutral by 2010. What that means is the act of doing business in a way that does not contribute to global warming.

One would expect that the Conservatives, who make themselves the apostles of productivity, would understand that those who transition early to a green economy will benefit. Yet with their ludicrous, discredited, intensity based targets, they remain firmly anchored in an old way of thinking and in an old economy that separates us from the possibility of real solutions.

There are real solutions. Other countries are putting them forward. We are being left in the dust.

Our excellent NDP energy critic, the member for Western Arctic, said that “any credible plan needs to be accompanied by real investment in renewable, sustainable, and green energy”. He continued, saying, “We must develop a national energy strategy which invests in renewable energy, supports conservation and creates an east-west energy grid so Canadians can share clean energy with each other”.

That is the kind of thinking that will allow us to change paradigm. What we need is a vision for what a green economy will look like and the determination to be the first ones to get there, which is precisely what the Conservative minority lacks.

If there were genuine political will to get something done beyond the mere appearance of action, the crucial first step would be to set the necessary political signals and framework conditions to achieve a more climate friendly development in the time to come. However, that does not mean making the tar sands slightly less dirty per barrel. It means a full shift in the way we produce energy. It means making stable, long term investments in conservation and development of renewable energy sources, instead of the spontaneous flash-in-the-pan window dressing projects that were given by the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them. It requires making a transition to triple bottom line decision making where social, economic and environmental objectives are given equal weight and all decisions must meet these objectives on each front. It does not mean doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

This is the principle that Norway has adopted. Norway produces only 0.2% of the world's emissions, but the country's leaders understood that it was part of the global family and needed to do its part.

The five countries that produce the most emissions account for half the world's emissions. However, as the Norwegian commission on low emissions has stated, if all the countries with relatively low emission levels rely on the major producers to reduce their emissions, we will never control climate change.

We can also follow Germany's example. Years ago, German political leaders seized the opportunity to build a strong, green, sustainable economy. They had a vision of the future that is being realized today.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about this bill, which was drafted by a committee with representation from all the opposition parties as well as the governing party. This committee was inspired by the NDP.

This bill, which the committee renamed Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, offers an environmental plan that is far superior to what the Conservatives are proposing. They would have us believe that their targets will mean tough control over greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is different. The reality is that with intensity-based targets, greenhouse gas emissions will increase. That is why the committee took the Conservatives' shoddy bill and amended it to give Canadians a really effective plan. That is what Canadians want.

I condemn the government for not having the courage to introduce its own plan in the House for a debate and a vote. That is why the NDP is introducing Bill C-30 today.

To shut down this debate through procedural trickery, to bring it down from eight hours to two, is all about stifling the good ideas and progress made in Bill C-30 on an issue that Canadians are progressively increasingly concerned about. Canadians are angry about the inaction of their governments over the past decade.

For a government that purports to want to bring democracy to other countries, this action is profoundly undemocratic and disrespectful to the majority of Canadians who want real action on climate change. There is no issue about which I have received more mail from my constituents in Victoria.

This is a government that is increasingly and dangerously unwilling to accept the majority will of Parliament and of Canadians. We have seen this on committees throughout the last week.

Instead, the Conservatives jet-set around the country to introduce one idea per town, small half measures that fall far short of what is needed, without a real plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind--

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

Mr. Speaker, the continuation of these theories is incredible. Despite what the First Nations Forestry Council in British Columbia is saying, despite what the environmental groups are saying, and despite what the scientists within the department of the government are saying, somehow the theory is that the pine beetle devastation is due to a handful of environmentalists in British Columbia.

That is what is happening. Those members are not realizing the truth of the matter, which is that we must fundamentally change course in this country. We must alter the economic reality for this country and start to build the type of green economy that Canadians have been asking for.

Bill C-30 would allow us to do that. Why the government refuses to listen to the will of Parliament, just like the Prime Minister used to call for when he was in opposition, is beyond me and beyond Canadians, but the Prime Minister will feel the retribution when it comes.

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

I think it might actually be in the guide, Mr. Speaker. There apparently is a 200-page guide available to the Conservatives. It may be 500 pages according to the parliamentary secretary.

While there might be some fun to be had with this, this is also a serious issue. This describes a government unwilling to face the key issues of the day, the issues that Canadians are calling on us to address with most haste.

There has been a general agreement that there must be a calling for a state of the nation for Canadians when we realize what is happening to our planet, what is happening as a result of our actions on climate change.

Due to the Liberal's failure and the current government's continued denial, delay and inaction, Canada finds itself at least 35% above our international obligations under Kyoto. Government officials, the minister himself, and others have admitted to the fact that we will not meet our obligations by 2008 or 2012, but perhaps we will meet them by the year 2025.

It is incredible to me and to other Canadians, when we look at our international competitors in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and the United States, that we find Canada performing worse than all of them. Canada has given itself a record to the world saying that we will not abide by our signature on an international agreement, and we will not play a full role. We are telling the world that we will not pull our weight or contribute our fair share to battling what has truly become an international problem.

We received one important piece of testimony from witnesses when we were debating the clean air act. They asked us to consider the Kyoto framework and the protocol as an economic pact rather than simply an environmental one. This is an important designation for all members to realize here today.

The government has been asked to assess the threat of climate change to our economy and to the health of Canadians, and yet there has not been a single study performed by the Conservative government, or previous ones, to understand the impacts and the threats to our country with an increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There has not been a simple understanding of what that impact will be like on all of our communities.

As we have watched the pine beetle devastation roll through our communities in British Columbia, devastating community after community by attacking the forests, a source of livelihood, we realized once and for all that the affects are real, that we must do something about it, and the time for inaction has long since past. The forestry councils of British Columbia have directly related this to the impact of climate change.

I would contend that every generation is met with a great challenge, whether it is seeking rights for all individuals, whether it is the emancipation of slavery, or whether it is fighting great despots in foreign lands. Every generation is judged by future generations as to the quality of handling that challenge. How did we respond to that challenge? How did our forebearers respond to the challenges of their day?

Every Remembrance Day we stand with pride and recognize the service of our veterans. We recognize that when that generation was met with a challenge, they faced that challenge. We look to previous generations and wonder how they responded to the challenge of finding the right spot for first nation women and minority groups.

Our generation's challenge is finding a way to conduct ourselves, conduct our economy, to live our lives in such a way that we do not do harm to ourselves or to our planet. I would contend that by the actions of the previous government and by the continued delay and denial of the Conservative government, future generations will hold us to account.

Future generations will decide when they look upon our record that it was simply for another CEO's bonus cheque in a Calgary office tower that we were unwilling to take the appropriate actions, that we were unwilling as a generation to move in the direction that was most needed and most called for by our children and their children.

Clearly, this issue of the environment and climate change must not be all that important to the Liberal Party as members can attest by their overwhelming attendance here this morning. It is an important issue for the New Democrats. For New Democrats this issue for our leader from Toronto—Danforth has been front and centre year in and year out, as we have seen governments bend to the will of inside corporate lobbyists rather than to the interests and needs of Canadians every day.

When the government first brought Bill C-30 forward, the clean air and climate change bill, and it was simply called the clean air bill in those days, that was one change we had to make quite quickly, it was dead on arrival. I remember standing in the foyer with all the media and the then environment minister who has since been replaced to much fanfare and much expectation that this bill would be the solution. This would be the silver bullet and finally some action.

As I flipped through the bill, as did other Canadians, we found that there was no serious action on climate change until the year 2040, as if we somehow had the luxury of time, the luxury to delay even further into the future.

The bill was dead on arrival. It met with no support from any other party in the House. There was no consultation with any other party in the House and there was not a single environmental group or a group of interest in the country who supported it in its measures.

I can also recall the day when the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the New Democrats, stood in his place in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister to move the bill to a special committee. I recall the Conservatives guffawing and slamming their desks and laughing and calling out names of derision.

The Prime Minister stood in his place and said, “All right. Let's let a minority Parliament do its work. Let's let a process happen whereby each party will contribute their best ideas”. It was suggested that we bring forward the best witnesses we can from across the country and that no single party would win, but the best ideas would be allowed to win. Here was a novel concept for Canadians watching politicians, one of the most derided forms of occupation that could be had in this country, that they would somehow put aside partisan interests for a moment and allow a process to go ahead where every party would be allowed to move amendments, make changes and recommendations. Lo and behold, that is what happened.

Every party in this place made recommendations to the new revised bill. Every party voted for a majority of the sections of this bill. Yet here we find ourselves. All the media and the lobbyists and members of the government said that this could not be done, saying this simply cannot be done. But we got it done. We were able to find a place of consensus where everyone got something and everyone gave up something.

It is an old adage in negotiations that a good agreement is one where everyone gives something up. That is exactly what happened when we rewrote this bill and then renamed it.

The minority government's response to this has been to simply pretend it never happened, as if Canadians did not witness this experience, as if people are uninterested in the issues that we brought forward and that all the time and money that Parliament spent in good faith rewriting this bill simply did not exist. That is simply not true.

There was all sorts of sabre rattling as we entered into the spring session with the Prime Minister ready to go to the polls and, lo and behold, his numbers slipped in those very same polls and we do not have an election.

The Conservatives scrambled about the place and brought in another green plan. They stepped up to the plate for their second opportunity and it was another dud. Not a single environmental group in the country, not a single group, is interested in this at all.

The results of moving forward and what we were able to accomplish in a new and revised clean air and climate change bill were that national housing standards have an absolute lead and national targets for the first time have been placed into law that the cabinet cannot undo.

There are industrial targets for each sector and allowing those industries to use every tool available, unlike the government's bill which restricted the use of tools available.

Air pollution standards for the first time in this country will have national standards placed in the bill. The bill provides the ability to build the best vehicles in the world, the best cars and trucks for Canadians to drive, with the lowest emissions and the highest quality. This is what Canadians expect from us and this is what we delivered.

The government should bring the bill back to the House for a fair and free democratic vote today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

There was a question earlier about Bill C-30. Bill C-30 included having a national air quality standard, and the opposition took it out, unfortunately.

I have a quote from the Canadian Medical Association. It said “was optimistic that the targets and timelines announced by the federal government will move Canadians further down the road to better health.” They also said that Canadian doctors “are well aware of the effects that poor air quality can have on the health of our patients—That's why we believe any measures taken now to improve air quality will have a positive impact on the health of Canadians now and in the future.”

As I mentioned a moment ago, we're the first Canadian government to provide, by regulations, controls on both greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants, including indoor ones. Is there any other country that's gone to that extent?

[Phil Blagden, Acting Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health]

The only analysis we've done since Bill C-30 was amended was a summary of its content and the implications for the department.

[David McGuinty]

Does that include analysis of Bill C-30 as amended?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fletcher.

I'm going to be circumspect in my questions. We're running out of time, so it would be helpful to have short answers, if that's okay. I don't want to be rude. We'd love to have more time, and perhaps we can get you back.

Can you tell us, to start, Ms. Fletcher, whether you have performed any analysis on Bill C-30? Has Health Canada been called upon to perform any analysis on Bill C-30? You referenced a number of parts, in your remarks on air quality and so on, that are instrumental to Bill C-30. Have you done any work analysis on Bill C-30 in its present form?

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

He also talked about Bill C-30.

[Paul Rochon]

We haven't done it on Bill C-30.

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

Not proposed. As the bill stands right now, a series of changes have been presented back to the House. Has Finance Canada been consulted as to the cost, economic or otherwise, of introducing that bill into law? Have you done a similar analysis on Bill C-30, as was done on Bill C-288?

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

That's interesting to me.

One of the witnesses who came before us while we were studying Bill C-30 implored us to consider the whole Kyoto Protocol and those types of messages, less as an environmental negotiation than as an economic one.

I'm becoming more and more concerned with our economic preparedness and the soundness of our analysis.

I have a question about Bill C-30. This bill was rewritten, as you know. Were you conferred or consulted with in terms of the economic impacts of the rewritten form of the clean air and climate change act?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it interesting, Mr. Chair, that here the committee is hearing a critique on advertising that encourages Canadians to protect the environment and use energy more efficiently, and it's coming from a previous government that was involved in the sponsorship scandal. It's quite shocking, Mr. Chair.

I found yesterday's meeting.... I believe it was yesterday when we had a presentation on carbon sequestration and we were looking at solutions. The purpose of today's meeting, from what we've heard from the opposition, was to find out about the plan. But what we've seen instead are attacks on a genuine attempt to find out details of the plan and to find out how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How can we, as Canadians, as a Canadian government, and as parliamentarians, work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a clean environment for Canadians?

Unfortunately, we've heard some rhetoric here and very few questions for Natural Resources Canada. We heard that they wanted to have Natural Resources here, but they've had very few questions for them.

We've heard comments about meeting the targets, and I appreciate the questions on that. When we were dealing with Bill C-288 there was a comment made by Professor Claude Villeneuve, from the Université du Québec. He said he wanted to comment on the bill, and he was referring to Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto bill. He said, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998. Today the bill can't be valid if the tools to achieve the desired ends aren't available”.

What we've heard on Bill C-288, what we've heard on Bill C-30.... I asked every witness at Bill C-288 whether we can meet the Kyoto targets, and every one of them, except for one, said no, it's too late. And we know that, Mr. Chair. But the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the environment.

This is what we heard yesterday from Grant Thomson. He's the senior vice-president of NOVA Chemicals. He said that he thought what the government has done is set very tough-to-achieve targets. He said if we were to sit back and look at this, and where we would like to have seen it, “They're probably tougher than what we were hoping to see three or four months ago.” He was referring to our targets. He goes on:

I think they've also set an aggressive timeline in terms of this policy. At the same time, they're trying to walk a tightrope, perhaps, balancing between improving the environment and at the same time trying to make sure the economic growth in this country continues.

My question for the department would be this. I have a minute or two left.

[Carol Buckley, Director General, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources]

I'll speak to that.

The ecoENERGY retrofit program for homes, which was announced on January 21, 2007, is not associated with Bill C-30. It is not a regulatory measure; it's an incentive program. It received approval through a separate process. We have done analysis around its benefits and the costs, but it's not associated with Bill C-30.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My next question was to ask about the retrofit program that had been contemplated in Bill C-30. I'm assuming there had been no economic benefit analysis on a home retrofit plan done by anyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, excuse me for a minute. That has been answered. Basically, our answer was that Bill C-288 has been analyzed, but Bill C-30 has not.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to switch now to Bill C-30 and ask whether there has been any economic analysis done on the effects of Bill C-30. We know that the government commissioned a report on a private member's bill, Bill C-288.

[Cécile Cléroux]

We have done the economic analysis for Bill C-288. We have done the economic analysis for the regulatory framework. We have not done the economic analysis for the revised Bill C-30.

The Environment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto has just suffered through two consecutive smog days that are severely affecting the health of Torontonians.

Toronto Public Health estimates that 1,700 Toronto residents die prematurely each year due to air pollution but the Conservatives have announced a plan that will not get the job done on smog and climate change. This plan is no match for the breakthrough Bill C-30 as rewritten by the NDP-led all party committee.

Last week our leader called on all opposition parties to unite to force the new clean air and climate change act to a vote in the House. However, instead of using their opposition day today to achieve real results on smog and climate change, the Liberals have decided it is more important to protect their corporate friends.

In my party, we walk the talk. Next week the NDP will use its opposition day to call on the government to bring forward the clean air and climate change act to Parliament for debate and a vote.

Thirteen years of Liberal inaction is not an excuse for falling further behind. Toronto families and all Canadians are counting on us to finally get the job done.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this government is acting to reduce smog, to reduce pollution in every industrial sector, including in the oil sands. If we left it to the Liberal business as usual approach, these emissions would rise by 300%. That is unacceptable.

Maybe the member from British Columbia could tell us why he voted against mandatory national air quality standards in Bill C-30. Why did he vote against mandatory public reporting on air quality? Why would he allow a politician behind closed doors to exempt certain parts of Canada from clean air? Shame on him.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member for St. Paul's said last year, we had one smog day in 1993 and we had 48 last year. That is the Liberal record on smog and pollution.

It could get worse. The Liberals want to take out mandatory national air quality standards from Bill C-30, mandatory public reporting on air quality. The worst is that they want to allow the minister to exempt some Canadian--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a smog day in most of southern Ontario and it is only the beginning of May.

Sadly, the Liberal leader does not think that we have a problem. He has said that our air is one of the cleanest to be found in a developed country. Tell that to my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in southwestern Ontario.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House about the detrimental changes by the Liberal Party to Bill C-30 when it comes to clean air?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Sure. Indeed, Canadians spend 90% of their time indoors, so it's not just a theoretical issue; it's something we have to be concerned about. And there are many threats to indoor air quality, including radon, which is a radioactive gas substance, mould, and other issues that have impacts on health outcomes.

What I can tell you is that part and parcel of Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, there is a section on indoor air quality. It's our view that this is certainly part of the act that should be supported by all parties because it's the first time the federal government has aggressively tackled indoor air quality. Outdoor air quality is the sexy issue, perhaps, but indoor air quality might make as important an impact or an even more important impact on health outcomes in many different communities.

So we do have a plan of action. Part of it has to do with getting the data to find out where certain areas are suffering from poor indoor air quality and then coming up with a plan in terms of how we build our buildings and how we build our houses to make sure those can be improved upon.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the leader of the government advise the House of the agenda he intends to follow for the rest of this week and through next week?

Could he also confirm to all members of this House that he will give high priority to Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act?

Criminal Code

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate you formally on getting second reading on your Bill C-343, to amend the Criminal Code, motor vehicle theft. I was very proud to support that.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-22 today. The bill amends the Criminal Code to raise the age from 14 to 16 at which a person can consent to non-exploitive sexual activity. This applies to sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or any other situation that is otherwise exploitive to another person.

Bill C-22 will better protect our youth against sexual exploitation by adult predators and I believe it strikes an appropriate balance that will not target consenting teenagers.

The age of consent of 14 has been around since the Canadian Criminal Code was consolidated in 1892, and the change proposed in the bill is long overdue. Most of the U.S. states, by and large, have 16 as the age of consent, as do most of the states of Australia as well as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Belgium, Finland and many other countries.

BillC-22 was tabled on June 22, 2006, and we are fast approaching the one year anniversary of the government bringing forward the legislation. The Conservative government knows that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons want to pass the bill, the government's bill, and yet we are debating a bill that could have been passed months ago.

I have been incredibly disappointed with the Conservative government's constant delay of legislation that it has put forward.

The Liberal opposition has tried three times in the last six months to expedite a number of government bills dealing with justice issues and each time the Conservative Party has shown that it is more interested in gaining partisan advantage than in actually passing its own legislation.

The Liberal opposition even tried to table a motion that proposed the immediate passing of seven of the nine bills that the government brought forward. All of this legislation could have been in the Senate long ago and some even passed into law, effectively disposing of more than half of the government's entire justice agenda.

Unfortunately, the Conservative House leader raised a point of order to block the Liberal motion and caused further delays in passing serious anti-crime legislation. The citizens of Canada are seeing for themselves how hollow Conservative words ring when it actually comes to implementing a serious crime agenda.

This is not the only legislative game the Conservative government is playing. It refuses to bring Bill C-30 to the House. It is delaying private members' business dealing with climate change in the Senate. It has delayed seven different justice related bills in the past few months. It is absolutely incredible.

Over that period of time in my own riding of Newton—North Delta, the city of Surrey has brought forward its own crime reduction plan, which I spoke to earlier this week. The Liberal opposition has brought forward a plan to hire 400 new RCMP officers and fast track justice legislation on which we all agree. Instead, we have seen dithering, delay and broken promises. The biggest being the Conservative government's promise to hire 2,500 new police officers, which it did not get it done. The mayor of Vancouver brought forward more money for new police officers this year than Canada's government for the entire country.

It is time for the Conservative government to stop playing politics with the issue of crime reduction and prevention. People expect better and rhetoric will not cover for the fact that this bill should have been passed months ago.

Passing Bill C-22 will give police more tools to stop predators that our officers see on the street every day. It will bring us in line with the majority of western democracies and most importantly, it will give us an even greater capacity to protect our children.

According to Detective Janet Hall of the Toronto Police child exploitative section, this bill will change for the better the way police investigate child pornography, underage prostitution and Internet luring. In effect, more kids will be protected and more predators will go to jail where they belong.

A senior member of the RCMP child exploitative unit has praised steps to raise the age of consent as another step toward protecting our children on line.

I am also on the access to information committee and I have heard the witnesses coming there. The Salvation Army has written that those between the ages of 13 to 15, who are most vulnerable to being manipulated into a sexual relationship, will be more protected and it will end any charge that Canada is in fact a destination for sex tourism and sexual trafficking.

Tamara Lampton from my riding of Newton—North Delta wrote to me and said: “It's not about what party is right or wrong; it's about protecting the most vulnerable in our great nation”.

Kathy Ford wrote to me and said: “I'm praying you will cast your yes vote on this bill and protect our children, who are our most valuable resource”.

Laurie Leiggett wrote to me and said: “I believe Canada must step up to the plate and be a leader in protecting children from sexual exploitation, not a haven for pedophiles”.

What does that say? This is exactly what I was saying earlier, that the Conservative government could have acted months ago to protect these children who have been exploited within that timeframe.

I realize that many members on the other side of the House agree with this legislation, but there is a big difference between moving the legislation and actually passing the legislation. The Conservative government will have to do a lot of explaining to those Canadians who are appalled at the partisan Conservative delay tactics that have stalled Bill C-22.

As a father of three young children and as an elected member of Parliament who has consistently reflected my community's desire that we be tougher on crime and work toward crime reduction and prevention strategy, I implore the Conservative government to stop playing politics with the Criminal Code and allow this legislation to pass as soon as possible.

The Environment

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that hot air balloon has no credibility whatsoever on climate change. He has a bogus plan that will lead to increased emissions. Not one climate change expert has endorsed the plan and the list of those denouncing it is growing.

If the minister had the courage of his convictions, he would bring back Bill C-30. When will we get a real environment minister instead of that Chicken Little?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the list of experts who have no faith in the Conservative climate change plan grows longer by the day: it includes David Suzuki, Al Gore, and many more. The plan is a trick and a fraud and it is misleading Canadians. Bill C-30 is a real plan for fighting climate change, and we can pass it today.

When will the government bring back Bill C-30?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's latest plan scheme scam is intensity based. In the previous 13 years, Canada's energy intensity improved by 43%. We have to do more. That is why we are asking the minister to bring Bill C-30 back so we can have real reductions and absolute targets and get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are more bad reviews for the environment minister's latest green scam.

Richard Peltier, co-author of a recent UN climate change report, says that under the latest Conservative plan greenhouse gas emissions will climb “like a rocket”.

Gordon McBean of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences says that the plan will rob Canada of its leadership role on the world stage.

Will the minister stop destroying Canada's credibility and bring Bill C-30 back so the country can have a real plan to meet the challenge of climate change?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, where all parties can agree on important elements of Bill C-30, on issues like energy efficiency, biofuels, important measures on indoor pollutants and provincial equivalencies, we are happy to work with the members of the party opposite.

But it is time for the Liberal members opposite to stand up against outrageous, hateful, meanspirited comments made by their candidate running in Central Nova. It is inexplicable how they could not stand up against people who bash Christians and evoke Nazi era atrocities. It is disgraceful. It is outrageous. It shows what that Liberal is made of. He--

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

Mr. Speaker, this government's laissez-faire plan to deal with global warming is being treated with sarcasm at home and abroad. David Suzuki called it a fraud and others fear that Canada is joining the gang of environmental rogue states.

The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change confirmed that intensity targets cannot decrease greenhouse gas emissions. When will the government bring back Bill C-30 and give Canada a real plan to tackle climate change?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Al Gore and David Suzuki, not to mention every other credible environmentalist in the country, have unmasked the government's global warming plan for the fraud that it is. However, the environment minister still claims that it is a real plan to fight climate change even though it would allow greenhouse gas emissions in Canada to increase for another decade.

This Parliament has written a strong, aggressive plan that would get Canadians real results. When will the government stop thumbing its nose at the will of Parliament and bring back Bill C-30 before the House?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Al Gore has said that the Conservatives' platform is “a complete and total fraud”. David Suzuki described it as “all smoke and mirrors”.

The not new, the cynically old Conservative government is doing it again: just stuff, stuff to sell, stuff to spin. Like its entire budget, on the economy, aboriginals, child care, smoke and mirrors could apply to it all. In 5 years or 10 years, there will be no impact; so not up to a Government of Canada, not up to Canada.

When will we see a real plan for the environment? When will Mr. Smoke or Mr. Mirrors return Bill C-30 to the House?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after saying that Canada needed a new clean air act, the Conservatives presented a plan that will allow emissions to continue to increase for the next 10 years. To do so, they decided to use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, completely contradicting their claims that Bill C-30 was needed.

Will the minister finally put an end to his campaign of misinformation and nonsense, and will he bring Bill C-30 back before the House for a vote?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has officially announced that it will ignore the Kyoto targets, it will ignore the Kyoto timelines, it will ignore the science of Kyoto, it will ignore environmentalists like David Suzuki and it will ignore the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.

It is a sham that prevents Canadians from using most of Kyoto's tools and that delays action for more than a decade. It is pure political hyped theatre of the absurd.

Will the Conservatives stop the doublespeak and deceit and bring their own bill, Bill C-30, back to this House so Canadians can get a real plan for our environment?

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the leader of the government could advise the House of the agenda he intends to follow for the rest of this week and through next week. In particular, could he tell us when he will bring forward the bill on clean air, namely, Bill C-30, for final consideration in the House?

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a Minister of the Environment who takes responsibility for careless PR leaks, but not for setting responsible environmental policy. The minister blows hot and cold. He is a climate change induced spinning weather vane.

If Kyoto is a socialist flop as the Prime Minister claims, then why did the government vote to uphold the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, including the targets and absolute reductions of greenhouse gases just yesterday?

Will Chicken Little finally end the doublespeak and bring back the plan that addresses air pollution and climate change known as Bill C-30?

Opposition Motion—Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP talked about Bill C-30 and about Bill C-288. We are technically debating what the Bloc has put in front of us.

My issue is this. I have heard a number of times today about fearmongering about the numbers. I guess my colleague does not like the numbers. Those members are certainly capable of talking about what is going to happen to the environment if we do not do anything. We agree that we need to do something about it, but we do not call that fearmongering. When they get the facts on the financial side on Bill C-288, they like to call it fearmongering, which just does not make any coherent sense to me.

It would take a cut of about 30% a year to 2012 because we have to catch up from where we were to get to where we have to be in order to meet those targets in 2012. Based on Bill C-288, which is in front of the Senate, and based on the fact that we are so far behind because of Liberal inaction, does my colleague think it is actually feasible to cut greenhouse gases with no cost to the economy at a rate of 30% a year between now and 2012?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of experience in small, remote community energy systems. There are many opportunities there. I look at the community I visited two weeks ago in my own riding, Wha Ti, which is a small Tlicho community. The community wanted to put in a mini hydro system, a one megawatt system that would not only light its homes, but heat them too.

Once we make the move with Bill C-30, once we agree what we are going to accomplish here, these projects will move forward quickly. Once Canada knows the direction it has to move in, right across this country, we will see a flourishing of projects like we cannot believe.

I spent time on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities green fund. I have seen the projects that are available across this whole country. We have a great future ahead if we simply make some decisions here in this Parliament and get going with the new economy.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the concept that we are going to have a tax of $195 a tonne on carbon emissions is just frankly ridiculous. Anyone who is in the energy business, the retrofit business or the renewable energy business, businesses that I am very familiar with, would be jumping up and down at the thought that we would somehow get these kinds of dollars as a tax on carbon emissions.

Within Bill C-30 there are provisions for the $30 a tonne for carbon going into a bank fund. It is not a tax but it fixes a dollar amount around a particular substance.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It could be American corporations. It could be any other company that invests in this country, or it could be Canadians as well. All corporations have the opportunity to either move forward or not move forward. We will see who has the moxie in their company and who has the wherewithal to do it.

My territory has many multinationals. Some of them come from Australia, from England and from South Africa. They all deal in diamonds. We did not set any standards for them for energy production. They all rely on good old oil to generate their electricity to heat their mines.

We have alternatives in the Northwest Territories. We have demonstrated that. We can provide them all the clean hydroelectric power they want for their facilities. When they are under some pressure to do this, they will do it. If they want the diamonds and the economic activity, they will invest in the clean energy that will make their businesses fit under the Kyoto requirements.

Years ago I had the opportunity, as a mayor in my community, to stand up against the development of the Alberta-Pacific pulp mill in northeastern Alberta. It had proposed a particular setup where it would pollute the river systems, create a lot of damage and affect my community. We fought that and proved our point. The companies were rejected at the environmental assessment. Within two or three months, they came with a solution that reduced the pollution by over 70%.

When I talked to those same companies years later, they said the best thing that happened to them in that process was they were forced to clean up their act. They said that they now had a product with an environmental tag on it. They had a facility that was the best in the world, they were selling their pulp and making money at it.

Sometimes the lesson should be that the fear of progress should never stop one from making progress. Fear does not drive a healthy economy. Fear does not drive nation building. Fear does not create a world of which our children would be proud. The environment minister should not try to scare us. We are not here to be scared. We are here to accomplish something for Canadians.

I hope the environment minister will join with us, bring forward Bill C-30, allow it to debated in the House and show Canadians that when the four parties in this House of Commons work together, we can produce results for Canadians.

The time now is not for timid actions. It is not time to try to scare working Canadians away from what needs to be done. Imagine, in the 1940s, if the minister said that the cost to Canada of fighting the second world war was too much and that it was better to let those fascists have their way. We made a choice to invest in our future.

Like almost 70 years ago, Canada is once again facing a serious threat, a threat to our coastal cities, to our agricultural industry, to the thing that sustains our life, the planet Earth. To deal with this threat, we need cooperative action. We need global action. We cannot turn our backs on the first global treaty that has been signed to initiate a process that will reduce the level of greenhouse gases around the world. We cannot allow the threat of climate change by putting one set of interests ahead of another. We cannot say that because we need to expand the oil and gas industry, we need to use dirtier products to add to our ability to expand. Just like in the second world war, we have to work together on this.

As part of our fight against climate change, we need a national energy strategy as well, which is based on renewable energy and uses an east-west electricity grid to transfer clean energy from one part of Canada to another. At our last convention, the NDP adopted a policy for the creation of a national energy strategy.

Only through cooperative effort and effective planning, such as the development of a national energy strategy, will we be able to successfully meet the challenge of climate change. We cannot simply put into place targets without planning, without telling everyone how are we going to move forward. We have to let them know what are going to invest in to make our future right.

We talk about investing in liquefied natural gas terminals. Choosing to export money and the problem of climate change and bring in another source of fossil fuels for Canadians, is not a solution that should fit for Canadians. We can look at our valuable resources in the tar sands and say that one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from these tar sands is to export the raw bitumen, export jobs, export economic opportunities and export pollution. That does not make sense either in a world in which we live. We need to work with our people in the tar sands to ensure the product they provide is clean, it works and it has the desirable attributes that we want from an energy product.

It is time for the environment minister and others in the House, who are not ready to face the challenge, to put away their scare tactics, to work with the rest of us, to work with Canadians and to come together, bring Bill C-30 forward, let us debate it in the House of Commons and let us move forward in that regard.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Some jobs will be lost in transit to an environmentally sustainable economy but many more will be created. However, even more than Canadians losing their jobs, they will lose their future and their grandchildren's future if we lose the intrinsic nature of the stability of our climate and our environment by doing nothing.

The environment minister claims that the cost of electricity will rise by 50%. I guess the minister does not realize just how many other opportunities there are for electricity across the country. Generating electricity with fossil fuels and with oil and coal has, if properly computed, more expensive results than many other forms of energy.

Having hard targets for greenhouse gas reduction will force investments into much more clean, useful, sustainable and long term forms of energy generation. It will improve the use of fossil fuels in terms of cogeneration. It will make a difference to Canada in wind power, hydro, solar, biomass, all those things. It will move them ahead as they can be moved ahead and as they have the opportunity to move ahead.

We were in a natural resources committee meeting last week and we heard people from the wind power sector say that we had the ability of 100,000 megawatts within the existing transmission system in Canada. We have that resource available to us. Solar energy is available everywhere in the country. As we use it, as we increase the volume of it, the price will come down and the long term impact on our economy will be very positive. Then we can talk about conservation in the short term.

I heard the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, in the Bill C-30 committee, say that he had a geographically challenged area in the country for energy. He said that people had to travel long distances and that they had to use lots of energy to heat and light their homes. Interestingly enough, we did that before 1990 as well. Before 1990, we were a very large energy user. Therefore, in comparison, when we talk about Kyoto, we talk about the reduction of energy in our homes and about the reduction in our transportation system. It is relative to 1990 where we did much the same as we do now.

Canadians are large energy users. Energy was cheap for many years. We use a lot of it. We have great opportunities. The least costly electrical energy right now is the megawatt. The reduction in use of that source of energy will not cost 50% more; it will cost 50% less for the consumer.

The energy minister said that the price of gasoline would rise by more than 60%. Over the last five years, we have seen the price of gasoline go up and down like a yo-yo. That has not stopped our economy. That has not stopped people from getting to and from work. Again, he assumes that average Canadians will not move to cars which use less gasoline or other fuels or increase their use of public transit if the price of gasoline goes up.

The minister must believe that no one will use the measures announced in the recent budget and last year's budget. I am sure the minister is familiar with the law of supply and demand. When the demand goes down, the cost of the supply will go down as well. As Canadians use less and less gasoline, demand will drop, resulting in a levelling of prices or a drop.

The minister wants to scare us into believing that a doubling of natural gas prices will throw the economy into a tailspin. In the last decade the price of natural gas has gone from $2 a gigajoule up to $8. That is a quadrupling of the price of natural gas in Canada. Has the Canadian economy suffered? Has it fallen into chaos? No, it has not. Canadians are extremely adaptable. Our industries are adaptable. They make the moves that are necessary to accommodate increased energy costs, and they have done that.

If the Canadian economy can grow when natural gas prices continue to climb, doubling in price, according to this incredible assumption of $195 a tonne for carbon tax, which we have to take because the minister has given it to us, the economy will not stop. The economy will continue to grow. We will continue to heat our homes. We may move to other forms of energy, whether it is biomass pellets, or geothermal or solar energy, but we will move ahead. We will continue to move ahead, even in the situation where the minister wants us to go with $195 a tonne carbon tax.

In Bill C-30, the carbon tax is $30 and 50% will be returned to the companies if they make the effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and 50% will go into retrofits for people in homes and businesses across the country.

The Conservatives have put forward a retrofit program and over four years it will deliver for about 1% of Canadian homes. It is a good idea, but it is not enough money. If we want to put money into retrofit in Canada, which we need to do and which will help every Canadian that invests in that sort of activity, then we need more money in the programs. Bill C-30 can provide that money. We know we can do better than 1% of Canadian homes over four years.

Finally, the minister would have us believe that every one of us would have to shell out an extra $1,000 a year to take action on climate change. As I have run through the other three conclusions that he drew from his report, this is as erroneous as those. People will adjust to what has to be done. The result may be the other way around, where Canadians will conserve and save themselves $1,000 a year in energy costs.

Will there be winners in an economy based on the Kyoto reduction principles of greenhouse gas emissions? There will be many winners, as there always are in our economy. Some people will take advantage of the opportunities to do the right thing, to make the right investment, to come up with the right industrial process and to put forward the correct ideas that can drive their municipalities, their provinces, their homes. Winners are always part of an economy in our country.

Who will take a hit then? Who are the people who will be hurt by the Kyoto compliance? Polluters who do not live up to what they have to do. The large multinational corporations, all friends of the Conservatives, will have to finally clean up their mess.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today. The need for action on climate change is now, which is why the New Democratic Party will support this motion that reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal.

This is a good motion and it does not preclude the free enterprise system in developing other carbon exchanges in this country. Interest has been expressed by other cities to have similar things. We may find, as time goes on, that these systems could be developed in a way that would be uniquely Canadian and may include other locations in the country. I know Winnipeg is interested. The motion does not tie our hands in this regard but does push forward with the need to set the targets for achieving Kyoto.

We have worked diligently in committee on Bill C-30 over the past six months in, what I have always considered, a nation-building exercise. We put the ideas from all the parties together and created Bill C-30, a bill that represents the majority view in the House of Commons. It represents a building of a consensus toward an issue that can only be solved through consensus, through the support of all parties, through the recognition that we are working for the betterment of Canada and the world, and that partisan political differences must be cast aside.

Last week the environment minister tried to scare Canadians from taking the needed action on climate change when he painted his doom and gloom scenario before members of the Senate. That, of course, raised everyone's hackles. Let us look at how realistic his nightmare on green street is.

He said that meeting Canada's greenhouse gas commitments would take a quarter of a million jobs out of the economy. This level of job loss in Canada, according to the minister, would result in economic chaos for Canada. How can he say this when the job loss from the North American Free Trade Agreement resulted in more than four times the number of Canadians who had lost jobs?

According to the Conservatives, NAFTA is good for Canada. Where was their concerns about job losses when the result was greater profit for their business pals? Where was the chaos in the Canadian economy? People worked, they recovered from the job losses and they moved ahead.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's dissertation. I have heard many of them from the Conservative Party.

It seems to me that some people are leaders in history, some people are led by history and others are dragged kicking and screaming by it, which seems to be the policy position of the Conservative Party right now.

When we saw the Conservative-Reform Party initially it said that there was no such thing as greenhouse gases. This was, in the words of the Prime Minister, a “socialist” plot to suck money out of Alberta.

Then we saw the Conservative-Reform Party became the home of every flat earth theory going on the environment. It was sunspots. It was El Niño It was the flatulence of the dinosaurs that changed the heat in the last millennium.

Then, in this new Parliament, we have a minister who has said that if we do anything we will shut down every plane, train and automobile and turn out all the lights, so we cannot do anything.

That did not work either.

Then the Conservatives had Bill C-30, although that has been shelved. Now they are telling us not to worry. They are telling us that they will actually do something but we have to give them more time.

I am wondering when they are actually going to get serious, just stop protecting the oil patch and get down to doing what Canadians are asking for, which is to take action on greenhouse gases now.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, last fall the Environment Commissioner reported that Canada can reach 21% of its Kyoto targets each year annually through a domestic offset and trading system, but the government's own Kyoto report last week announced that it would never allow such a system to be used.

Between Chicken Little's report and his refusal to be clear about Bill C-30, one thing has become clear. The government is doing everything it can to do nothing about global warming.

We all know now what the Conservatives will not do, so can the minister finally tell us what percentage of Kyoto he is willing to--

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's apocalyptic report is deeply flawed. But how can we win the fight of our generation if our hands are tied? Bill C-30, as amended by the committee, enables Canadians to use all the tools available to them under the Kyoto protocol.

Why can the minister not decide whether he will bring the bill to a vote? When will he make up his mind?

Opposition Motion--Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of the Bloc Québécois which really has two elements in it. It first talks about the importance of fixed targets, a regulated system for Canada's greenhouse gases; and second, that it has to be a precondition for the establishment of a carbon market in Montreal or indeed anywhere else in Canada.

I would like today to focus on the carbon market aspect of this and I think there are 13 important lessons when it comes to carbon markets.

Lesson number one is that a carbon market, in and of itself, does not lower emissions. To be real, somebody somewhere has to be undertaking activity, whether it is industrial or agricultural, that actually demonstrably lowers greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we keep asking the minister and his parliamentary secretary for the government to show its plan, so that we can get on with establishing a carbon market.

Lesson number two for the minister is that we cannot have a carbon market if carbon emissions are treated as free if the atmosphere is treated as a waste receptacle. If emissions are free, there is nothing to trade and that is why the Liberal Party put forward its carbon budget plan to put a value on CO₂ emissions. That was further demonstrated in Bill C-30, which was amended to reflect a true climate change plan and a true clean air act.

Lesson number three follows, therefore, that to have a carbon market carbon has to have a precise value or price. It has to be determined by the market and in order for that to happen emissions have to be capped by regulation and, hence, targets. That is why our carbon budget plan said that the price of carbon for those who exceeded their budget would be $20 in 2008, rising to $30 in 2012. That is what it means to put a value on carbon.

Lesson number four, which follows, is that caps on emissions have to be absolute, not intensity based. I am told that it is theoretically possible to have a market with intensity based targets, but it will likely be more complex and not fungible or compatible with systems like that which have been set up in the European Union.

This is why the Bloc motion is so important. This motion puts the emphasis on absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets so as to meet the Kyoto targets.

Targets have to be tough and get tougher to create a sufficient price signal to provide incentive for the formation of a market.

We will see how tough these targets really are next Thursday, if I understood correctly, when the government's intentions will be made known.

Lesson number five is that a carbon trading market needs to be simple, completely transparent and liquid. It cannot be complex. It cannot be an over the counter system where only big players can understand it and participate. It has to be accessible and fair to smaller companies and to individual investors.

Lesson number six deals with quality. Credit certification must be of top quality, of top environmental transparency and integrity.

Lesson number seven is additionality. We cannot give credit for carbon reducing activities that would have happened anyway.

Lesson number eight is that for maximum efficiency a domestic carbon trading market has to be compatible or interconvertible with the North American market, such as the Chicago exchange, and ultimately with Europe and with the United Nations clean development mechanism. That again is why we need absolute targets to establish an absolute price.

Lesson number nine is that, as with any market, we need to give this new derivative market time to work out the bugs, to establish investor confidence and to build credibility. Both the European system and the United Nations clean development mechanism have gone through a pilot period project where mistakes were made and the learning from those mistakes was used to improve the system. Perfection is not automatic or instantaneous.

The Chicago market is essentially a voluntary market for carbon where participation is not mandatory, as it is in the European Union. Chicago, too, is learning a great deal about how to build a successful carbon market. I would note that, because the Chicago market is voluntary, carbon prices in Chicago are lower than they are in Europe. We also need to learn from these types of experiences so that we can avoid their early mistakes, and there were mistakes.

Lesson number 10 is that it is a huge political challenge to explain to the public in simple language what a carbon market actually is and why it helps. As I have said before, an atmospheric tipping fee no longer treats the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle for what we call CO₂.

Lesson number 11 is that it is extremely important that we have a carbon trading market located in Canada. Otherwise, it will end up being located in Chicago or elsewhere, which is why we need a clear signal now from the government about the nature of the system it intends to create.

That leads to lesson number 12, which is that it is critical that we get a regulated system in place as soon as possible in Canada for greenhouse gases and the carbon market.

As for lesson number 13—and I see my friends from the Bloc—it is not for me to decide between Montreal or Toronto. It is as if I was asked to choose between the Senators, the Canadiens or the Toronto Maple Leafs. Personally, I always choose the Maple Leafs, because that is where I was elected. Nevertheless, we must let the market decide, as we must let the Stanley Cup decide among these three teams; it is not up to us. Ultimately, quality will win out.

In closing, I can certainly say that the Liberal Party supports the concept of creating a carbon trading market in Canada.

The Liberal Party also supports the development of an integrated climate change plan that deals with all the major sources of emissions in Canada, that is to say, industrial, electricity, upstream oil and gas, big industrial energy consumers, transportation, residential, commercial, agricultural and waste, but we have to be part of the only global system going, the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol, which flows from that.

We have to set ambitious fixed targets for ourselves and give it our best effort to reach them.

We have to honour our international obligations and Canada's promise to the world.

We have to save our country and our planet.

Most of all, we have to pass a better world on to our children and to their children.

A Canadian carbon trading market, wherever it is ultimately located, is a small but important part of that effort.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question.

Bill C-30, which was originally introduced by the Conservatives, did not contain anything for the short term. There were no objectives, no mechanisms, no timetables, nothing. Having been amended by opposition parties, it is totally acceptable and is an excellent tool to fight climate changes today. This bill is also being totally obstructed by the government, which does not want to bring it back to the House. Let us bring it back to the House so we can pass it and move to action.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

As a matter of fact, speaking of courage and political will, I would just like to ask my colleague if he has any comments about Bill C-30 having been held up for a very long time. We could even say that the government is unduly holding up the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to this important bill. This government is taking real action to address the issues of air quality and climate change, which are of concern to Canadians in every region of our vast country.

Harmful emissions continue to affect our environment, our health, as well as our quality of life. It affects us every day in everything we do.

As we on this side of the House have said before, we believe that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing the world today and we take it very seriously.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have been very clear that this government intends to bring in a short term regulatory framework very shortly. This is the first government in history to actually take this step for Canadians and the quality of life for Canadians.

Canada's new government wants industry to do a U-turn but instead of talking about it, we are taking action. Instead of 13 years of increased emissions under the Liberals, we want to turn the corner and reduce emissions and get real results. Under the watch of the previous Liberal government we are now 35% above the agreement it signed on Kyoto.

These tough new industrial regulations that our Conservative government will be bringing forward will give real, tangible health and environmental benefits for Canadians, on the ground benefits, as well as some positive economic effects. We will do that without stopping the economy or slowing down the economy. We will do it by keeping pace with the economy and adding to it.

Obviously we cannot put a price tag on all these benefits, such as cleaner communities and natural spaces, of healthier children, of fewer premature deaths, of more sustainable natural resources and, for the first time ever, meaningful contributions to the global effort to control greenhouse gas emissions through a strong regulatory agenda, through a government that gets results and sends a clear message to industry that we want results.

Today I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss some of those initiatives, specifically in the area of transportation. It is very important to realize that transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Our efforts in this sector will play a very key role in Canada's environmental agenda.

The movement of people and the movement of goods causes significant environmental consequences. We are a trading nation. We are a nation of movers. Things such as air and water pollution are so important and they are caused by this area of transportation. These environmental impacts in turn result in real social and economic costs and affect the health and quality of life of Canadians from wherever we are, whether we are in the city or the country.

Transportation has been linked to over half of Canada's total carbon monoxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions. The growth of emissions in this sector is caused in large part by the growth in our population, which is obviously growing at quite a pace in some parts of the country, our economy and its growth, as well as improvements in our standard of living. We like to travel around in the summertime to our cottages or in our boats. This leads to more road and air travel.

Total transportation related greenhouse gas emissions increased by 27% between 1990 and 2004. These emissions now account for 25% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions, the largest single source of gas emissions.

In October 2006, the Conservative Government of Canada issued its notice of intent to regulate major emitting industry sectors of the economy. In terms of regulatory action in the transportation sector, this Conservative government will be taking action with respect to motor vehicles, rail, aviation and marine. I think industry overall, in all parts of Canada, is looking forward to knowing with certainty what this government intends to do and we will tell them.

Emissions from road transportation accounts for 75% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions and passenger travel accounts for over half of that. Those are unbelievable statistics. Our goal is to establish a regulatory regime with targets that promote concrete environmental improvements that are also consistent with the need for industry to remain competitive in the North American context and in the world. This includes the auto and oil sectors. They must remain competitive. We must keep the jobs in Canada.

With respect to the rail sector, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment support the current voluntary agreement negotiated with the Railway Association of Canada. This agreement will ensure that the rail industry reduces its emissions of air pollutants consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency air pollutants standards and continues to improve the performance of its greenhouse gas emissions between 2006 and 2010. This will get results. Through the current Railway Safety Act, this government will develop and implement new regulations to take effect following the end of the voluntary agreement in 2010.

For the marine industry, the Government of Canada supports the development of new international standards because, obviously, we share the water with so many other countries. These were established by the International Maritime Organization for controlling air emissions from ships. The government will ensure their application domestically under the Canada Shipping Act and this will also include support for a process to designate North American coasts as areas where ships must reduce sulphur emissions.

For the aviation industry, the Government of Canada supports the development of international standards and recommended practices through the International Civil Aviation Organization for emissions from aviation sources. We believe that this is the best way to get results in the short term and in the long term.

Our approach to dealing with environmental issues does not end with regulations. We have some hands-on approaches that will bring tangible results very soon. This government is making complementary investments to encourage the development of environmental technologies and to stimulate behavioural changes through consumers, which is where I think we will see the best results.

In February, the government announced its ecotransport strategy, an excellent strategy that is aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector. Initiatives under the strategy include the ecomobility program aimed at working with municipalities to help cut urban passenger transportation emissions and develop programs, services and products for urban areas.

The next initiative is the ecotechnology for vehicles program which will provide funding for testing and promoting advanced, environmentally friendly vehicle technologies and building partnerships with automotive industries; in essence, to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the road and with consumers.

The third initiative is the ecofreight program which is aimed at reducing the environmental and health effects of freight transportation through the accelerated adoption of emissions reducing technology. Technology is the goal and reducing it today for tomorrow's generation is what we will do.

The ecoenergy for personal vehicles program, which is delivered by Natural Resources Canada, will be especially interesting to some people because Natural Resources Canada will provide fuel consumption information and decision making tools to encourage consumers to purchase those more fuel efficient vehicles that are currently available in the market. We believe this will bring even more vehicles into the marketplace for consumers.

In the past year, Canada's new government has taken real tangible steps to get results for Canadians with more than $2 billion of investments in a cleaner and more efficient transportation system. Budget 2007 builds on these investments by encouraging the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, the retirement, which is very important, of older and more polluting vehicles, and the domestic production of renewable fuels, which will help not only our economy but our environment and our farmers generally across the country.

In budget 2007, this government announced the ecoauto program, a new performance based rebate program offering up to $2,000 for the purchase of a new fuel efficient or efficient alternative fuel vehicle.

These steps are excellent and this government is taking tangible steps today to get results for Canadians.

Initiatives in budget 2007 to create an infrastructure advantage also helped. On the Bill C-30 committee, we heard from a witness from Quebec of how important green spaces were, not just to people but to the environment itself and to Canada for long term strategy.

We are including the transfer of $2 billion per year to the municipalities from 2010-11 and 2013-14 by extending the gas tax funding. We have listened to the stakeholders, to the municipalities and to the provinces and we are taking steps to ensure we provide what they want, which is a cleaner environment, more green spaces and a better quality of life for the people.

This Conservative government is meeting the challenge to foster cleaner air and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The transport sector, the sector that we are responsible for, is a key part of our strategy and we are going from the bottom to the top to ensure we find all the places on which we can move forward for a cleaner environment.

I have provided some concrete examples of the actions that Canada's new government is taking now to protect and improve the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing the environmental impacts of transportation.

This government wants our air and our water to be clean and we want to take action on climate change. We want our communities, our families and our children to be healthy.

I am confident that in working with all members of the House and with all levels of government, industry and all Canadians, we will ensure that improvements are made, not only to our environment but also to the health and quality of life of all Canadians today and for future generations.

We are getting the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois on this Bloc opposition day. This is a clear and straightforward motion calling on the government “to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The debate we are having in the House of Commons today is a very important one, a debate on one of the greatest challenges we have ever had to face: climate change. In recent months, numerous credible scientific studies have improved knowledge of the magnitude of the environmental issues and challenges we are currently facing, and explained to some extent what most people have been realizing for themselves: we have a role and responsibility where the current climate disruptions are concerned.

I will not discuss the research commissioned by the Conservative government, which serves as the basis for the campaign of fear it has been engaged in for the past week. Acting like a lobby for the oil industry, this government has always denied the existence of climate change. One can hardly lend any credibility to such a catastrophic, apocalyptic scenario.

Instead, I will remind the members of this House of recent reports by a former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The first report recommends that each country invest 1% of its GDP in fighting climate change to prevent future economic losses up to 20 times higher than the cost of reversing the trend now. There is increasing certainty about climate change, and particularly its effects: increased tropical storms, heatwaves, smog episodes, hurricanes, forest fires and droughts, not to mention glaciers melting, sea levels rising and reduced availability of drinking water.

While we do not want to be alarmist, we must be clear and honest. According to the second report, the UN report, at least 30% of the species in the world are in danger of extinction if temperatures rise two degrees above averages in recent years. As well, 250 million people could be without water by 2020. In addition, an increase in extreme weather, such as tsunamis and storms, may occur, along with other disturbing events.

During this time, as if to justify its failure to act, the Conservative government has continued to blame the Liberals' poor performance in combating climate change during the time they were in power.

Day after day, since they were elected, the Conservatives have promised us action. After 14 months in power, we see that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost 14 months in the fight against climate change. That is precious time, and in this important battle no responsible government can stand by while time is lost.

And yet after slashing climate change programs at the beginning of its term, the government then recycled the Liberal programs, under public and political pressure. Once again, precious time has been lost.

The Conservative government underestimates Quebeckers and Canadians when it comes to the importance they place on the environment and climate change. It still does not seem to be hearing them today, or even to understand what they are saying.

Issues relating to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are very important to Quebeckers. In fact, 76% of Quebeckers believe that the government must reach the objectives in the Kyoto protocol. Quebeckers are actually the lowest producers of greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and we are one of the only developed societies, with Norway, where oil does not account for a majority of our energy consumption. This is explained, in part, by the choice we made to develop the hydroelectric system.

We in the Bloc Québécois have echoed the concerns of the Quebec public regarding these environmental issues, on the federal scene, at least since the 2000 election campaign in which we made it one of the central topics. In 2003, the Bloc Québécois made a major contribution to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and since then has made implementation of the protocol a priority.

Recently, we helped to collect over 120,000 signatures on a petition calling for compliance with the commitments made in the Kyoto protocol.

Quebeckers demand an exemplary contribution to environmental protection both from themselves and from their elected representatives. This fact is one of the major reasons why the Conservative government, which is trying to seduce Quebeckers by every imaginable means, has for some time been trying to portray itself as a green government.

Quebeckers are not fooled, and they are well aware that the Conservative government has never had any genuine interest in environmental causes. Its heart and soul have long been promised to the oil industry in western Canada. That is no secret to anyone. That is why it does not believe in the Kyoto protocol.

Here are some examples to illustrate that fact. First, the House of Commons has twice given official recognition to the importance of meeting the Kyoto targets, and rather than honouring the wishes of a majority of the members of this House, the Conservative government commissioned a study to justify its failure to act, because the Kyoto protocol would cause significant damage to companies in the west, and especially oil companies.

Then there was the Conservative government's refusal to put an immediate and complete end to the accelerated capital cost allowance (CCA) deduction available to oil companies exploiting the oil sands, in spite of the billions of dollars in profits they are pocketing.

In addition, the government has long refused to meet its own time frames and set targets for greenhouse gas reduction. It is proposing to set intensity targets rather than fixed targets. Now we learn that it is considering changing the reference date for these reductions, making 2006 the reference year instead of 1990.

Furthermore, we do not know the future of Bill C-30, which required so many hours of work over many weeks by parliamentarians on the Standing Committee on the Environment and which was significantly improved by the opposition parties. We have a good bill at the moment, which meets the expectations of Quebeckers and Canadians. What is the Conservative government going to do? It may well be in no hurry to bring it back to the House for passage.

The Conservative government is once again demonstrating that Canada's interests are at the other end of the spectrum from Quebec's. While oil makes Canada rich, it makes Quebec poor.

The oil and gas industry substantially bolsters the Canadian economy, be it oil in Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan or natural gas in Nova Scotia. The inflated dollar fluctuating with the cost of a barrel of oil and heavily impacting the manufacturing sector affects Quebec's economy.

Quebec produces no oil. It must therefore import it. In 2006, Quebec purchased $13 billion worth, while facing a trade deficit of $7 billion. This dependence on oil has plunged Quebec into a full blown trade deficit. In truth no one can deny anymore the problem with climate change or that specific and effective action must be taken immediately.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is repeatedly calling for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol to reduce Canadian gas emissions by 6% under the 1990 level, with absolute targets.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is demanding a mechanism based on a territorial approach, that is, an approach that will give Quebec the fiscal instruments to enable it to implement the most effective measures possible to reduce greenhouse gases within its borders. This is the most effective approach, the only truly fair one reflecting the environmental efforts and choices made by Quebeckers and by the province's industrial sector in recent years, especially in the area of hydroelectricity.

And this is why the Bloc Québécois is insisting that the plan include the establishment of a carbon exchange, to compensate the provinces, companies and organizations that lead the way in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Such an exchange is needed urgently in order to impose reduction targets on the major polluters. That is the producer pays policy. A business wishing to modernize could therefore finance the modernization to some extent by selling credits to other companies. The oil industry would be one example.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion on climate change, especially concerning the carbon exchange. This concept is really necessary for our country, which should make an immediate commitment to emission trading. Otherwise, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets and to continue discussions with the rest of the world.

The government is somewhat confused because I believe that the government will support this motion. However, it is possible that the confusion is caused by language. The French version contains some very specific elements that do not appear in the English version. Therefore, we should closely examine the French text today. First, there is this sentence:

Que la Chambre invite le gouvernement à établir au plus tôt des cibles absolues de réduction des gaz à effet de serre permettant d’atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto—

The words “cibles absolues”, or “absolute targets” are very important, and they are the reason that the NDP will support this motion.

The English version has a slightly but important different expression that is important for us to rectify here today. I know members in the House will work with us to perhaps fix this.

The motion reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol--

The language around the mechanisms in Kyoto is very specific in its use and phrasing. In English, the government may be reading in some cover for its intensity based targets because the word “absolute” is not applied. In the language of Kyoto, absolute targets mean an absolute cap. That is the common reference that we use when talking about large industrial polluters.

It is also the language that we use when we talk about an absolute target for countries, not a moving target, not a target associated to energy intensity, which was previously supported by the current leader of the Liberal Party and his party in the former Parliament. This intensity based target was supported actually by the current leader of the Liberal Party all the way through his leadership campaign. These are the same criticisms the Liberal Party is now vaunting upon the Conservatives, that an intensity based target was the way to go.

Let me explore this topic for a moment because it is important for Canadians listening to understand the differences between an absolute target and an intensity based target.

Intensity allows a country to set intensity based targets. That means if a country becomes more efficient in its business processes and industrial process, if that intensity improves over years, then that country gets credit for having improved when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem with an intensity based target is that it can allow, under an expanding economy, and as we have seen in Alberta that attempted this in its provincial targets, an improvement of 19% in intensity over a 10 year period, but an increase of almost 40% in the absolute greenhouse gas emissions for the province.

When countries come together at international conferences to talk about reducing our impact on the planet and the planet's atmosphere, what they are always talking about is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the only conversation held. It does not matter one's political perspective on the topic, right, left, American, Australian, or Canadian. They are talking about seeking a way to lower the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are sent out by our industrial processes. That is the critical component of this.

This issue seems to have been a bit of a moving target over the last number of weeks. The government says we are within the Kyoto protocol, but we are not going to meet the targets.

Now, it is suggested that we support the Bloc motion to have absolute targets for reduction of greenhouse gases. The words “absolute targets” are very, very clear. They establish a very strong connection with the Kyoto protocol and Canada’s international commitments. It is also necessary to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, or a general carbon exchange, wherever it may be located.

In the context of all this, as we have heard in the speeches from the environment critics and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the parties will take out their natural barbs and hooks for each other around the issue of the environment, which has become increasingly important for Canadians.

There has been almost a seismic shift in the consciousness of Canadians who are interested in the affairs of government and their nation to say that the environment, and climate change in particular, has become one of the leading issues for our country.

I would strongly suggest the government did not get elected on an environmental platform. I clearly remember the platform document the Conservatives ran on. I think there were three phrases in the entire document devoted to the environment. It was a platform piece. The Conservatives were vague. There was something in it about clean air and clean water, and a third one that has since been forgotten.

Now arriving in government, those members find themselves in a bit of a predicament, having spilled much ink in their brochures and pamphlets about the evils of international obligations like the Kyoto process, and are now faced with a population that wants something done.

To take some small pieces in lessons from history, when the Conservatives introduced their clean air act last fall, there was much excitement and anticipation by many in the Conservative cabinet at least, but I am not sure about the Canadian public. Minister after minister came to me and said how impressed I was about to be with what was going to be called the clean air act.

It was the clean air act. According to them it was very strong, very specific and very generous.

At the end of the day we found out that the act was wanting in specifics, deadlines and lacking in efficacy. We were unable to support the act and were able to encourage the other opposition parties in the House to do the same because there was almost no moral ground to stand upon in pushing off serious action in respect to climate change for another 20 years, 30 years or 40 years. That was not responsible.

What is responsible is to recommit to our international obligations, a legally binding document which we have not heard a murmur from the government on how it is going to square this circle in being signatories, which it is in representing the Canadian people, to this protocol that has built-in penalties for countries that do not abide by that signature or their targets.

The government is trying to square the idea that it can both be in the protocol, adhere to international obligations, and yet not meet those obligations. It is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest at worst.

When the act was introduced, it was dead on arrival. It was disappointing and frustrating because the legacy that the Liberal Party had left behind in government was known throughout the land as being a record of an over concentration and focus on media and optics, spin and announcements, and little to do with concrete action.

The sad part of this conversation for Canadians, and there is a great deal of skepticism in the public when the government makes announcements, is that they have some justification for the skepticism when looking at the so-called new government because after some 13 months or 14 months, some incredibly long feeling period of time short on the calendar but long when we look at the amount of delay, we are still waiting for serious action.

It may feel beyond even 10 years for some in the Liberal Party who are not quite used to the feelings of what it is not to be able to control the media's spin cycle. However, when we look at the principles of their bill, we realize that the bill as proposed was dead in Parliament.

I remember the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth standing in his place, two weeks after the bill was introduced calling upon the government and the other parties to work together, to form a special committee, give us a forum to bring the best ideas forward, and to rewrite the bill from top to bottom in order to include within it things that are called for by the motion from the Bloc today, and other motions that have come from Conservative and Liberal members.

It was a fascinating experience and important because Canadians heard stories of parliamentarians attempting to work together, of finding common ground. Looking through the record, as I have, for the various votes cast for this particular piece of legislation, I found members from the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats voting for many aspects of it. They did not agree with all of it, but they say the principles of a good negotiation are always based upon each party giving up something. No one gets it all.

As much as the Prime Minister would like to wage a war of attrition and decide that whatever he writes is law, he must come to the realization that he is working within the confines of a minority Parliament. This is the House that Canadians constructed for us and most clearly want us to work together, particularly around issues that we have said from all four corners of the House go beyond narrow partisan interests because it is the future of the environment, the climate and future prosperity of generations to come.

We rewrote the bill and adopted aspects of the bill that were written initially. Much of the actual air pollution sections, the air quality sections, were modified but adopted by the various committee members. We included new pieces, leading edge ideas, that have been accepted by the parties and no one party voted for every one and no one party voted against every piece. It was a mix.

To my perspective, and I believe the perspective of many Canadians, that is the sign of a healthy Parliament, a healthy debate, when people are able to give their input and have various coalitions form around the table on any given day. As members from that committee know, there were various votes cast. Some things were defeated and some things not. To make Parliament work, to make Parliament deliver for Canadians on the environment, that is what the NDP was focused on. That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, was entirely focused on through the process and he has received proper credit for his work there.

I will now break down the notion of a carbon exchange market.

It is very important to understand to what extent this tool is good for Canadian companies and for everyone, and that it will make it possible to advance this concept of greenhouse gas reduction.

I will quote a brief extract from the testimony of Mr. Bertrand, the president of the Montreal Exchange, on the subject of absolute targets. In response to a question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bertrand stated the following: “We think that an intensity-based system would add another element of uncertainty to the market.”

All the business witnesses said that it was impossible to invest in the reduction of greenhouse gases with a system that creates uncertainty. The concept of intensity targets does not work for Canadian companies or for our country’s Kyoto targets. It is not possible for the Conservative government, on one hand, to say that intensity targets are sufficient and, on the other hand, to support the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie which begins, “That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol—”.

That is the intention of Bill C-30. They have changed the name because it is a very important bill that deals not only with air quality, but also with climate change. That is the reason that the NDP will support the motion. It will support the effort to put more pressure on this government. It is necessary to ensure the passage of Bill C-30 concerning climate change and Canada’s clean air act, as it has been called by the government.

For Canadians watching who are not familiar with carbon exchange markets, it is a very simple concept based fundamentally upon market concepts that exist. Canadians invest in the markets every day, for their retirement, for businesses to secure enough capital to make the investments, create an economy, hire more people and put Canadians to work. The market based system, the exchange of value for future promised value that is the basis of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges around the world is the same concept that was borrowed from those trying to fight this climate change process.

A very wise witness came before the committee and said not to think of the Kyoto process as an environmental negotiation as much as it is an economic negotiation because this is changing some of the fundamentals of our economy. It is demanding that at long last the polluter must pay. This is a concept that has been bandied around in this Parliament and others for far too long. It is simple. The concept says that those who pollute, in this case those who emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, must pay for that pollution, otherwise we invoke the greatest tragedy we have ever known. Who is responsible for the atmosphere, who is responsible for the quality of the air if not those who are contributing to the ruination of the atmosphere and the quality of air?

It seems to us and to many others that this market based approach is one of the most effective tools that government can apply in setting up the terms of reference, in setting up clear rules and regulations so that companies can compete. It will allow industries to choose the lowest cost solutions to reduce their pollution and have a net overall benefit to our atmosphere and our economy.

At the end of the day, in order to achieve the short term targets that are outlined in the Kyoto protocol, and to which Canada has obligated itself, unless the government plans on tearing up the protocol, which it may be doing quietly but has certainly not publicly said it will do, then we need this tool. Businesses which are unable to make the transition in three to four years, which is Kyoto's requirement now because we have wasted so much time in the 13 years previously and in the almost year and a half with the present government, need this tool.

We have made some shift with the government. There has been some release of the ideology in small ways. I can remember the minister coming to the committee and when asked about the clean development mechanisms and other trading mechanisms that are available within the protocol, he said absolutely and definitively no.

At the time I thought he may have misspoke himself. It was not until we saw business representative after representative come before the committee and say they want access to these tools. The oil and gas sector, the coal fired energy sector are saying they want access to these tools and mechanisms because they think it is important and useful for their business. They need to be able to factor into their spreadsheets and costs of doing business the concept of pollution, the concept of greenhouse gas emissions. The notions of a carbon exchange allow them to do that and they want access to it. Why would the government deny them? They are supposedly much of the government's support base, certainly within the Alberta energy sector. They asked for access to this market. It becomes a question of who the government is defending from these tools. It is certainly not the companies that are most involved with the process, the large polluters in this country.

The government made an absolutely false and almost silly presentation on the cost of these international obligations to which we have committed. The minister was out trumpeting that last week. That needs to be set aside once and for all. We can no longer have this pitched battle of ideology between doing things for the environment and doing things for the economy. That debate for many Canadians is long since over. If the government continues to wage this campaign and die on this hill, I believe both politically and personally the Conservatives will be punished for it because it is a false debate. We have moved well beyond that. Our international competitors have shown us that.

Canada runs the desperate risk of being left in the dust in innovation, new energy production, and a more sensible and sane policy for this country and for our economy.

We will be supporting this motion and look forward to the support of all parties. We look for support from all parties to finally move forward the so-called clean air and climate change legislation, so that we can get the solutions on the table that will allow industry and Canadians to engage with government and not have a government in direct opposition to those efforts.

The Environment

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that plus ça change, plus c'est pareil.

Over the past few months, MPs have spent hundreds of hours hearing witnesses and debating on how to fight climate change in Canada. However, it seems the Conservative government does not care if Bill C-30 is ever brought to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you today to get a search warrant to see if we can find Bill C-30 and bring it back to the House because the government is not going to do it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can find it, get it back to the House so we can debate it, get it passed and fight climate change now.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all across Canada people are worried about climate change, worried their kids' asthma is getting worse, worried that year after year the temperature rises, yet the government does not do anything about it.

Yesterday on Parliament Hill hundreds gathered to demand action on climate change. The crowd and all Canadians were encouraged to call the Prime Minister at 613-992-4122.

Did he get the message, or is his political will box full? Where is Bill C-30? Will he bring it to the House now?

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would describe for us his plan for the business of the House for the balance of this week and to the end of next week. Specifically, during that timeframe, could he indicate the fate of Bill C-16, dealing with fixed election dates? Will the minister confirm that he has no intention of recalling Bill C-16 for further action in the House during the life of this Parliament.

With respect to Bill C-30, the clean air act, when will that legislation come back to the House of Commons for further consideration? When the Prime Minister announces his new plan with respect to emission targets, will the Prime Minister be acting under the auspices of Bill C-30 or under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to stop hiding behind bogus, irresponsible and incomplete reports that purport to suggest it is either jobs and the economy on the one hand or the environment on the other. That is simply wrong.

The greatest threat to our economy is the climate change crisis and it is time the Prime Minister understood it. Has he got the guts to bring Bill C-30, which was built by all parties of the House, before the House, and when will he do it?

If he has targets, let him bring them to the House so we can debate them and adopt them or change them. Will he have the courage to--

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

Mr. Speaker, six months ago I called upon the Prime Minister to send his doomed clean air act to a special committee where all parties could participate and where every party could put forward its best ideas on how we could address the crisis of climate change. He agreed to do so.

Now that committee has finished its work. Every party has some of their ideas contained in that legislation.

My question is very simple. The future of this issue is in the hands of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister table the bill before the House? When will he do it so we can debate, amend and vote on the clean air act, Bill C-30? When will he do it?

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

This is a big issue. For most of us, sometimes we get sidetracked by other issues but the damage that continues to be inflicted on our planet is a warning to all of us to do something to make a difference and to work together in developing strategies that will make a difference so that we can tackle the issue of climate change. We can no longer afford to be complacent and merely speak about the subject.

A number of things put this issue in perspective for me. I spend a lot of time in schools in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, in high schools, junior high schools and elementary schools. While Canadians are focused on a number of different issues, the environment has always been a major issue for young Canadians.

As a parent of two young children I am very concerned about our environment. I want my children and all young Canadians to grow up in a world that places a priority on a clean environment, a world where new technologies are employed to combat climate change. I want them to grow up in a world where Canada honours its commitments, leads the world in tackling the effects of climate change and is prepared to take our responsibility to the planet seriously.

Every day we read about or witness on television or in our own communities the effects of climate change. It is our behaviour as humans that has brought us to the brink. Far too often we put more value on the present than on the future.

As parliamentarians we have no greater obligation than to do what is right. There is no longer any debate on what is causing climate change; it is us. There is no longer a debate as to the validity of the science, and those who dispute the science are often the same people who believe the world has only been in existence for a few thousand years.

Last year, as I suspect all members of the House did, I watched the movie by Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth. This movie did not have as its goal to entertain the world, though it did. It was not meant to generate box office revenues, though it did. It was meant to alert us, to wake up the world to the crisis that exists with respect to climate change, and it did that as well.

Today we debate Bill C-377. This bill in many ways mimics an earlier bill introduced by my Liberal colleague from Honoré-Mercier. Bill C-288 recently passed with the support of all opposition parties, including the NDP. It seeks to have Canada meet its global obligations to the Kyoto accord. That bill is now before the Senate.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Honoré-Mercier, along with the member for Ottawa South, both of whom have been leaders on the issue of the environment, calling for the government to take serious action to combat climate change. It is our hope that the current government, whose members continue to play politics with this issue, would respect Bill C-288 and honour the Kyoto accord.

We have also had significant successes with another bill that is before the House, Bill C-30, the clean air act. Shortly after the introduction of this bill, it was recognized by most members of the House that it fell short of accomplishing any real measures to combat the crisis of climate change. Shortly thereafter, the government agreed to strike a special legislative committee. At the end of March, after a week of intense negotiations and late night sittings, opposition parties rallied around Liberal amendments to the bill and passed a comprehensive plan.

Having served on a special legislative committee on civil marriage a couple of years ago, I can appreciate the time and effort that all parties put in to rewriting the government's bill. I thank each of them for the hard work that they did on this very difficult issue.

To the surprise of many, the renamed clean air and climate change act was reported back to the House on time. When the clean air act was proposed by the government in the fall, many of us on this side of the House were very disappointed because it offered nothing new in our fight against climate change. The bill appeared to distract us from the fact that the government was not using its tools to negotiate with large industrial emitters, as the Liberal government had done. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act as amended in 1999 is already a very robust toolbox to confront large emitters.

Draft regulations to limit emissions were in place in the fall of 2005, but the Conservatives threw them out of the window when they came into office. When the government referred the clean air act to the special legislative committee, we had hoped the Minister of the Environment would propose improvements to the legislation. In the end, the government did not come up with one single substantive improvement.

Further, when it became obvious that the government was not serious and had no intention of taking substantive measures, our leader proposed a white paper called “Balancing Our Carbon Budget”. It is an aggressive and innovative plan to meet the challenge of real and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Balancing our carbon budget would work in the following way.

A hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions would come into effect on January 1, 2008, for the three largest industrial emitting sectors: electricity generation, upstream oil and gas, and energy intensive industries. The cap would be set at the Kyoto standard of 1990 emissions levels less 6% and would establish an effective carbon budget that companies within these sectors could be expected to meet.

Those companies that do not meet their carbon budget would deposit $20, growing to $30, per excess tonne of CO₂ equivalent into a green investment account. At a rate of $10 per tonne every year, companies could freely access the funds in the GIA to invest in green projects and initiatives that would contribute to tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

GIA funds would be held in trust by an independent operating agency governed with participation from the private, public and not for profit sectors. Funds not allocated to a project within two years would be administered by an independent operating agency to be invested in other green projects and initiatives.

At least 80% of the funds would be invested in the province where the facility of the depositing firm is located.

Companies that surpass the reductions called for in their carbon budget would be able to trade their unused allotments to other Canadian firms. Large industrial emitters would also be able to buy international emission credits, certified under the Kyoto protocol, to offset up to 25% of the amount they are required to deposit into GIAs.

Opposition MPs from all parties supported the solutions outlined in that plan and incorporated much of it into the new clean air and climate change act.

The bill now endorses a national carbon budget based on our Kyoto targets and reaches out to 60% to 80% reductions from 1990 levels by 2050. It requires the government to put in place the hard cap for large emitters and uses this hard cap to create market incentives for deep emission reductions.

For years businesses have been looking for the guidance and certainty that this law would provide. When the bill passes Parliament, it will allow companies to plan their investments and green technologies, reward early action and help us avoid the most dramatic climate change scenarios.

I am proud of that work and I am proud of my colleagues. There is more to be done. The next step is to ensure that the government does not ignore the special legislative committee's amendments. In line with that work, I am pleased to support Bill C-377.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate this evening on Bill C-377, Climate Change Accountability Act.

At the onset, let me acknowledge that we are all aware of climate change. Responding to climate change is a major concern for this government and no doubt will remain so in the foreseeable future. I suppose the only thing we could say for sure about the weather is that whatever it used to be, it is not likely to be.

In my own riding on the west coast, we are surrounded by temperate rainforest. Tourists flock to the west coast of Vancouver Island to visit Pacific Rim National Park to enjoy the surf, sun, beach, boating and outdoor adventures. Yet, for the first time in memory, this past summer, Tofino, a popular tourist destination, experienced water shortages. This past winter vicious storms lashed the coast causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to our famous West Coast Trail. In fact, we recently provided $500,000 in funding to help clean up the damage in the park and restore the trail, and a further $2 million to help restore Vancouver's famous Stanley Park. Meanwhile right here in Ottawa, Christmas was one of the mildest in recent history and there were concerns about whether Ottawa's famous Rideau Canal, the world's largest skating rink, would open.

That is why this government has been very clear that in the coming weeks we are going to bring clear targets and regulations that are aimed at specific sources of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

However, rather than the mechanism proposed by Bill C-377, I believe that we have a more effective way of reaching our goals by setting realistic and achievable goals, targets that will strengthen Canada's long term competitiveness, targets that will still represent significant and positive progress in our fight to reduce harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this government is already on the right path to achieving those objectives.

We have made it clear that we are committed to delivering solutions that will protect the health of Canadians and their environment. It is a commitment that we take seriously. That is why we are taking concrete actions that will improve and protect our environment and our health. We are proactively working with Canadians to take action toward those targets. We are providing financial and tax incentives to encourage Canadians to drive eco-friendly vehicles. We are supporting the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and tidal powers. We are providing incentives to Canadians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Through budget 2007 we are investing $4.5 billion to clean our air and water, to manage chemical substances, to protect our natural environment and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This investment when combined with over $4.7 billion in environmental investments since 2006 adds up to over $9 billion. That is a significant investment in a cleaner and greener environment right here in Canada.

Canadians care deeply about their environment. They want and they expect their government to take real action. They have told us that they are particularly concerned with the quality of the air that we all breathe.

The notice of intent to regulate that this government issued last October represents real action that Canadians are demanding, a significant, aggressive and positive step in the right direction.

In the coming weeks Canadians will soon see more details expounded as the Minister of the Environment announces the regulatory framework for all industrial sectors. This framework will set short term emissions reduction targets. It will provide real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in doing so, it will also position Canada among the international leaders in the global fight against climate change.

Permit me to say a few words in the process about Bill C-30, the clean air act, because it is indeed related to many of the issues dealt with in Bill C-377.

Canadians are, as I said, concerned about the quality of the air they breathe and their changing environment. Harmful air emissions continue to affect our health, our environment and our economy, as well as our quality of life. That is why I found some of the changes to Bill C-30 recently pushed through committee by the opposition to be hypocritical.

Through the opposition's amendments to Bill C-30, we have now lost mandatory national air quality standards, mandatory annual public reporting on air quality, and actions to achieve national air quality standards. What are the opposition members thinking? We have lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants and tougher environmental enforcement rules for compliance to air quality regulations.

Probably in the most shocking move, the Liberals inserted a clause that would allow political interference into air quality standards. The Liberals, supported by the NDP, have changed the bill to allow the Minister of the Environment to exempt economically depressed areas from air quality standards for two years. This would allow them to buy votes by exempting certain Liberal-rich voting areas of the country from air quality regulations that protect the health of those voters, while punishing other areas of the country that are economically strong but do not vote Liberal.

For all of the rhetoric from the opposition parties on strengthening Bill C-30, they now have to explain to Canadians why they played personal partisan politics with air quality standards.

Improving and protecting the air we breathe is an objective that all of us in government must work toward regardless of our political stripes. Taking action on climate change and air pollution is everyone's responsibility. Unfortunately, this bill just does not do it. That is why I cannot support Bill C-377. It does not get it done.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this climate change bill crafted by the member for Toronto—Danforth. He knows this issue back and front and, more importantly, he walks the talk. He has retrofitted his home to be a net producer of energy. As a Toronto city councillor, he proposed solutions, followed through and made them reality, such as the Toronto atmospheric fund, one of the most ambitious and effective building retrofit programs in the country.

Now, as MP and leader of the NDP, he has proposed practical solutions and has followed through on that, for example, with the cooperative initiative, bringing all parties together to bring their best ideas to re-craft the flawed Bill C-30. Now it is up to the House to make that a reality.

At the start of the year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its fourth assessment report, which provides the most sobering and scientifically precise overview to date.

It is expected that sea levels will rise, species will become extinct and natural catastrophes will increase throughout the world. In North America, we can expect an increase in hurricanes, flooding, forest fires and drought. Our cities will have to cope with heat waves that will be more frequent and intense and that will last longer, as well as their effects on health, particularly in the elderly and children.

In my province of B.C., drinking water will become more scarce and threats to water quality will become more frequent and serious. Researchers at the University of Victoria have examined 70 to 80 glacier fronts over the past five years and have consistently found glaciers in rapid decline and already at their lowest ebb in 8,000 years.

Last year's boil water advisory in greater Vancouver was the largest in Canadian history, but it will not be the largest for long.

Given the irrefutable scientific evidence before us, what possible reason could any responsible government have for not acting with more urgency?

Liberals and Conservatives seem to agree: both tell us that the economy comes first.

Under the Liberals, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 24% instead of going down, but the economy was booming, they told us, and they could not very well slow it down.

The Conservatives use emergency closure measures to act immediately to impose unfair labour settlements, but not on climate change. For that, we are still waiting.

Pitting the environment against the economy is disingenuous and just irresponsible. Last October's report by former World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern makes this very clear.

Societies always need energy. However, we must change our collective mentality by turning from policies of productivity and excessive consumerism to policies that promote efficiency and conservation.

By practising conservation, we can reduce the gap between our energy needs and the supply of clean, renewable energy. The government can help promote the energy efficiency of our homes, buildings and businesses by providing incentives that will lead us to change our means of transportation and the way of ordering our communities and our daily lives.

As a city councillor, I saw the determination of some municipalities to use every tool at their disposal to take up the challenge, while the federal government's response remained weak and unfocused. Canada now ranks 28th out of 29 OECD countries in energy efficiency. We have a lot of room for improvement.

In Victoria, we are working very hard to do our part.

Recently in Victoria there have been several public forums on climate change, with hundreds of people attending, and I dedicated my fall newsletter to the issue of climate change. I commended my constituents for the small and large actions they take every day and I challenged them to do more.

As a result, I received an overwhelming number of feedback forms coming from that newsletter, all with actions that Victorians are taking, such as retrofitting their homes, choosing energy efficient appliances and choosing alternative modes of transportation.

As inspiring as these simple actions are, they are betrayed by continued government inaction or halfway measures, which make it harder, not easier, for ordinary Canadians to make these choices.

It is still easier to buy polluting products that have travelled for miles to get to big box stores than it is to buy local products.

The federal government has failed to correct what Sir Nicholas Stern has called the biggest market failure. When it has acted, it has been with half measures or even quarter measures.

The government's so-called recent ecoenergy home retrofit program is an example of this kind of half-hearted measure. It does not meet the needs of low income Canadians or those with rental properties, whereas what we need is a program that would systematically facilitate the retrofit of millions of homes and buildings in Canada on a yearly basis.

This bill has been introduced precisely because of the inadequate effort of the federal government now and for the past 14 years.

This bill would end the federal government's voluntary delay and would legislate action, action that is rooted in where science tells us we need to go.

It would be based on action that would begin to tilt the market away from polluting industries and would level the playing field between polluting and non-polluting ones.

This bill enshrines the 80% target in law. Furthermore, it requires a 25% reduction by 2020, on par with the commitments of the Kyoto protocol and the 2050 target.

These targets are based on the important report The Case for Deep Reductions, prepared by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, and supported by all major environmental organizations in Canada. Thus, it stands to reason that the starting point for this bill is meeting our Kyoto protocol commitments. We are joining other countries that have set ambitious targets to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

To arrive at our destination, we must map out a route. That is why the targets are essential.

Since this bill was introduced, some of these measures, notably the medium and long term targets, have been successfully incorporated into Bill C-30 by the special legislative committee. We look forward to Bill C-30 coming back to the House for a vote. However, we know there is no guarantee in politics.

That is why I am urging members of the House to support Bill C-377 in principle and vote for it to proceed to committee. We expect that the committee can be just as constructive in exchanging views and propositions for this legislation.

To close, I would like to relay a thought from an IPCC scientist who attended Victoria's recent forums. He said that no matter what we do, short term temperatures will rise as a result of the past decades of inaction, but our actions today are necessary because they will determine the long term impacts that our grandchildren will feel.

It is said that politicians always look for short term electoral gain and I wonder if in this House today we have politicians who are willing to act, not just talk, but act with their vote for the long term.

Do we cherish our environment and our children's future enough to make the fundamental changes that are needed to protect them? Because what we do in this House today is for the next generation.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

What a great question, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we are seeking to build upon the work that has been done in the past on the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement. We want to reopen the agreement and strengthen the provisions for particulate matter to help ensure that the air Canadians breathe is free from pollution, particularly particulate matter.

The Liberal Party, in committee on Bill C-30, stripped the important clean air parts of Bill C-30 and replaced them with its carbon tax, something that will do nothing for young children with asthma and the elderly who have to stay in on smog days caused by Liberal inaction.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to have an opportunity to speak briefly on the budget debate. I want to indicate at the outset that I am planning to share my time with the hard-working member and NDP finance critic from Winnipeg North.

Much has been said about what is and is not in the budget. I think there is a pretty broad consensus that it is a budget born out of political cynicism and that it is simply an array of broken promises and spectacular betrayals. One hears many comments about the many aspects of those broken promises and disappointments. I want to run through a couple of them in the time available.

I think every member of the House can appreciate that it takes a pretty major force to bring every member of the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats alike, together with every member of the Nova Scotia legislature, Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals alike, to stand together in opposition to the broken promise and spectacular betrayal with respect to the government's treatment of the Atlantic accord and offshore revenue resources.

I am not going to go into all the ins and outs, but let me say very clearly that it is no secret to anybody that what inspired this budget in general, the many choices made by the government and the betrayal with respect to the treatment of offshore resource revenues is the crassest of political objectives. It is the idea that the Conservative minority government can throw overboard anybody in any community, any constituency and any province where it does not think it can make gains to elevate itself to a majority government in the election that it wants to call at the earliest possible opportunity when it calculates that is achievable.

I do not think that this is going to stand up in history as one of the most inspirational visions for a nation. It will be up to the people of Canada to decide, but I think it is absolutely transparent that this was the driving force behind the budget.

Let us be clear that for starters, going into the budget, the government was sitting on and dealing with a surplus of $14.1 billion. Yet when we go through the things that are not even touched or addressed in the budget, it is clear that there is a complete disregard and insensitivity. One cannot even give the government members the benefit of the doubt and say that it is just out of total ignorance that they do not know of the depth and breadth of the unmet needs ignored by the budget.

There is no national housing strategy, this after the previous Liberals destroyed the best national housing program in the world over a decade ago. Nothing has been done to replace it.

There is no national transit strategy. Never has it been more important to have a public transit strategy with our Kyoto challenges and the climate change fiasco that is unfolding.

If it were not for Bill C-30 and, frankly, the leadership of my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, we would have no strategy, no timetables and targets. It is my leader who provided tremendous leadership in saying that we cannot face the nation or the world without a strategy, without timetables and targets, and without something meaningful to begin address climate change, the devastating impact on our country and our commitment to try to work with the other countries of the world to minimize that impact and start to rebuild alternative energy plans.

There is also nothing to repair what remains with us as outstanding damage to the employment insurance system. Again, those damages were so fantastic in areas of high unemployment that to this day people are still angry at the smashing of that unemployment insurance system by the Liberals in the mid-1990s. We still have not seen it repaired and there is nothing in the budget to address it.

There is nothing to reduce student debt or the continuing crisis of escalating tuitions.

I could go through the many omissions, but I want to dwell on two in particular.

There is absolutely nothing meaningful in the way of a national anti-poverty strategy. That is despite the fact that what we had in this budget was the opportunity to take a significant portion of this $14.1 billion surplus and ensure that we begin to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots, to reduce that growing prosperity gap, which is growing in part because this government saw fit to continue on through and implement further corporate tax cuts contained in the past budget. It is an absolute tragedy when we look at the impact on the lives of individuals and families and literally whole regions.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the complete failure to deal with our disgraceful record with respect to meeting our international obligations for official development assistance. I know that Conservative members are fond of jumping up and down and saying that the budget honours the commitment made by the Liberals to increase by 8% our ODA budget. Our level of ODA is such a humiliation and such a disgrace in the world today that anything short of beginning to make a major leap forward to make up for the foot dragging and the lagging by the Liberals over a 10 year period is simply inadequate.

As a matter of fact, with this budget, to the best of anyone's ability to calculate, we will be at the lowest level of international development assistance since the beginning of really tracking the OECD countries' development assistance levels. Just very briefly historically, that of course was actually making some progress under the Mulroney government and had reached 0.52%. A former finance minister's budgets dragged it down to less than half of that.

As a result of this budget kicking in, we are now going to rank 14th of the OECD countries, moving lower to 15th, and falling so short of those obligations that we do not even begin to contribute to meeting the millennium development goals. Today was a day of teachers in this country coming together to plead for the government to deliver on 0.7% or we will not even begin to make progress toward ensuring universal education for the children of the world.

This budget is a spectacular betrayal. It is a humiliation. One hopes that the government understands that the people of Canada are not prepared to reward the Conservatives with votes of applause until they mend their ways and get on a more progressive track.

Bill C-30

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

In accordance with its order of reference on Monday, December 4, 2006, your committee has considered 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) and agreed, on Thursday, March 29, to report it with amendments.

I do that today with thanks to members, especially support staff, who allowed us to do what the media and many others said could not be done, and that was to get it here on time.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the hard work of all members of the committee who considered Bill C-30 at this stage, before it even had been debated in the House.

We are moving forward with a comprehensive climate change action plan. We have come forward with initiatives for the first time to provide funding for the provinces in our ecotrust announcement. That is something the Liberals voted against. We came forward with some strong initiatives on eco-transportation. The Liberals voted against it.

We came forward with substantial investments in our budget, with $4.5 billion of new funding for the first time for a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and the Liberal Party has voted against it again.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has been saying that he will soon announce his so-called made in Canada plan for greenhouse gas emissions, including all of the targets, but Canadians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the government kept its plan secret and refused to include it as part of the rewrite of Bill C-30. Why has the Prime Minister shown Parliament so much contempt? Does he think the work of the committee is beneath him?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.

Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on the government's second budget released on March 19. On behalf of the constituents of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario, I would like to offer a few opinions.

First, I would like to point out that among the various instruments that governments have to tell voters, tell the public what it is they are about, what it is they plan to do for a country, the two main instruments are throne speeches, which we see typically every two years, and budgets, which we see every year usually in February or March.

In the span of 100 years, we would see 100 budgets from different governments. That underlines how important budgets are. Not only do they set a course, or they are supposed to set a course, but they are also supposed to provide the government's vision for the months and years ahead. They are supposed to tell Canadians how the current government of the day wishes to continue building the nation.

Quite frankly, as important as budgets are, I believe the government has missed a very serious opportunity to add its piece to the grand and important puzzle which is the building of this nation. I am not going to say that it lacks an agenda but indeed, it lacks a vision.

What I find most interesting in the budget is what the budget does to fulfill what I consider to be the hidden agenda of the government, which is to actually weaken the central government of this country. In so doing, it limits the capacity of the central government to create programs of national concern, whether they are in the economic domain, the social domain or the environmental domain. When one weakens the central government's ability to lead, to draw in the provinces and territories on national initiatives, one in fact weakens Canada.

There have been numerous surveys over the years which have indicated over and over again that of all levels of government, the public trusts most the federal government, its national government. The public sees in its national government the best tools, the best ability, the strength to keep our country together for all citizens from coast to coast to coast, regardless of where they live, whether they live in rural areas like my area in northern Ontario or in urban areas like downtown Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and so on. Fundamentally Canadians are generous. They want to share this nation with each other and with those who come from foreign shores to join us and to live in Canada. That generosity means that Canadians want, as much as is reasonable, that programs and initiatives be for everybody.

Let me give an example of the government's attempts to weaken the central government. I have to reach back to last year's budget. This budget is a continuation, in my view, of that central theme of a hidden agenda to weaken a central government. There was an announcement last year, and we were expecting to hear more about it but for some hidden reason we did not hear part two, but last year there was an announcement that the government would cut the GST by 1% and eventually by another 1%. This was against the advice of virtually every economist in the country. We have to trust our professionals. They said that giving away between $5 billion and $6 billion on a 1% GST cut would only weaken forever the central government, because we cannot get that percentage back.

Think back to governments that tried to increase taxes. We cannot get that percentage back. That $5.5 billion that was lost in the first 1% GST cut is $5.5 billion that is not available for the government to invest in health care, in municipal infrastructure, in the Kelowna accord which, incidentally, would have cost about $5 billion. One year of that 1% GST cut would have funded the Kelowna accord. We are talking about 1% every year ongoing, every year indefinitely.

It is interesting that the government in this budget did not mention what was going to happen to the second 1%. It may be that the government finally listened to the advice it received last year, or it just felt that it would prefer to do that in a majority government.

I do not think Canadians are going to be easily fooled. Frankly, I do not recall meeting any constituents in my large riding who said, “Wow, that 1% GST cut really was a great benefit to me and my family”. In fact, the opposite is the case. When I asked them, virtually every one of them said that they did not notice that 1%. I pointed out that a wealthy person who bought a $100,000 boat would receive $1,000 in GST relief and that wealthy person would notice it. My constituents replied, “Of course they would notice it, but I am an average Canadian and I am not buying a $100,000 boat”.

In fact, the average Canadian family would have to consume taxable goods for years and years to achieve that $1,000 in GST relief that the wealthy person would enjoy when buying that expensive boat. To me, what the budget really does is it promotes further the hidden agenda.

Let me speak to some of the concerns in northern Ontario in my riding. I will start with forestry and I will continue with concerns for my aboriginal constituents and aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast.

In the forestry sector, communities such as White River, Smooth Rock Falls, Chapleau, Espanola, Nairn, Opasatika, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and the list is far too long, are experiencing tremendous layoffs and cutbacks. Much of the layoffs and cutbacks are in the softwood sector. There are key industries that have suffered in the pulp and paper sector in my area as well.

There is no mention in the budget of what should be done to deal with a sector of our economy which is extremely significant not only in direct jobs and what it does for our single resource communities, but the incredible spinoffs as well. A tremendous price is being paid by families in these communities and the communities themselves as well. Those communities see the loss of their capacity to keep their schools open and in fact, to maintain their basic infrastructure because people have to leave those communities if they can.

At the very least I would call on the government to bring together all stakeholders, community leaders, unions and companies, all those who have a stake in the forestry sector. The government should bring them together in a national forestry summit so that our best minds and our best efforts can be focused on that one issue to see if something can be done for the long term of this country.

Quite frankly, when we consider what the softwood lumber deal has done to communities in my riding, I looked for measures in this budget that would have assisted them. The day before the agreement went into effect, the import tax in the U.S. was some 10 point something per cent, roughly 10.5%, but the day after the agreement was signed, it shot up to something like 15% because the U.S. import tariff was replaced by an export tax.

It will take me a long time to understand how that is good for our industry. I understand it is the Canadian government that has had to advance the duties from the U.S. back to Canadian companies, because the U.S. actually has not repaid those funds, to the best of my knowledge.

I will move on to my aboriginal constituents on Manitoulin Island and on the north shore of Lake Huron and the Chapleau and Wawa areas and up at Constance Lake near Hearst.

When the aboriginal leadership in my region and all Canadians saw their premiers, the prime minister and the senior aboriginal leadership of this country sign the Kelowna accord in November 2005, they saw the parties come together to sign a historic agreement. Funding for that agreement was put in place immediately thereafter. The money was booked, as our then finance minister confirmed and has confirmed numerous times.

For some reason the Conservative government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the validity of that agreement. As recently as last week the government voted at third reading not to support the private member's bill of my colleague the member for LaSalle—Émard, which further calls upon the government to honour the Kelowna accord.

Our aboriginal Canadians, our first nations leadership, have been severely disappointed by what they have seen from the government when it comes to measures to understand and appreciate the great heritage, the great history, the great culture that our first nations bring to this country. They are disappointed that as a nation we have still not adequately dealt with the needs of our first nations communities and people when it comes to education, health, water, and those supports that are necessary to live in a modern society. After all, it is our aboriginal youth we will count on considerably in the years ahead as the labour shortage in this country continues to increase.

I recall before the last election that our then leader and prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, made a commitment to students to pay up to $3,000 per year toward tuition fees. That was a significant offer to Canadian families. Then the election came along and we can debate whether that should have happened. However, I look at this budget and there is nothing for undergraduate students. There is a bit of money for post-grads and that is great, but it only assists about 4,000 students.

I go back to my comment about the hidden agenda and the fact that this budget has no vision. There is no overarching view of what the future of this country will be like. It is a hodgepodge of small measures designed to attract individual demographic groups within the larger society. I do not begrudge that there are certain small measures that are important to some people in the budget, and that is great for them, but even they would agree that the government should have a vision with its budget. It should have an overarching idea of where the country is going.

When we were in office great progress was being made with respect to research and development and post-secondary education. We were making sure that our best minds could do research and network with the best minds around the world. It seems that we are now taking backward steps. We must take care of the fundamentals of education. If I could speak to each of my colleagues here one on one, I doubt anyone would disagree that education is the basis of all that we do not only in our personal lives, but as a nation.

I was very disappointed to see the lack of any grand vision when it came to education and productivity for this nation. We are competing in a world that is advancing rapidly. It is our duty to make sure every day that not only individual Canadians but our nation together keeps up and demonstrates the leadership that Canada has become known for around the world.

There are about 55 small communities in my large riding of 110,000 square kilometres. The leadership of these small communities, mayors, reeves, chiefs, are all struggling to maintain the basic infrastructure of their communities.

I know the budget mentioned a short term commitment to share the gas tax with municipalities, unlike the leader of my own party who said that commitment will be an indefinite commitment. Some off my colleagues who have been here since 1993 will remember that when the previous Liberal government brought out a municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program there was tremendous resistance from the then Reform Party and later Alliance Party. In fact, MPs from those parties would not even participate in local ceremonies to launch infrastructure projects. They were dead set against infrastructure.

I know the Conservative Party is the current metamorphosis of the original Reform and Alliance Parties, but the genes of the Reform and Alliance Parties are still present and we still see a lack of real commitment to local governments.

When the Liberal government was first elected in 1993, one of the first commitments we made was to help local governments improve roads, sewer and water systems and so on because we understood that there was an infrastructure deficit in the country at the local level and that the federal government had to take its share.

It is not only local infrastructure. Where is the grand vision when it comes to those nation building projects that Canada needs to address? If there is one that stands out among others, it is the whole issue of climate change. If there is a national project, indeed, an international project, that requires our very best efforts, it is climate change.

I am very pleased that my colleagues in this party and the opposition parties have been able to craft a renewed Bill C-30 which I believe will move the standards quite considerably when it comes to Canada's responsibilities in the world with respect to climate change.

I will now talk about northern Ontario in general. Northern Ontario, like other regional rural parts of the country, is experiencing a population loss. It is not difficult to explain. Families are not as big as they used to be. Our population growth, and happily so, is made up of fine new Canadians who come from all parts of the world to our country. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is from the rural areas from which Canada was first built. If we forget where we came from, we will soon forget where we are going.

It is very important that the present government and any future government, whether it is my party or another, take measures to ensure the strength and vitality of rural Canada, whether it is through immigration measures or supporting programs like FedNor. As much as the government might say one thing about FedNor, one thing we know for sure is that there was a cut in the total funding for FedNor.

FedNor, by the way, for those who are not aware, is the federal economic development agency for northern Ontario, an agency which we were very happy, through the years 1993 to 2006, to support and to in fact increase and grow the funding and supports for.

FedNor needs to be further supported. We need to increase the funding for FedNor, as we need to do for the other regional economic development programs in the Atlantic, west Quebec and so on. I referred to the genetic predisposition against municipal infrastructure support from the federal government. That also exists when it comes to economic development. If anyone has old copies of the Reform and Alliance platform documents, it is explicit that they do not support regional economic development programs.

One cannot change one's genes. Some may try but they cannot do it. Either the government owns up to what it really believes about economic development or it can keep trying to fool the country for another little while.

I will conclude by saying that I still have constituents in my riding, some of the older ones, who refer to the Diefenbaker times and the fact that it has usually been Conservative governments that have put us into deficit.

When we came to office in 1993, we had to deal with a huge $42 billion deficit and, with the help of Canadians, that deficit was slain which put the country in the enviable position of having surpluses that could then be invested in health care, infrastructure, education and so on.

My constituents may not for the most part really think tax cuts are the most important thing that we should be doing. I am not against appropriate tax cuts targeted to the poor and middle income Canadians but these shotgun blast tax cuts, like we have with the GST, do not really do anything positive. With that kind of an attitude and the $10 billion in new spending in the last budget, which one of my colleagues mentioned, I am really worried that we will be going back into deficits. It will only take some kind of calamity to cause that unfortunate time to reappear. It would not be any surprise to see this happen under--

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Do you understand? This is similar to what has happened during the examination of Bill C-30, Mr. Chair. I believe that parliamentarians still have happy memories of that bill.

During the course of our proceedings, our inventive genius and our inspiration can suggest to us some amendments, including in the course of conversations that are uncensored and flowing freely.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When we arrived here in this committee, we made a commitment to work constructively both with the government and all opposition parties in order to ensure that Bill C-30 indeed deals with climate change as well as air quality.

Ultimately, we had four basic objectives: first, integrate Kyoto targets into Bill C-30; secondly, create a system for trading emissions credits; thirdly — and I know this has not been easy to accept for some opposition parties — integrate a territorial approach that will allow provinces to implement their own plan while respecting a number of criteria set by the federal government; fourth, ensure that targets the government was about to set would be hard caps and not intensity-based. I believe this mission is accomplished.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for the open mind with which they met our requests. I believe that with this legal framework we now have in hand all the means required to fulfil our international commitments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Now BQ-18, Monsieur Bigras, I gather, is not going to be moved. C'est correct? Oui.

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

Moving on to the long title, which is everything just under “Bill C-30”, shall the title carry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We are to the question on L-1, which would now read that Bill C-30, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 1 with the following: “This Act may be cited as Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act.”

(Amendment agreed to)

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We would have been happy to support that amendment if Bill C-30 had been left as it was introduced by the government. But in fact now it doesn't do what is being proposed. It's also surprising that the Bloc and NDP members would be supporting a Liberal motion that presented Canada with 35% off target and is now presenting billions of dollars of proposed new taxes to Canada and industry. How could any Canadian support that?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We are on page 36 and 37 of Bill C-30. It's the schedule to the bill. It's votable, like a clause. It lists excluded volatile organic compounds, and so on.

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

We basically are against the schedule, because it doesn't make sense, given the changes we've made to clause 18 of Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

NDP-38 is not moved. Thank you.

Let's move to the schedule of Bill C-30 on page 36. Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

This is again going back to the reason for having definitive clauses. It's to make sure that we are very specific about the substances listed in Bill C-30 as GHGs and that they appear on the toxics list in CEPA. We heard there were some concerns about this when we had witnesses before the committee, and about making sure we had definitive clauses on it. That's the intent of this motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief because I would like to speed things up. However, I wanted to say a few words in this debate.

The amendment before us is excellent and summarizes what we expect from this bill, the spirit of the bill, which is a recognition that greenhouse gases and air pollution are a hazard for the environment and for biodiversity. This recognition is important.

I came here in 1997. I remember very well that members of the Conservative Party — then the Canadian Alliance — whenever we held those discussions in 1997-1998 on climate change, refused to recognize the negative impact of greenhouse gases. Today, if the government votes against this preamble, it will be clear that there has been during these 10 years no evolution in the position of the party in power. We have been hearing from this committee week after week the same empty speeches that we have been hearing for 10 years in the House of Commons from the party that is now the government. The government should realize that voting against this amendment and this preamble, which would ensure that we implement our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, would reflect an unacceptable lack of action and respect for an international commitment made by Canada and that was ratified by the House of Commons in a significant vote that we must respect. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we will support this amendment which reflects the spirit of what we tried to do in Bill C-30, which is to proceed with a real implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and to respect our international commitments. Thank you very much.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a few comments on the preamble of Bill C-30, if I could.

Certainly for a rookie here, it's been quite the experience since we began this process some weeks ago. Our main goal as a committee, I think, was to ensure that Canadians had clean air, and in order to address the concerns we have in Canada--and I believe that Canada wants a clean, healthy environment--in order to achieve that goal, we need a strong economy.

I have some concerns with what has transpired over the past couple of weeks, and certainly in the preamble we're talking about at the present time. We can call it what we like; we've had many adjectives used. We have, without a doubt, put forward a carbon tax on industry in this country, and from my point of view that's a backward step. I think we've created a problem here for the advancement of what we all believed was the purpose of our coming together here--to enshrine in legislation the meeting of Kyoto targets when we have several witnesses who have come before us over the past number of weeks who said that in order to meet the Kyoto targets, we have two options: we spend an enormous amount of taxpayers' dollars overseas to buy credits, or we have a situation where we try to pressure industries into meeting those targets here in Canada.

Several of my colleagues and others have mentioned the fact that we could do major damage to many of the industries, whether it's the auto industry, or the oil sands industry in Alberta, or wherever the case may be, Mr. Chair.

To think that we're going to be able to clean up our environment to create good, clean air for Canadians and do it without the proper funding put in place.... In order to have that type of funding we need to have a very strong economy.

I'll go back to a comment Mr. Cullen made a few moments ago that I found interesting. He looked across the floor to us and said “Take your loss, accept your loss.” My conclusion of what has happened here over the past number of days now is that it is not us who have lost, it's Canadians who have lost, Mr. Chair.

Without continuing on with the plan that was in place and the right objectives to come forward, to be able to do what Canadians wanted us to do here, which was to create clean air, to put all our efforts into creating clean air, there's no doubt in my mind that once again, it's not us who have lost; it's Canadians who have lost this battle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to take the floor in this committee as it considers Bill C-30. I am replacing one of my colleagues who was unable to be here today.

I must say that with all those changes, I no longer recognize the bill that was introduced by my colleagues at the beginning of your study, and this concerns me greatly. We had a very good bill that aimed at improving air quality and the health of Canadians.

Just thinking that Liberals again want to implement a carbon tax... This would not be very helpful. It would be just one more tax imposed on Canadians. A tax has never improved our environment and even less the air we breathe. What can improve our environment are the combined efforts of all members of this committee and of all Canadians in order to consume less energy, less fuel.

We can reduce our fuel consumption by using more fuel- efficient cars and using public transit as much as possible. When I travel between my riding and Ottawa, I see 90 percent of people riding alone in their cars and all going into the same direction. We could promote car pooling. These are all actions that will bring about changes.

Our first task is to improve air quality and this should be our major concern. We should make use of new sources of energy, especially renewable energy. In Quebec, we have hydro power but we must also develop wind energy and biofuels. Every time we replace 1 percent of the fossil energy we consume by a less polluting renewable energy, we will improve our quality of life and our environment. We will have to get there 1 percent at a time but each step will bring us closer to our goal. I believe all members of this committee have the same goal, that of improving our environment.

This is why, Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with all these amendments. From the beginning, the ultimate goal of Bill C-30 has always been to improve the health of Canadians. In order to achieve this, we need cleaner air. I am very concerned and I would like the cooperation of the members opposite in order to pass our Bill C-30.

Thank you very much.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First let me start for a moment by reminding Mr. Cullen that debate is our privilege as MPs. If perhaps some day he finds himself on the short end of a majority government, he'll be fighting very fiercely for his privilege to debate as much as he would like to or as much as his constituents would like him to be able to debate. I think it's an important point for everyone around the table to understand.

Mr. Chair, the preamble's important, of course, because it establishes what the Government of Canada is committed to or what the Government of Canada does.

I think it's important to be reminded that, as a point of law, the members opposite are the opposition, not the Government of Canada. Our debate on the specifics of each of these preamble statements is in fact very important. They are attempts to put words in the mouth of the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada, as far as I can tell, is not committed to a national carbon budget. We don't want a carbon tax. The largest tax on corporations is not the proper direction in which to go.

Mr. Chair, I want to start with something else, before I get into the specifics of this.

We've reached a stage here, as we talk about Canada honouring its obligation to meet the Kyoto target and the timeline. When the Liberals were the government, they had the time to act, they had the dollars to act, and they say they had the tools to act. It's clear that they lacked the will to act.

The opposition and the other parties that are not the Government of Canada now want to commit the Government of Canada to what many witnesses before this committee testified is a reckless course of action.

In fact, Buzz Hargrove from the CAW said it would be suicidal to our economy to try to meet the Kyoto target and timeline. I don't think most people would consider Mr. Hargrove to be a card-carrying Conservative member. I think his statement should certainly be reflected on and taken into account on this one.

It's easy to make a commitment from the opposition when you don't have to actually fulfill the commitment. It's what happened with Mr. Dion as Minister of the Environment. He didn't keep the commitment when he was in government, and he says he can't keep it beyond this government. Then the only time he says he can meet it is in fact when we are the Government of Canada. It is weak leadership. It is not leadership.

I'm opposed to opposition attempts to not only foist the carbon tax on us, but to kick the auto industry when it's struggling right now with an extreme auto emissions standard. They've put politics into Bill C-30 rather than practicality.

Real people's lives hang in the balance. The idea of a just transition fund implies the exact opposite. The transition in the near term is in fact unjust, otherwise they wouldn't call it a “just transition fund”. They know real people are going to be hurt.

The Government of Canada respects the balance that needs to be achieved between environmental action and responsible environmental action. It's ambitious, yet realistic, taking into account the need to balance environmental achievement with real economic realities.

When auto jobs go under in the near term, it's tax dollars that support not only public health care in this country but many things. They support underwriting payment for the same environmental programs that we hope to clean up the environment with.

I oppose the opposition's efforts in this to kick the auto industry when it's struggling. Let it be noted that the NDP and the Liberals have turned their backs on the auto industry in Canada. That's the reality.

I oppose opposition efforts to ignore swaths of witness testimony from the CAW, industry, and academics about the dangers of reckless compliance in honouring the Kyoto obligation. They've put politics ahead of witness testimony. They do so at their own peril.

Mr. Chair, while there are measures in the preamble that the government agrees with, there are some very provocative ones that we simply cannot abide by.

I will be opposing this, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair, I appreciate that.

As Mr. Cullen knows, I have not spent a lot of time talking. I've listened carefully.

I thank you, Mr. Jean, for very clearly finding some errors to this point.

We've tried to create a bill that will deal with the issues of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution levels in Canada. Members have seen fit to dramatically change Bill C-30 as it was originally presented. But we still have continued in a spirt of being willing to work with all members of this committee, with the ultimate goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in Canada.

Chair, speaking to the preamble in Bill C-30, the preamble reads as follows:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health, and are matters of national and international concern which cannot be contained within geographic boundaries;

Mr. Chair, that's a good preamble. It shares the direction in which Canada needs to go. We need to have a preamble that's realistic, balanced, and clearly takes us in a direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, this government has made it very clear that we have two choices, two directions in which we can head to clean up the environment, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—that is, to slow down the economy; or through technology created right here in Canada, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, through technologies like carbon capture and storage.

What was being proposed previously by the Liberal Party was carbon taxing, and as I started to say, there was praise from the Liberals to provide a new $100-billion carbon tax on Canadians and industry. Also, their proposal was to have billions of dollars leave Canada to buy carbon credits, hot air credits.

To build the technology, as I said previously, we either slow down the economy, which we're opposed to.... We need to have a healthy balance, a healthy economy and a healthy environment.

What they're proposing is this billions of dollars of tax, and having then, in turn, billions of dollars leaving Canada to buy these hot air credits. In a preamble sharing where the government needs to go in a clear, balanced approach, that does not achieve that. That's not what Canadians want. Having billions of dollars of investment leaving Canada definitely will not help the environment in Canada and it will not help build that technology that's needed. It will not help, ultimately, the issue of climate change.

The second “whereas”:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health, and are matters of national and international concern which cannot be contained within geographic boundaries;

I wouldn't have difficulty with that, but what we've seen over this week particularly, the hours and hours that have been spent in removing the issue of how to clean up air pollution to improve air quality, both indoor and outdoor, what we've seen with the changes, the amendments that have come from the Liberal Party, is basically to gut out any mention of air pollution and indoor and outdoor air quality.

The preamble needs to represent what is being proposed in the bill. That is a good preamble, a good part of the preamble, but to have, now, the bill gutted and have the tools to deal with air quality, indoor and outdoor, taken out of Bill C-30, it doesn't seem to be logical. It should be in there, and unfortunately it was taken out.

Next:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that climate change constitutes one of the most serious threats to humanity and to Canada, and poses major risks not only to the environment and the economy, but above all to the health and safety of all people;

I don't have problems with that. Climate change is an issue that, as the Government of Canada, we need to recognize and we need to work hard to achieve reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd like to skip to the last “whereas” under subclause 2(1):

Whereas the Government of Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which entered into force in 1994, and Parliament ratified in 2002 by majority vote in the House of Commons and the Senate the Kyoto Protocol which entered into force in 2005 and under which Canada must honour its obligation to reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period from 2008 to 2012 to six percent below their level in 1990;

Mr. Chair, it's ironic that this L-3.1 comes from the Liberals. In 1994, when this came into force, Canada had a Liberal government. When they had an opportunity to do something to clean up the air they didn't. Greenhouse gas emissions under their leadership increased 35% above those Kyoto targets. So this “whereas” is insinuating that we're starting in a healthy position. Again, a preamble has to be realistic. It has to take us in an ambitious direction but also a realistic direction.

At 35% above target, the Liberals, after failing miserably on cleaning up the environment, are now saying we want the Government of Canada to clean up the mess that we left. We are already working hard.

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

Mr. Chair, the reason we always delay on the presentation of preamble is to reflect accurately, in describing what we're doing here, the changes that have been made. That's why we're now reverting to the preamble: to try to capture what we've been doing here. What L-3.1 does is pick up on points that the various parties have made, and it attempts to consolidate that in a coherent preamble.

The first item that is added reflects the Liberal proposal on having a national carbon budget.

The second paragraph actually uses the language of the government itself in the original preamble to Bill C-30, recognizing “that air pollutants and greenhouse gases constitute a risk to the environment and its biological diversity and to human health...”.

The third paragraph is a direct reference to concerns of the Bloc:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollution and greenhouse gases are matters within the jurisdiction of both the Government of Canada and governments of the provinces;

The fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs reflect the united concern of the three opposition parties—actually, I would say the united concern of all parties—both with the phenomenon of climate change and its risk to humanity and to Canada, while recognizing as well the duty of a country like Canada to take responsibility, given that it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and that we are experiencing severe effects of climate change already in the Arctic. I think all of us would agree to that.

The sixth paragraph is a specific reference that brings together at least the three opposition parties in their commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified by Parliament in a majority vote; and the recognition that when Canada undertakes international obligations, it must do its best to meet them, with reference specifically to the 2008-2012 first Kyoto period and a reiteration of the commitment we made to getting to 6% below 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels.

Then, under subclause (2), the eighth paragraph, which is a particular reference to a concern of the NDP, as reflected earlier in our conversations, it's the principle of substitution, which they have made a particular cause of theirs, I think.

So what you have here, Chair, is an amalgam of various points of view raised around the table. We think it accurately reflects the changes we have actually finished making.

[John Moffet]

Sure.

There are two parts to this, new proposed subsection 330(3.1) and new proposed subsection 330(3.2). The first part, (3.1), reverts word for word to what's in CEPA now in terms of the authority to establish regulations that set different standards within different geographic parts of Canada, based on health and environmental considerations.

The rationale is that, as discussed in previous committees, in order to achieve consistent environmental or health quality across Canada, it may be appropriate to set different emissions standards or other regulations.

As an example, air quality in the Toronto-Windsor corridor is worse than air quality in the Yukon. So it may be appropriate--this doesn't require anything, but it may be appropriate--that an emitter in the Toronto-Windsor corridor be subject to a more stringent emission regulation than the same emitter in the Yukon in order to achieve the same outcome of environmental or health quality.

This amendment wouldn't change that at all; same wording, as I read it.

New proposed subsection 330(3.2) is a slight modification to the provisions in Bill C-30, going beyond the current authority to establish geographically differentiated regulations and allowing the government to differentiate among regulatees on other grounds, including, for example, the age of a facility.

As an example, it may be appropriate--again, not necessary, but may be appropriate--to say in a regulation that a new electricity generating plant shall be subject to standard A, whereas an existing electricity generating plant should be subject to a slightly less rigid standard, and be given x number of years to come up to the more stringent standard. That would simply be recognizing the economic reality that some of the investments required to improve air quality may be significant.

Again, there's no requirement to have that type of differentiation; it simply would authorize that type of differentiation. And CEPA does not currently authorize that type of regulation. That didn't cause us a problem when we were regulating, over the past 15 years, emissions of toxic substances. Now that we're entering the world of regulating criteria air contaminants in greenhouse gases, which in many cases involves regulating basic combustion processes, we're talking about affecting major pieces of capital equipment. Again, it may be appropriate to have some differentiation based on things like age or technology.

So that's the rationale for the Bill C-30 provision. The Liberal provision is simply a corrective to make sure that this new authority lines up with the new regulatory provisions that have been created as a result of the amendments passed in the previous couple of days.

That's my explanation of what's going on.

I would beg your indulgence, Mr. Chair, and point out three technical problems, simply drafting problems.

First, I believe the reference to subsection “94(1)” should be “94.1(1)”.

Second, halfway down the page, you refer to “in the opinion of the Governor in Council”. Some of the regulatory authority that has been established would be ministerial regulatory authority. Thus, it should say “in the opinion of the Governor in Council or ministers, as the case may be”.

Finally, to be consistent with the first line, which says “A regulation or instrument”, the fifth-last line should say “For the making of a regulation or instrument”.

Those corrections are just for consistency. They wouldn't substantively change anything.

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chair, for the sake of clarity, if you go back to the Bill C-30 provision, clause 34 starts out by saying, “A regulation made under”.

The authorities that were introduced in some of the Liberal and NDP amendments, to which we just referred, some of them refer to regulations, some of them refer to standards, some of them simply say the minister shall do such and such. My legal colleagues suggest that perhaps this should read “A regulation or instrument”, given that the precise status of some of the authorities that have been introduced in the last couple of days are unclear. It's unclear as to whether they are regulatory authorities or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is that clear, or shall I reread it? Nobody needs to reread it?

You just like me hearing me say it. That's fine.

It's that Bill C-30, in clause 34, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 29 with the following:

93(1), subsection 103.05(2), subsection 103.07(2)(b), or section 167, 177 or 326

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We will support NDP 16.1. I appreciate the comments made by Mr. Cullen. We indeed do support a healthy environment for the health of Canadians. We've been consistent all along, and that's what Bill C-30 would have provided. It's unfortunate that under clause 18 the Liberals made major changes and changed the focus on the greenhouse gas emissions, which is very important. But when you eliminate addressing air quality, pollutants, air quality indoors and outdoors, it is a concern not only to the government but to Canadians. So we will be supporting this amendment.

[John Moffet]

This clause simply extended the authority for pollution prevention planning orders to air pollutants and greenhouse gases, which in the original construction of Bill C-30 would have been taken out of the toxic substances list. Now that they are still toxic substances, we don't need this amendment.

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

I do not want to drag this out, because I find that we are somewhat going around in circles. The content of Bill C-30 is acceptable, in our opinion, unless some other amendment is tabled. I believe that we should be facilitating the establishment of these equivalency agreements. Thanks to the amendments that we have passed, we are providing a good and rigorous framework. Unless there are other amendments, I agree with what is provided for in Bill C-30.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I think the key is, from our perspective, and from a drafter's perspective, that there's no difficulty--and I hate to say this at this stage--with a termination date as long as it has the ability to renew if it's not broken, as Mr. Godfrey said, and it has some ability for a termination date. Contractually, it has to have some option for that, and it would make sense that if it's not broken, let's not fix it. If it's not working, there are other mechanisms within Bill C-30 and CEPA to deal with that if it's not working. Certainly I don't think we'd have a problem with the termination date as long as there was the ability to renew it automatically, and indeed a notice period for parties to terminate, which seems to be fair in any contractual agreement, which there is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

What's originally in Bill C-30.

Mr. Cullen has offered to withdraw--

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

I support the proposed original amendment for a couple of reasons.

First, in the light of what we've just done to tighten up the equivalency agreements, we've just said we're going to have the quantifiable effects of regulation on human health and the environment; so we've already said that we're going to be measuring that, that they're quite high standards. It seems to me you've also got the safety valve that with three months' notice, at any point, if it's not going well, you can end the agreement. If something is working well, why would you not have an open-ended agreement, given those constraints, the ones we've just put in plus the fact that you can get out if it's not working for you? It seems to me a kind of artificial exercise to say every five years we've got to end this thing. Why fix it if it ain't broke would be my view.

I think we would support the original proposal under Bill C-30.

[John Moffet]

I may be entering too fully into the spirit of negotiation here, but I want to emphasize to members that provinces have told us that the more the act imposes rules from the outset, the more it appears that big brother is telling them what to do, and that's a deterrent to coming to the table.

An alternative could be to amend subsection 10(8) in Bill C-30 to require that an agreement specify a termination date. Then you wouldn't have a five-year, which might be inappropriate in some cases, but you would have the assurance of some kind of termination date.

[John Moffet]

No, and that's because of the way Bill C-30 is written. I apologize to members who are trying to follow numerous subclauses, but you have to go back to the beginning of clause 5 in Bill C-30, which replaces all of subsections “10(1) to (9)”. That's the first thing you've done: you've gotten rid of them. Then you're replacing them.

[John Moffet]

In Bill C-30, it's open-ended, a date in the agreement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

There could be an indefinite agreement, and the parties shall revisit, etc.

So right now, in the construct we have, under both CEPA and Bill C-30, leaving aside Mr. Cullen's amendment for a second, it is possible, conceivably, to have an indefinite agreement?

[John Moffet]

No, sorry; obviously I've misspoken.

The way Bill C-30 is written now, proposed subsection 10(8) says:

An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates at the time that is specified in the agreement or by either party giving the other at least three months’ notice.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So as Bill C-30 is presently drafted, Mr. Moffet, there would be no reference to time limitation on an equivalency agreement signed with the province?

[John Moffet]

Sure.

Two comments. First, I think I explained two of the reasons why the provinces, we understand, have been reluctant to enter into negotiations for equivalency agreements--namely, the lack of significant overlap and concern about the test. Another issue that has arisen is the mandatory five-year timeline in the act. As Mr. Cullen has indicated, some agreements....

The appropriate length of time for an agreement, I think we've concluded, would vary. In some cases, one might want them to be open-ended. In other cases, one might want them to be tied to existing federal-provincial arrangements, such as the Canada-wide standards regime established in 2000.

With a mandatory five-year limit in the statute, there's no way of matching some other regime that has a different time limit. There's also an obligation to renew agreements. One always runs the risk that an agreement might not be renewed, for whatever reason, at the appropriate time. Then there might be legal...I can't think of the right term; there might be an actual absence of regulations if the agreement isn't renewed at the appropriate time.

So the intention in Bill C-30 was absolutely to have a clear timeframe for an agreement, but to recognize also that the timeframe may differ from agreement to agreement, and that therefore the statute shouldn't stipulate the timeframe. That's the rationale for Bill C-30 the way it is now, for removing the five years.

I would also point out, respectfully, a technical problem with the amendment that's put forward. It would remove proposed subsection 10(8) in Bill C-30, but it actually would not reintroduce the mandatory five-year termination. So now, with this amendment, you would have a statute that says absolutely nothing about the termination of agreements.

In the bill as written, if you go back to the beginning of clause 5, you're replacing subsections 10(1) to (9) of the act, including subsection 10(8), which is the five-year termination. So then you wouldn't have anything; the result would be nothing about termination of agreements.

So if you want this, you need to change your amendment.

I've provided you with the rationale for the Bill C-30 provision. I'd be happy to answer any other questions on it.

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

Certainly, not at all.

Right now, under CEPA, the section under termination—this is about timelines—it says right now, “ An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates five years after the date on which it comes into force or may be terminated earlier by either party...”. And this is giving the notice that we've already been through in discussion.

The new part of Bill C-30, which we wish to delete, gives it this open-ended timeline, that it could be never terminated, and we think the way CEPA is originally crafted is stronger because it puts this timeline.

Of course, parties can agree to extend if it's working to mutual benefit, but it just doesn't make sense to us to have an indefinite period of time for termination. CEPA is much stronger the way it was.

[John Moffet]

I'm happy to respond to both of those questions.

First of all, I do not want you to walk away thinking there is no basis for measuring equivalency under the current agreement. The point is that there is. The current agreement covers four regulations: pulp and paper effluent regulations, pulp and paper defoamer and wood chip regulations, secondary lead smelter regulations, and vinyl chloride release.

There's an annual report prepared jointly by the federal government and Alberta looking at the performance under the Alberta regulations, and this is being addressed.

The point I was trying to make is that the law, the statute, does not require it. To date you've left it to the good judgment of the officials. This would require us to do the right thing. We have done so, but this would require us to do it if you adopt the amendment. That's the first point.

Your second question was about the basis for terminating the agreement. On the amendments in Bill C-30, not new amendments but the Bill C-30 provision, clause 5 that amends section 10 of CEPA includes subsection 10(8), which states that

An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates at the time that is specified in the agreement or by either party giving the other at least three months’ notice.

If the federal government decides that the province is no longer enforcing its rules or has changed its rules, the federal government could terminate the agreement. In addition, the federal government in an urgent situation could always issue an interim order under CEPA to address an urgent issue.

Finally, under amendment G-5, the agreement would have to establish the manner of determining whether or not the agreement is being met, and it could include the establishment of a dispute resolution mechanism. I again think amendment G-5 would address a number of the concerns committee members have raised this morning.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Amendment G-5 would read as follows—and this is adding a new subclause 10(3.1): that Bill C-30, in paragraph 5(1)(b), be amended by adding, after line 9 on page 4, the following:

(3.1) An agreement shall establish a manner of determining whether the terms and conditions of the agreement are being fully met.

I believe that's self-explanatory.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is good of Mr. Moffet that he give us a little bit of the history of equivalency, because that is at the very heart of the debate today. The reality is that the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as they are presently drafted, have not convinced the majority of provinces to sign equivalency agreements. Perhaps I am mistaken — you did not mention this —, but to date, Alberta is the only one to have signed an equivalency agreement with the federal government. What is fundamental in this, is that you must take into account systems that are sometimes, and even very often, different in the provinces. Without being a brake, this is a reality that prevents the enforcement of the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that provide for regulatory equivalency. These differences between systems make it difficult to establish equivalency agreements.

When we read the changes with regard to equivalency outlined in Bill C-30, at the outset we wondered if we were on the right track. This allows, precisely, for not enforcing rules that would be directly imposed and copied in a province. This will not necessarily deliver the results you might expect under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At the same time, we are aware of the fact that environmental groups want to see results and there was perhaps some fuzziness with regard to these simple effects related to equivalency. This is why we believe that even more benchmarks should be established. This was not our original position, but we wound up rallying to the idea that it is indeed necessary to better define this equivalency based upon the effects, taking into account the results, and that these results should also be quantifiable. In our view, tying the equivalency of effects to the fact that they must be quantifiable is a step in the right direction and gives us more flexibility. It is also a way of ensuring that equivalency will not apply without some guarantee of concrete results on the part of the provinces. I believe that this is the spirit of the amendment brought forward by the government and, it is to my mind a good compromise between the two schools of thought.

[John Moffet]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just start at the beginning and explain the initial rationale for the amendment to Bill C-30, in clause 5. It is indeed as all three members who have spoken have emphasized.

To make explicit the desire that the test for equivalency be an effects-based test, CEPA, since 1988, has had an equivalency agreement authority in it. Since 1988, the federal government has only entered into one equivalency agreement with provinces and territories. We believe the rationale for that is at least twofold.

One reason is that, quite frankly, there has not been a lot of overlap and duplication, and therefore not a lot of need for equivalency yet. However, once we enter into the realm of air regulation and greenhouse gas regulation, we are certain to be into a world of potential overlap and duplication. So we see that dynamic changing.

The second reason we have not had a lot of interest in equivalency agreements—and this is told to us by the provinces—is that they perceive, or at least some of them perceive, the test that is in CEPA now to be a form-based test. In other words, they read the test to mean that they need a regulation where we have a regulation. Of course, in the world of air pollution, most provinces don't regulate air pollution by means of regulation. They have statutory authority to issue permits, licences, certificates of approval, into which they impose conditions on air emissions. So if you don't have a regulation and the test says you need a regulation, then no matter how stringent your rules are, you can't qualify. It's our view that the existing test doesn't actually require provincial regulations. Nonetheless, that's the perception. So what we tried to do in Bill C-30 is clarify that we're looking for equivalent outcomes or equivalent effects. That's what Bill C-30 does.

I read the government's amendment, as Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Cullen are also reading it, as an attempt to clarify what we mean by “effects” and an attempt to clarify that we're looking for equal or better for the environment or human health. So I think we're all on the same page in terms of the objective.

Mr. McGuinty asked about some of the wording here. In the wording in Bill C-30, in proposed section 10, the test is that “the Ministers and the government agree” that there are provisions, “the effects of which are equivalent”. So whereas this says “the effects of which will demonstrably provide”, “demonstrably provide” is a legal term of art that establishes a much higher test than “the Ministers...agree”. As Mr. McGuinty has suggested, that would make any decision to enter into an equivalency agreement much more open to judicial review, and once being judicially reviewed, a judge would have more rights to dig into the rationale for the agreement. If the legal test is one of essentially ministerial discretion, the courts tend to pay a good deal of respect and give the minister a good deal of leeway.

Once you start establishing a test like “demonstrably provide”, and “quantifiable effects”, then you're inviting a court to dig into the rationale for the agreement. So yes, I think it's our view that this would open an agreement to more judicial review. It's clearly up to you to decide whether that's what you want or not.

You also asked, Mr. McGuinty, about the test of “quantifiable effects”. I think there's a little vagueness here, because it's not clear on what—the quantifiable effects of the regulation on what? Is it on the regulatee, or on the ultimate objective, the environment or health? So that is something that is vague at the moment.

Frankly, I'm not sure what the final clause means. On what we're getting at here, when we have policies on how we will look at equivalency, we want to know the likelihood that a rule will be complied with, not just that you have it on the books.

The example I've given many people is that some time ago--as anybody knows who has driven in the United States--the U.S. passed a law that the speed limit would be 55 miles an hour on all highways. Some of the northwestern states are major thoroughfares for truckers, and at least one of them said, “Fine, you're telling me I need to have 55 miles an hour on my highway. I'll do that, but the fine will be $10.” So they meet the test, they have the law, but they're not going to enforce it.

We would want to know that the province not only has a law on the books, but will enforce it. I'm not sure this test puts that criterion into law effectively. At any rate, in the department to date we've chosen to leave that as something we will look at as a matter of policy, rather than trying to codify it.

I believe that's the intention here--to get at that issue of likelihood of compliance. If it is, there may be a way to clarify that.

[John Moffet]

That's correct. It refers to a clause that no longer exists, so this clause of Bill C-30 is no longer needed.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are opposed to this clause because it would allow the minister to establish a national advisory committee to study greenhouse gases and CAC regulations. It's also not needed--and I think the officials can support this--because the minister can regulate greenhouse gases and CACs as toxics using the existing advisory committee provisions linked to subsection 93.(1).

Since the committee has already decided, I believe, to delete the government's proposal for parallel greenhouse gases and air pollutant systems in clause 18, with the passage of amendment L-21.1, this amendment is frankly no longer relevant and no longer needed. I think it would make Bill C-30 incoherent if it were to go through.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I would like to call this meeting to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to meeting 25 of the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. We're getting close to the end here, and I appreciate your good work up to this point. Let's keep the same spirit going with this one.

I will have to ask the media to take their leave, if they don't mind.

To kick off, I'll just remind members that we are now at the stood clauses. The committee agreed earlier to stand a number of clauses, many of them substantive. So I would suggest that in taking up the stood clauses we consider the substantive clauses first, and once they're decided, then return to clause 2, the preamble, and clause 3, the interpretation clause.

Is that agreed?

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

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, in terms of relevance, we think this is highly relevant. I don't know if it was a preamble to your question, but you raised the issue of what this bill deals with. Bill C-30 deals with energy production and consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

Government has available to it a number of tools that it uses to direct private investment. It uses public investment and policy to guide some of the things that occur within our borders.

One of the things that was brought forward in the mid to late 1990s under a former Liberal government, with a Conservative government in Alberta, was an incentive program, essentially, to spur on development of the Athabasca tar sands, which at the time had been deemed not commercially viable for a number of years. The incentive was to help direct investment into those tar sands, which, as Mr. Jean will attest, has met with extraordinary success. The pace of development has been encouraged by this.

The reason this is deeply relevant is that this is one of the policy signals that government has sent to industry, particularly the private sector in energy production. We have talked all the way through the Clean Air Act about various policy signals that get sent through this bill, whether they're a limitation to certain activities or an encouragement of other ones, on motor vehicles. We've talked about targets as a country, about large final emitters, the largest polluters in the country, as being essentially limited in the amount of greenhouse gas pollution they can produce.

What this government policy has done is encouraged the investment in a very energy-intensive form of energy production, also a very carbon-intensive form of production. The estimates vary, but it takes more than a barrel of oil in energy equivalents to produce a barrel out of the tar sands, and the greenhouse gases that are produced through that barrel of energy, once all is said and done, are extraordinarily high when compared, obviously, to some of the other forms available.

We think there's a certain amount of fairness in what we proposed, simply on the basis of the profitability of this sector right now. We were talking about this in question period today, I think with reference to some industries in Quebec. The Prime Minister talked about encouraging investment in a faltering industry in Quebec by allowing such an accelerated capital cost allowance to encourage a sector that is in some trouble. That certainly cannot be said of the upstream oil and gas sector in northern Alberta. Trouble is not what they're in, in terms of economic viability. They're doing quite well, as well as any company or any set of companies has ever done in Canadian private industry history. They're doing, by all accounts, extremely well, with $20 billion-plus profit this past year.

That's all well and good, and that's not the concern we have. The concern is over why we would continue to offer incentives to do more for an industry that's so clearly profitable in and of itself, with the price of a barrel of oil being, on any given day, between $55 and $70, and as high as $80, while the cost of production--Mr. Jean will probably have the exact figures--is in the low twenties. Why would a government policy continue to exist beyond the point where investment needed to be encouraged? There have been three extremely large major oil sands projects announced within the last 10 days. The enthusiasm for the sector is overheated, to say the least.

There's something about a market failure in this when we've had the community of Fort McMurray, through their town council--Wood Buffalo would be the appropriate jurisdiction for the town--ask for an actual moratorium on further projects. We've asked the provincial and federal governments to respond to this. Its infrastructure is hurting and all the rest.

But what this motion does--and the reason it's relevant--is it speaks directly to the national targets we just previously set. It speaks directly to where you want to put Canadian tax policy and incentives and why you would want to put them towards the most energy-intense and greenhouse gas emissions-intense form of production possible. We've heard from industry at the natural resources committee that they have an expectation that things will continue to rise, and that even on an intensity basis--which we don't agree with--things will get worse in the coming years and not better.

All these factors play in, and the relevance to the bill, we believe, is inherent and somewhat self-evident.

In terms of the additional charge to the taxpayer, this is not an additional charge; this is a removal of what essentially works out to be a subsidy. There's no taxpayer in the country who is going to feel the burden of this change. In fact--and we have encouraged this government, as we did the previous one--if they wish to give incentives to energy production, there are lots of willing players at the table who can produce high-quality energy, with many jobs available in sectors that are not clearly as profitable as the upstream oil and gas sector is in northern Alberta.

We absolutely think it's in order. We think it's relevant, and we're very curious to hear from other members of the committee as to their opinions on this. And of course if they're not in favour, we'd like them to justify the reason for this tax policy to be there, because why it needs to continue is simply beyond us and any sound economic analysis.

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

I do not mind repeating. The Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act has been in existence since 1982 but never came into force. Right?

According to our amendment, this act will come into force 30 days after Bill C-30 receives Royal assent. Is that clear?

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

Oh, I'm a real keener.

My understanding is that Bill C-30 modifies three acts, one of which never came into force, which is the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. So my understanding is that the act that is referred to is the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which never was in force. The other two are in force. They're fine. But this one has to come into force to be affected by the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30.

Does that make sense? Am I close?

[Guylaine Roy]

I'm just reading it. It says that after the bill is introduced, this act comes into force 30 days after the bill receives royal assent. So let's say Bill C-30 goes through the House, it through the Senate, and it receives royal assent; 30 days after royal assent the act would come into force.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I have a question then, through you, Chair, to Mr. Dewar. Would he be willing to remove this because of the lack of information? We don't want to stall the progress that is being made here at this committee. We've heard a suggestion that maybe it's more appropriate for a private member's bill to be the way to deal with this. We all agree energy efficiency is the way to go. More efficient light bulbs are the way to go. Many of us here are personally doing that, but I don't think this is the right mechanism right here in Bill C-30. Would he remove his amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I intend to deliver my ruling right now.

It is that part 2 of Bill C-30 deals with amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act. This amendment proposes a new section giving the minister the authority to establish a program for the purpose of assisting low-income Canadians to reduce energy consumption of housing projects.

The rule against infringing on the financial initiative of the Crown is one of those things we have discussed before. It's expressed as follows at page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

Although paragraph 21(e) of the Energy Efficiency Act provides for the minister:

for the purpose of promoting the efficient use of energy and the use of alternative energy sources...[to] undertake such...projects, programs and activities as in the Minister’s opinion advance that purpose

amendments seeking the authority to use approved funds for new purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Therefore, I find the amendment infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, and on that basis I must rule it inadmissible. While I understand the desire to get it on the record, we can't use this process to re-establish a dollar program within the context of Bill C-30. Amendment NDP-31 is inadmissible on that ground.

Is that clear?

I've ruled, Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Chair. The concern is well heard.

What this amendment is directed to is that in the previous year, the very specific retrofit program for low-income families was cancelled, the reasons for which ministers have come before this committee and others to make their arguments.

Appreciating the chair's caution in terms of the royal recommendation required, what we're encouraging the government to do is.... A lot of this came out of Bill C-48 money, the budget that was rewritten in the previous Parliament, which was then spent by the previous government and then this one. The government ended up cancelling that program.

This was a forum and a format for us to reintroduce the concept to the government and talk about the need and the urgency for it: that we have many families seeking to have these retrofits done but are unable to do it by their own means because by definition they're in a lower-income category; that the minister has the power to spend this money and money is available; that this retrofitting program is being disbursed by the minister, but the specific targeted one that addressed the needs of low-income families was removed, for decisions we won't debate here today.

In the discussion around Bill C-30, we know the government has the power to reintroduce this, has the power to spend this money and make this happen for Canadians whom we are all hearing from, who are seeking to be involved in not only just reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, but also reducing the cost of running their households.

While we'll take the obvious consideration of the chair in terms of the royal recommendation requirements, it should be noted and on the record that the minister has the power to do this, has the money available, and requires no other act of Parliament to do it. It's at their disposal right now. Having cancelled the program, this is an encouragement for them to reconsider that choice and bring it back.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to take a moment to present this amendment. Through this amendment we are trying to again help refine the whole question of energy efficiency standards for the country and for energy-using products, and at the same time not just refine but bolster the need for us to move more forthrightly and more aggressively on energy efficiency, given the competitive nature of the planet now as we move toward a more carbon-constrained future.

What we've done is we've added at the bottom of page 32, for those members who are following in Bill C-30 itself, subsection (4), to call on the government within one year after the day this subsection comes into force to make regulations establishing energy efficiency standards for all energy-using products. We've applied two conditional expressions to all of those energy-using products, those that have a significant or those that have an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada.

We believe this would help us--and particularly when we speak about energy-using products that might have an increasing impact on energy consumption in Canada--identify emerging sectors, emerging products even, that are particularly high-energy-consuming products in the Canadian marketplace. That might be the IT sector or laptops or PCs. We're not prejudging what those would be, but we would like to see regulations established on that front within one year.

A second thing we've added--again in order to increase environment accountability, this time energy efficiency accountability--is we asked that the standards that are set in subsection (3) be reviewed by the government at least once every three years to make sure that the levels of energy consumption that are provided for are at least equal to the levels set by the most stringent standards in all jurisdictions of North America.

It also reflects the fact that of course our connection with the North American marketplace is strong. Our manufacturing connection is strong, and in fact it helps Canada lead North America by racing to the top. So if a jurisdiction, say South Dakota, were looking at energy consumption standards that were slightly higher than what is the case in Canada now, we might look to those. It doesn't prejudge which jurisdiction in North America might pull the country forward. Again, it's predicated not on a notion but on the reality that the race is on, and those manufacturers of white goods, for example, those manufacturers of any energy-using product now understand the carbon-constrained future we are evolving into.

We believe this would help government standards catch up to what is already clearly going on in the marketplace, and hence this is what amendment L-29.1 is all about, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I would refer all members to the original draft of the Energy Efficiency Act. The version I have, 1992, chapter 36, was assented to on June 23, 1992.

The preamble of that act struck us as weak. Time has moved on. We've learned so much more, so we have written up some perhaps stronger language around energy efficiency and the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy. If we look at the wording in the preamble to the existing Energy Efficiency Act as drafted, it simply says, “An Act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources”.

We'd like to replace most of that wording with simply “Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring sustained improvement”--sustained improvement--“in the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy”. We think that's a stronger indication of the overall thrust of the act, moving forward and improving on a consistent basis. So through Bill C-30, Mr. Chair, we are not only injecting words like “national carbon budget” and “sectoral carbon budget” and “carbon deficits”, but now we're also putting at the front end of this act much more proactive language about going forward and having Canada commit to driving up energy efficiency. It speaks to important things like eco-efficiency and so on.

So the wording is there. It's evident. I would just ask members to compare what was, what is now, and what might be, if this amendment should pass.

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

We'll certainly take the government at its word as to what it was attempting to do.

It seems two options have been made available here. There's one option of creating this new section in the act and trying to control greenhouse gas emissions that way, or there's the option that exists and is available to the government right now, which uses the current toxic list and has greenhouse gases listed under that.

The problem with the first option of creating this new piece is that even witnesses who were opposed to greenhouse gases being on the toxic list, when asked and pressed on whether or not it opened up the question of potential litigation and muddying of the waters, said yes, it would.

Why open up the chance of action being taken when the option that exists right now for leaving the greenhouse gases where they are is an option that allows government to use the tools that are now being placed into Bill C-30 to greater effect? If the tool is available, functions, and has been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, it seems to me it's an excellent tool.

Through the amendments, we have now placed targets and options for governments to use different vehicles going forward. To muddy the waters, as clause 38 does, and create this new section...even witnesses who are opposed to the current situation said there is a potential to open up questions. We've heard from the justice who sat on the court and tested this the first time around, and he urged us not to do it. It seems to be pretty compelling evidence.

While I'll still take the government at its word as to the intention of what it was doing—and they'll vote how they will—I would suggest that the option available right now, as the act exists, allows government to use the tools we've now placed in Bill C-30 to greater effect and gives the government every regulatory power they need. It's also been tested.

To open up a new section, as witnesses told us, even those who might be in favour of opening a new section, opens up the possibility of further litigation.

If we take Mr. Moffet's opinion, although he can't give details, the spectre was raised. There's an option and a potential course there for those companies that are most regressive. Why open up the option for the lowest common denominator industries that might not be interested in cleaning up their act?

I've heard the opinions, but my position on this hasn't shifted.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

We are on clause 38.

Like some of Mr. Cullen's comments, clauses 38 to 41 are major government amendments to take greenhouse gases and air pollutants out of CEPA. Due to the changes we've already made to clause 18 through Liberal amendment L-21.1, we think it no longer makes sense to remove GHGs and air pollutants from the schedule 1 toxics list.

We've been concerned from the beginning that clauses 38 to 40 remove criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases from schedule 1 of CEPA--to repeat myself--and place these substances into two new categories, air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Effectively, Mr. Chair, these clauses create a parallel set of authorities, with tools that are currently in CEPA with respect to toxic substances.

We think this double listing will create some ambiguity. There has been litigation—we've just had a small discussion about Hydro-Québec, for example—to raise the profile of this ambiguity. We need to keep this quite unambiguous.

We think the government's original Bill C-30 provisions would simply have reproduced regulatory authorities that the federal government already has in relation to these substances. We've said that since the beginning of the Bill C-30 process. These have been found to meet the definition of “toxic substances” under section 64 of CEPA, and those substances are already listed on CEPA's schedule 1.

So as Mr. Jean just asked, we believe that if they had gone through, they would have raised a serious question about what the constitutional basis for the exercise of federal regulatory authority in relation to these substances actually is. For those reasons alone, and because of the fact that we believe we really need to make this whole question unambiguous, as opposed to ambiguous, we are opposed to clause 38.

[John Moffet]

The intention of this amendment, of course, is part and parcel of the government's overall approach. That was to create a separate clean air part, in order to allow for the scientific identification, assessment, monitoring, and regulation, ultimately and if necessary, of air pollutants and greenhouse gases. In so doing, the government has created two separate categories of substances—namely, air pollutants and greenhouses gases—whereas in the current CEPA we have one category of substances called “toxic” substances.

Mr. Cullen is correct, in the sense that the processes for identifying, assessing, labelling, and regulating toxic substances under part 5 of CEPA were upheld in the Supreme Court of Canada in the Hydro-Québec case.

Before it was amended, the clean air part in Bill C-30 was constructed so as to mirror those same processes as closely as possible—the sequence of steps in part 5 that the Supreme Court relied so strongly on in upholding part 5. In other words, it was our view that the same finding would apply to part 5.1 as has already applied to part 5.

More generally—and I'm here not providing a legal opinion, I'm here as a representative of the Department of the Environment—if there is any environmental issue that is within the federal government's jurisdiction as one that is of national or international concern and it is not constrained to a local issue, surely it is air pollution and greenhouse gases, which, by definition, cross political jurisdictions.

The final point I would make is that any bill brought forward by the government is thoroughly reviewed by the Department of Justice. We're not privy to release the opinions of Justice, but I can assure you that this question was carefully considered.

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

One more time, Mr. Chair. It is a consequential amendment because it refers to sections. It would have been created in the government's original version of clause 18 in Bill C-30, so the references don't make sense. This amendment and the next one—and we'll get to that—change those references to point to equivalent pieces in the amended clause 18 that resulted from L-21.1. What we're doing with L-26 is consequential.

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

I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me the only reason this amendment was there was to include sections that would have been created in the government's original version of clause 18 in Bill C-30. The government's version didn't pass, because of our amendment L-21.1, so the references no longer make sense, as they refer to the government's version of the story; therefore, because of the changes to clause 18, we would vote against this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the work that has gone into the presentation we have just received from Mr. McGuinty.

Speaking to the Liberal amendment L-21.1 and also to subsequent friendly amendments and amendments, I am concerned about the road we're heading down. I'm going to use an analogy of playing the game of sudoku. The point I want to make is that the key to proceeding is starting off down the right path and putting in the correct numbers. I'm concerned about the pathway we are heading down with the recommendation of amendment L-21.1.

Mr. McGuinty started off sharing.... Under his targets, he actually shared the Kyoto targets. He said it's “our Kyoto commitment and our Kyoto target”. I believe that's what he said, and we all know what happened with that target and commitment. Unfortunately, it was 35% above that; it was off—way off.

What I would like to do is back up, take a look at what the government is proposing in Bill C-30, and make sure we are heading down a road that will achieve what hopefully all of us want. I know it's what Canadians want. It's a cleaner environment. It's reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It's lower air pollution levels so that we have clean air, clean water, and clean land, not by voluntary measures but by mandatory regulations through all sectors. We've heard, Chair, through witnesses, that approximately 50% of the pollutants come from the manufacturing industry, the large final emitters. The other 50% of greenhouse gas emissions come from us as consumers, and we need to know and to make sure that we are focusing on all sectors and achieving what Canadians want us to achieve.

I'd like, then, to share what is in the Clean Air Act. Again, we're starting with proposed section 103.01. What is in Bill C-30 is this:

103.01 The purpose of this Part is to promote the reduction of air pollution and to promote air quality in order to protect the environment and the health of all Canadians, especially that of the more vulnerable members of society.

This is called part 5.1 of the Clean Air Act. That was the purpose that I just read, proposed section 103.01. What is being proposed in Bill C-30 is focusing on both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

What's being proposed in amendment L-21.1 is just on greenhouse gas emissions; it's not focusing on the quality of the air that Canadians breathe, so it's only dealing with half of the problem. I believe that example shows us clearly that what's being proposed in the Liberal amendment L-21.1 is not taking Canada where Canada needs to go in cleaning up the environment.

As we move on to proposed section 103.02, which is the general description of Canada's Clean Air Act, proposed subsection 103.02(1) says:

Either Minister or both Ministers, as the case may be, may issue guidelines for the purposes of the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Part for which they have responsibility.

It says “either” minister.

Proposed subsection 103.02(2), which is the consultation part, reads:

In exercising the powers under subsection (1), either Minister or both Ministers shall offer to consult with the government of a province and the members of the Committee who are representatives of aboriginal governments and may consult with a government department or agency, aboriginal people, representatives of industry and labour and municipal authorities or with persons interested in assessing and controlling air pollutants or greenhouse gases.

There it is again dealing with both issues—the air pollutants, air quality and greenhouse gases—which, in effect, create climate change.

Proposed subsection 103.02(3) reads:

Nothing in subsection (2) shall prevent either Minister or both Ministers from exercising the powers under subsection (1) at any time after the 60th day following the day an offer is made under subsection (2).

Proposed subsection 103.02(4) reads:

Guidelines issued under this section shall be made available to the public, and the Minister who issued the guidelines shall give notice of them in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that that Minister considers appropriate.

Those are the guidelines for consulting the public.

Already, Mr. Chair, I feel it's a far superior form than what's being proposed by the Liberals in their amendment L-21.1.

Proposed section 103.03, “Information Gathering”, regarding research, investigation, and evaluation, reads:

For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or greenhouse gas,

—there it is again, Chair—

either Minister may

(a) collect or generate data and conduct investigations respecting any matter in relation to the substance;

(b) correlate and evaluate any data collected or generated under paragraph (a) and publish results of any investigations carried out under that paragraph; and

(c) provide information and make recommendations respecting any matter in relation to the substance, including measures to control the presence of the substance in the air.

Now, we go into proposed section 103.04, dealing with the notice to the minister, and it reads:

Where a person

(a) imports, manufactures, transports, processes or distributes a substance for commercial purposes, or

(b) uses or releases a substance in a commercial manufacturing or processing activity,

and obtains information that reasonably supports the conclusion that the substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, the person shall without delay provide the information to the Minister unless the person has actual knowledge that either Minister already has the information.

So there's an obligation to provide notice to the government, to the minister. I believe, again, that is far superior than what's being proposed by the Liberal amendment L-21.1.

As we proceed on to proposed section 103.05, this is dealing with notice requiring information, samples, and testing. It reads:

(1) For the purpose of assessing whether a substance contributes to air pollution or is capable of contributing to air pollution, or for the purpose of assessing whether to control, or the manner in which to control, a substance, including an air pollutant or a greenhouse gas,

—there it is again, Chair—

either Minister may

(a) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the substance to notify that Minister that the person is or was during that period engaged in that activity;

(b) publish in the Canada Gazette and in any other manner that the Minister publishing the notice considers appropriate a notice requiring any person who is described in the notice to provide that Minister with any information and samples referred to in subsection (2) that may be in the person’s possession or to which the person may reasonably be expected to have access; and

(c) subject to subsection 103.06, send a written notice to any person who is described in the notice, and who is or was within the period specified in the notice engaged in any activity involving the importation or manufacturing of the substance or any product that contains or may release the substance into the air requiring the person to conduct any test that the Minister sending the notice may specify to the notice and submit the results of the tests to that Minister.

Mr. Chair, I could go on, but I believe very clearly that this is the direction, the road, that Canadians want us to go to. They want us to deal with both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on all sectors, Mr. Chair. I think this is the way we need to go and back the train up, so to speak. Amendment L-21.1 does not take us anywhere near that direction.

Thank you.

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

Look at that opportunity.

First of all, before we get in, I think we'll talk about the air quality thing last. There are a few amendments, small but important, that we're looking to change.

First of all, on the notion that has been put forward and that Mr. McGuinty spoke to earlier, the NDP members are supporting this because we feel quite honoured for having had it lifted from many of our plans that have been iterated over the last three or four years. As far back as February 2005, we put a plan forward that talked about many of the elements here in this L-21.1 package. We're encouraged to see many of those elements here today.

There are, as I said, a few important things that we want to change. The notion of having national standards and national goals shouldn't put too much fear into the government, as this is something they have claimed they wanted to do from the onset when dealing with this issue—perhaps not the onset, but soon after realizing that there's a need for this to happen. I'm not sure, perhaps that happened between ministers, or perhaps at some point the government had an awakening and a realization that this is important.

Mr. Jean has raised some concerns that he might want to modify some elements in a friendly amendment fashion, but I'm not sure that's the route we're taking today. I would suggest that the opportunity for courage exists here.

The amendment...let me start with a friendly one first, Mr. Chair. It might not be viewed as all that friendly, but we'll see how she goes.

In subparagraph 103.02(1)(b)(i)—I never thought I would actually speak in these terms, but a couple of years in this place will do that to you--the specific matter is the target being set for 2020. In this section as it sits rights now, the Liberals have shown us a target of 20% by 2020. We heard from a number of witnesses that...the problems we've seen with the Conservative plans or suggestions to this point of 45% to 60% reductions by 2050, or those notions contained in Bill C-30, are that they assume a business as usual case for too long, and then some imagined precipitous drop off a cliff in terms of greenhouse gas reduction. That's just not the way this has worked in any country to this point. There is a gradual decline or decrease. We want to put the country on the trajectory that we want to get to, which we believe is in the 80% category by 2050.

As a friendly amendment, let me start with this one first. We'll keep these separate. I have one that will follow.

Under that section it's very simple to change the 20% to 25% for 2020. We have elements of this Liberal motion contained both before and afterwards. This is a compilation. It seems it's easier for the committee to grasp in the compiled form, so that's fine, but this element and a couple of other important ones are critical for us.

[Phil Blagden, Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Department of Health]

I can speak to the policy intent of it. It refers to products that may release. Whereas CEPA has been focused on substances, there is an intention throughout Bill C-30 to allow it to also address products that release substances without necessarily containing them. We are aware of a couple of instances in which that could come into play.

That's the overall intention. I can't speak to the legal aspects of it, but it was to make it possible for the regulation of products that may release, as opposed to products that simply contain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. Welcome to meeting 22 of the special Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

We made some good progress this morning. We moved through the agenda, and we'll continue to do that this afternoon.

We're going to start at clause 15, but we should probably address the length of sitting tonight before we go on. There had been some suggestion to carry on later. We've heard from some members who have other commitments. We're missing the NDP. I've had indication from some members that they have other personal priorities. We will have sat for six hours.

Go ahead, Mr. Godfrey.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to speak to this amendment and to move it formally and take a few minutes to explain how this would connect to the previous amendment, which we've just passed, that spoke to the negotiations for the creation of a green investment bank, green investment accounts, and a green investment fund, as amended by the NDP.

This amendment does several things. It amends Bill C-30 by providing that the Governor in Council can create, for example, a greenhouse gas emissions trading system that will require issuing and trading transferable carbon permits here in Canada by large industrial emitters, the same group referred to earlier by my colleague, Mr. Godfrey—roughly 700 large industrial emitters that are responsible for approximately 54% of all of Canada's greenhouse gases.

It also provides, Mr. Chair, for the creation of a domestic offset system, which of course talks about making sure that any transferable carbon credits that are traded are incremental and verifiable annual GHG reductions. They're linked, of course, to the notion of an individual carbon deficit of any single large industrial emitter.

We're also calling for a clear description of what person or classes of persons can actually own a carbon permit or a carbon credit—in other words, who can trade. We would be calling for the Governor in Council to set up the rules and the procedures for trading carbon permits or carbon credits.

Here, in proposed paragraph 94.1(2)(c), we would be doing something very important. We would be making sure that the greenhouse gas emissions trading system and the domestic offset system that we would like to see created in this country would be linked with international greenhouse gas emissions trading systems that establish incremental and verifiable greenhouse gas emissions reductions. These, of course, would have to be compliant with the Kyoto Protocol, as that, of course, would be amended from time to time. It speaks more directly to the two mechanisms inherent in the Kyoto Protocol, the first being joint implementation and the second being the clean development mechanism.

Here I think it's important to pause and remind ourselves of the overtures and the testimony given by the president of the Montreal Exchange and the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange, and in particular the 10-page memo that was sent to the government last December by the president of the Toronto Stock Exchange pleading with the government to not penalize Canadian companies by shutting them out of international carbon markets, thereby driving up the price of carbon for our Canadian large industrial final emitters and of course rendering the Canadian market an illiquid and small market with very high greenhouse gas carbon costs.

This amendment also goes further by prescribing the price for carbon in 2013 at an amount equal to or greater than $30 and of course giving flexibility to the government to take into consideration foreign and international greenhouse gas emissions trading systems. This will be important for us, Mr. Chair, as the European Union carbon markets take hold more formally on January 1, 2008, as the emerging carbon markets out of the United States hook up eventually to international markets, and so on.

This amendment also goes further to address some of the concerns raised on numerous occasions, particularly by government members, the Minister of the Environment, and the Prime Minister in his speech in Montreal just this week, because this amendment, under proposed paragraph 94.1(3)(a) prohibits the use of prescribed hot air credits to reduce the individual carbon deficit of large industrial emitters. So it ought to I think fully address the concern of the government. I cannot see how they could not support this, given that their opposition to international carbon markets has been chiefly, if not solely, predicated on the notion of what they describe as hot air purchases.

It also goes further by ensuring that at least until 2010, not more than 25% of the individual carbon deficit of a large industrial emitter is offset by using credits from foreign and international greenhouse gas emissions trading systems. This is again something we heard from some witnesses, but chiefly to ensure that the lion's share, by far, of investment made to reduce greenhouse gases stays right here at home. In fact, it really does provide the basis for a real made-in-Canada plan to deal with greenhouse gases.

And finally, and very importantly, in proposed subsection 94.1(4), it empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations to limit the quantity of carbon credits it issues, to ensure that the price of carbon is not less than $30 a tonne. This will be important as Canada does eventually continue to trade in the emerging and booming international carbon markets. It will be important for us to give the government flexibility to achieve an appropriate price by using allocation of the number of credits or the total number of credits in circulation in Canada, for example, to ensure that carbon price is never less than $30 a tonne on a CO₂ equivalent basis.

So we can see that this is obviously very much connected to the previous amendment that we have just passed, or discussed and debated, and spoken to chiefly by my colleague, Mr. Godfrey. We believe it is the second piece of a new approach to immediately start on January 1, 2008, to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and we rule out the chief concerns of the government as manifested at this committee now over the last several months.

Those are my remarks.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I counted, I think my colleague raised four points.

First, with regard to Premier Williams and Newfoundland and Labrador, I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be speaking in a moment in more detail and more broadly on that, but we did keep our campaign commitments. I think Danny Williams will be very delighted to hear the speech from my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from St. John's, addressing that issue and how good this budget will in fact be for Newfoundland and Labrador.

On the issue of the environment, with respect to my good friend, the member for Vaughan, we will not be taking lectures from Liberals on how to get results on the environment. We have put forward the clean air act, Bill C-30, which is now before its own independent parliamentary committee. We are approaching this with open minds and open hearts on how to achieve the best possible results for our environment.

However, while we recognize that climate change is the most important issue on the environment front right now that Canadians and the global community want us to address, it is not the only front on which we need to take action on the environment, which is why I mentioned the important steps that our government took in protecting our coastal waters from the dumping of raw sewage, pollution, garbage, paint, effluent and bilge water from ships. We are banning all that to ensure that our coastal waters will be clean.

We are taking a multifaceted approach to the environment, dealing with protecting our waters, protecting our land, protecting our soil, protecting our air and also dealing with the issue of climate change internationally.

With regard to tax cuts, my colleague dealt with the issue two ways. I do not think my colleague will ever accuse Andrew Coyne and John Williamson of being good Liberals with regard to the budget, so I am surprised that he is quoting Andrew Coyne and John Williamson who are both good friends of mine, but, frankly, we have a disagreement with John Williamson and Andrew Coyne, I take it, on this budget. However, for every $3 in surplus, we put $2 toward tax relief.

The vast majority of our tax relief will go toward families, especially in suburban communities like my own, because we think the people who are facing the biggest financial crunch in our society are new and young families. I think about my sister and my brother-in-law Dave, my little niece Abby, my other sister and her husband Tony, and my other niece--

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

Mr. Warawa, you may have been conferring and not heard my point. We're willing to stand this and delineate specifically that it deals with the chemicals talked about in Bill C-30 to ensure relevance. We're completely comfortable with that. So I put the suggestion back to committee members. Let's stand this one down, have those conversations, make sure it's relevant, and then proceed, because there is an element in here that the principle, we think, is still correct. If we want to make if more specific, then fine, let's talk about it, but let's move on.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the intent of the amendment, but I'm wondering how relevant it is to the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30.

We have the CEPA review. I would think it would be more appropriate to deal with this through the CEPA review. Unfortunately, we were supposed to be at the environment committee, which was supposed to be meeting right now doing the CEPA, but by decision of Mr. Cullen we are continuing here.

The question is whether it is appropriate to have this. We dealt previously with the Liberal motion trying to deal with the commissioner; now we're dealing with a CEPA review issue. To move forward, we need to make sure each topic is relevant, and I question whether this amendment is relevant to our discussions.

Could I have a ruling from you, Mr. Chair, on that?

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

I think we might be wasting time talking about the wrong thing.

I have two things.

In terms of the specifics and getting to the pollution talked about in Bill C-30, we're willing to make that very clear and articulate that specifically in this amendment.

Second, we're not talking about eliminating these substances. The assessment that Mr. Moffet has made is correct. They have gone through a toxicology assessment, but they've never gone through a substitution assessment. It is important for committee members to realize that when we're looking at the ability to substitute something, there are a bunch of measures taken in. The predetermined conclusion is not that we're going to eliminate it; we're seeking to substitute it. We're chasing the wrong rabbit on this one.

If proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(c) is too broad and too extensive in terms of the Government of Canada's challenge to industry, then we're willing to remove it, but the concept of substitution to be built into this act when we're talking about air contaminants is actually quite important. It allows the government to do an assessment to ask if another substitution is available for this chemical. If there is, then the encouragement is to send industry down that path. If there is no substitution in existence—if it just doesn't exist—or if the substitution is deemed to be far too outside of the economic reach of the company, then it's also deemed not to be an option. But for heaven's sake, why, if we're talking about improving air quality for Canadians, wouldn't we seek a substitution analysis of the very chemicals we're talking about, rather than just saying there's a limit on the chemical you're producing? We know it's dangerous; we know it's harmful; that's the cap on what you can do. Why not ask the more fundamental question of whether there is anything else you can be using? Then you don't have to worry about a cap one way or the other.

Because I think there's some conversation going on, I'm going to suggest to the committee that we hold on this particular amendment and see if committee members want proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(c) out, and we're willing to do that. If they want a clear delineation of the scope of the chemicals we're talking about that relate directly to the Bill C-30 listing, that's fine, but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

The concept of substitution is being used in REACH in Europe. It's being applied in many U.S. states. It puts us in line with many of our industrial competitors, and it's something we should consider.

Please do not confuse the concepts of substitution and elimination. This is not a game in which we go about trying to eliminate a whole series of chemicals willy-nilly; we're seeking out better alternatives to be used in the Canadian industrial process. That just seems intelligent to me.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

This, Mr. Chair, seems to smack of irrelevance in relation to Bill C-30, and I'm wondering—

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

We've been predominantly spending our time on the issues of climate change and target setting, but there are other issues within Bill C-30—air quality, air contaminants, air pollution of different varieties—that have real health effects.

What we've seen is one of the most effective ways for government—and it's not often applied. That's part of the problem. Rather than waiting for Canadians to get sick because of a certain chemical that's being released, they seek substitutions. So a company has the onus when something is listed as toxic to seek out a substitution without even permitting it in its industrial process, thereby not having the negative health affects.

While a lot of our conversation has been on the effects of climate change and the targets, this talks about air pollution in the more traditional sense—that which is causing respiratory illnesses or any other illnesses that can be felt within the Canadian population, usually as a result of industrial processes.

The relevance is that the government has suggested some things to clean up the air. Well, this would go to the heart of it and prevent the pollution from even being released in the first place, because it's not used in the industrial process. The companies are given the onus. Rather than trying to catch up years later with various toxicology studies on Canadians and their health, this just seems like a more intelligent way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I have to say, Mr. Cullen, I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree with the intent, but I have some concerns about the relevance of the substitution aspect to what's actually in Bill C-30.

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

Yes, Chair.

This amendment came directly from some witness testimony we had in terms of the principle of substitution that exists in other acts and bills within Parliament.

I'm very curious to hear what committee members think about bringing in that same principle of substitution.

This is something we often, very conversantly, use with toxics and the need for industry to look for substitutions, where those may be deemed suitable. There's a balance that says there should not be an inordinate economic burden placed upon the company in seeking that substitution. It's connected to some of the other things, and as I said, it's more familiar there.

We think there's some application to bringing that same principle in line with the concepts around climate change in this government's bill, and probably more specifically to the air quality aspects of Bill C-30.

If there's a contaminant being released in Canada's atmosphere and it is affecting Canadians in a harmful way—which I know the government has claimed great concern over—then if there's a substitution available to that company, the company seeks to substitute it. It's one of those things where you catch the pollution before it even starts. It's much more cost-effective, rather then trying to catch it once it has been released out of the stack.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you for that.

Part 1 of Bill C-30 does deal with amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The amendment proposes a new section that gives the Governor in Council the authority to establish a greenhouse gas reduction transition fund to provide assistance in the form of grants to affected workers and communities.

The bill was referred to committee before second reading, which means there is more latitude in the amending process. The requirement that amendments must fall within the scope of the bill does not apply to bills referred before second reading. However, other rules of admissibility do apply. The rule against infringing on the financial initiative of the Crown is one of those.

You've heard this before. It's expressed on page 655 of Marleau and Montpetit:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

The one referred to, referred to elements of a plan. In my view, this one refers to direct spending by the government. To me it's clear that by proposing to establish a new fund for the provision of grants, the amendment is increasing the charge on the Public Treasury and it would require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I find that the amendment infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown. On that basis I will rule it inadmissible.

Shall we move on?

We'll move on to amendment NDP-15.3.

Mr. Cullen, are you prepared to move NDP-15.3?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

We do agree with the science that says greenhouse gas emissions have increased dramatically, and that short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets are necessary. The short-term targets will be released by the government within weeks.

At this committee and in testimony received at other committees as part of the Bill C-30 legislative review, we did hear that there were approximately 13 years of inaction from the previous Liberal government, which left us approximately 35% above the target. We did hear from the testimony, based on science, that these targets would have been good in 1998. It would have been good and possible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions down to those targets if action had been taken. We did hear testimony, based on science, that it would be extremely difficult to meet those targets without destroying the economy.

Chair, I believe what is being suggested here in amendment NDP-15.1 is not based on science but on politics. I do agree that targets need to be set, in the short, medium, and long term. We need to work with our international partners to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We need to set targets and achieve those targets. The targets have to be set on a realistic balance between a healthy environment and a healthy economy. But as I said earlier, I believe the targets that are before us are set politically and are not based on science. That's the testimony we heard. Unfortunately, there is rhetoric in this motion, NDP-15.1, and it's not based on science.

We want to have a clear action, an action that is based on achievable targets and that does reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's easy for the opposition to set political targets. They're not in government. We don't have an analysis of what the costs and the impacts of these targets would be.

Within the amendments from the Liberals, they acknowledge that they would be putting people out of work and shutting down industry, and they've built in a transition fund. We want a healthy environment, we want a healthy economy, we want that balance, and we want targets set based on science, not politics.

Thank you.

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

Take it away, indeed, Chair. This is where we're getting to the heart of the matter in terms of the ability.

One of the first things that came forward out of Bill C-30 and what we noticed most immediately was this lack of firm targets, greenhouse gas targets, for the country that set us forward in the coming years. The challenges that Canada as a nation has faced when meeting our international obligations are the accountability, to be blunt, and the ability to set out a target, hold that target firm, and do the necessary things to meet the target that we believe is achievable.

There's been constant debate around the targets that were set in the Kyoto process and there's been constant debate as to whether the targets were appropriate or not or whether Canada should be in or out. What that has actually led to is a certain amount of seizure of actually getting the thing done. As a result, we don't know what this year's reporting will be, but so far we rank absolutely at the bottom of the pile when it comes to industrialized nations and dealing with greenhouse gas emissions.

I can recall, not so fondly for committee, being at the Nairobi meetings at the last UN gathering and Canada consistently winning what was called the fossil award. This was the award given out every day to only one country at the United Nations meetings that was performing the worst in the negotiations, and the worst by record. I don't raise this issue in a partisan nature to say it was one government or another. It was the collective of the two, in fact, and what the world body was seeing in terms of the results of Canada's intentions, put in Canada's words, “our promises and commitments”, in comparison to what was actually getting done.

NDP-15.1 is based upon what the witnesses have told us is necessary, not just here at the Bill C-30 committee, but also at previous committees, including the environment committee that wrote an extensive report in the previous Parliament. One of the things that the business community, the science community, and the non-profit sector told us was that we needed a level of certainty in order for business to make the investments and to do the planning. They needed to know what the actual goal was. I'm sure all committee members have met with, particularly on the industrial side, various lobbyists and representatives from business who have said, “The uncertainty question precludes us from actually making the investments required.” It creates an unlevel playing field, where some businesses are going ahead and making investments that they believe they're committed to by their national government and others don't. That's not a climate in which business can thrive.

NDP-15.1 has a number of important sections to it. It clearly points out science-based targets, targets that we know we need to achieve in order to both fall in line with our international agreements and prevent dangerous climate change from happening. There's no more an appropriate expression than an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when it comes to climate change. We've seen various communities across the country starting to appreciate what the actual costs are of mitigation. I will be clear again with committee members. Mitigation is when you pay for the thing that's already happened, as opposed to prevention.

This is an amendment to Bill C-30 that we think will give the bill a lot more credibility, frankly, in terms of a broader appeal. Canadians will understand this and will appreciate that there are firm and committed targets built into the legislation.

The current government is very enthused about the notions of accountability and transparency. This has been one of their alleged hallmarks. Proposed subsection 64.1(3) in this does exactly that. It demands this government, or whatever government in future political manifestations, to report back to Canadians and to consistently report back on the planning and also report back on the performance.

I can remember some of my Conservative colleagues struggling with an ability to actually grasp what the government had or had not done when the Liberals were in power. It was extremely frustrating, because you simply couldn't have the debate if you didn't know what the government had achieved or not achieved. It created, if I can share this with you, an element of a fear of failure within the government because they didn't want to report on anything, and they certainly didn't want to report on anything that hadn't worked.

When trying to address things like climate change, there must be an element of risk taking with government programs. There must be an ability to try certain initiatives without 100% certainty that all of them are going to work 100%. Some will work very well; some will exceed expectations and others will not.

We think this amendment is absolutely critical to give Canadians the assurance that the government is willing to act as a willing partner in the types of initiatives that we see Canadians going out and doing on a daily basis, making the changes in their lifestyles in the way they consume energy or don't consume energy, in the types of choices they make in consumer products, in the types of demands they make of their own companies. We've seen this as a powerful pull upon government.

Canadians are far ahead of the politicians on this issue, Mr. Chair. We think this amendment pushes us in the right direction to establish national targets that are verifiable, that are accountable, that allow Canadians to judge whatever government of the day on our actions, on our ability to perform, and be that willing partner and an effective partner, and then rejoin the world community in this effort. As we've seen over the last number of years, Canada has slowly slid into this very narrow box represented by only a very few countries, and those are countries that are not doing their fair share.

If there's any country that has a vested interest in dealing with climate change, certainly it must be Canada. With the extensive north that we have, the extensive forest cover, and our deep reliance on natural resource extraction, it's incumbent upon us to make these types of changes and to have the courage of our convictions, Mr. Chair. Oftentimes we dance in the margins on this issue, without bringing forward the real changes we want to see. I think this is one of those changes that is absolutely imperative for us to address, and we need to be able to present with a certain amount of pride back to Canadians a piece of legislation that we know is the right thing. At the end of the day, we have to do the right thing. That's why we were all sent here.

So I move amendment NDP-15.1. I open it up to debate or questions. I think we should vote for it because it makes sense and it's what we've been told to do by the very best in the country.

[John Moffet]

The way Bill C-30 works now is it would give the federal government authority to regulate emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases across Canada. That would possibly be restricted in the event that the Bloc's motion, which was stood yesterday, is approved. In that case, federal regulations for greenhouse gases and air pollutants would not apply in a designated province.

Is your question about how this amendment would interact with your amendment? If your amendment is not passed, then there's no provincial–federal jurisdiction in the way you described it. The federal government would have the ability to regulate GHG and air pollutant emissions across Canada.

I think we would have to do a little more analysis to look at the precise implications of the Bloc amendment in terms of whether it would preclude the minister from designating as a significant area an area in a province that had been identified as not being subject to federal GHG regulations.

I apologize. I think I understand the question, but we'll have to do a little analysis. Can we undertake to do that and get back to you as quickly as we can?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mesdames et monsieurs, we have quorum. Welcome to meeting 21 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C- 30.

Would the members please take their places? We'll get started. We have a lot of work ahead, as we have been saying, so we probably need to pick up the pace just a little bit.

We'll start with a new clause, 8.1. I'll point out that there are three amendments that address it: amendment NDP-13, amendment L-19, and a new government one, which has just been distributed. All are very similar.

We'll start off with Mr. Cullen addressing amendment NDP-13, and we'll take it from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I pointed out that if the amendment passes, it passes. If it fails, then the wording is as in Bill C-30. So let that be your guide.

(Amendment negatived)

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

I'm going to direct this towards the government benches, and maybe the parliamentary secretary can clarify it.

I've heard—and this is going to mystify Canadians—that air pollution is a broad definition that includes things like air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

To the parliamentary secretary, were there any considerations taken by the government, when drafting Bill C-30, that this opened up the potential to not be able to apply CEPA to counteract any business or anybody emitting greenhouse gas emissions?

It's a good point. There should almost be a “do no harm” policy in the things we're doing with our clauses. When the government put Bill C-30 together, we believe there was some harm done to the effectiveness of CEPA. We'll get back to those. We have stayed a lot of those amendments. We're going to remove them.

Is it the government's position that this amendment by Mr. Bigras does harm to the effectiveness of the government to carry it out under these two very similar but very different definitions: one, air pollution being a broad category; and two, air pollutants being something under that in conjunction with greenhouse gases?

I take Mr. Moffet's position. If you add on “climate change or greenhouse gases”, it seems you'd almost have to amend the whole bill. That does more harm than the value of including this amendment. I'm still trying to understand what the value really is.

Did the government consider any of the legal implications of starting to change some of these definitions, which they did, in Bill C-30 ? If they did, what did they consider in terms of Mr. Bigras' amendment?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I really don't want to belabour the point, but I'm looking at the definition of air pollution under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Perhaps somebody on the government side could help us understand that, and maybe we could come to a more successful conclusion.

When you look at the definition of air pollution under CEPA as it's presently written, there's not a reference to climate change or greenhouse gases. In fact, the closest thing that comes to the definition of air pollution, in the definitional section, which would substantiate the official's concern, is that:

“air pollution” means a condition of the air, arising wholly or partly from the presence in the air of any substance, that directly or indirectly— (e) degrades or alters, or forms part of a process of degradation or alteration of, an ecosystem to an extent that is detrimental to its use by humans, animals or plants.

If climate change and greenhouse gases are inherent in your definition of air pollution, how come they're not here in the entire definition of air pollution under CEPA, and how come they're not amended in Bill C-30?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that explanation, but isn't that precisely what the government is trying to do here in this bill? Hasn't the government, in Bill C-30, been telling Canadians that we want to distinguish between air pollution and greenhouse gases?

I'm sorry, I'm getting mixed signals. You're saying that the officials are concerned about the bifurcation of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Yet I thought that what we've heard for months and months, in testimony from the government members, in communications, speeches, and the media, is that Bill C-30 is reframing for Canadians the entire question of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Do I have that wrong? The message incoming from the parliamentary secretary, the minister, and the Prime Minister is that we need something new that in fact bifurcates and splits the two, because the government has been saying that there's an air quality component and a greenhouse gas component.

Do I have something wrong here? Are the officials concerned about that entire split?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I have a question, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Moffet. Can you help us understand why, in the first instance, Bill C-30 has replacement wording for paragraph 46(1)(g) of CEPA? What was the import of doing so?

If you follow me, paragraph 46(1)(g) of the existing CEPA talks about “substances or fuels that may contribute significantly to air pollution”. Bill C-30 then strips away “substances”, talks about “fuels”, but then adds again “substances” and then adds the word “activities”. What is this trying to catch? Do you know?

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

Regarding Mr. Jean's proposal to go back and affect some of the parts of Bill C-30 that deal with definitions, if you'll notice, in the ones from the NDP that we stood before, we made a number of amendments to restore a number of the pollution definitions in CEPA that Bill C-30 actually jeopardized.

We heard from a number of witnesses that when Bill C-30 started to tamper with those definitions, it very much limited the scope of government action. That was not something we were interested in.

So while I would imagine he's trying to make a friendly suggestion here, going back into the definitions portion is a whole new conversation.

My only comment, to follow up with Mr. Bigras, is that I think the intention of his amendment is good. I just want to make sure that what I'm hearing from Mr. Moffet is that this doesn't, in any way that was not intended, start to muddy the waters a bit on what government is meant to do research on.

I don't suspect that was Mr. Bigras' intention. I want to hear from Mr. Moffet if that's what I'm to understand his comment on the amendment was. Was he saying that if you make this type of push through Bill C-30 and amend it in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, it then somehow restricts or limits government's work and research on other things by defining it suddenly?

[John Moffet]

I'm not sure I completely follow your question. I may have misspoken. But what I'm trying to suggest is that the amendment that Bill C-30 provides to expand the authority to cover pollution prevention would give us all the authority we need to also look at techniques and technologies for reducing or preventing the creation of greenhouse gases.

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

Thank you, Chair. I'm contemplating the decision you've just made for us this evening as well. It complicates things slightly. But we'll push on and see where we get.

There's problematic language in what Bill C-30 proposed in terms of equivalency. This NDP-11 amendment is trying to move out some of that language. This is highly contingent upon some of the other conversations going on with some of the Bloc and Liberal considerations, but we still think this has merit, because the whole equivalency regime, the way Bill C-30 is designed right now, has presented a number of problems that were brought forward by witnesses. What equivalency measures are brought forward by provincial governments, and how do they then affect the overall situation of the country? If equivalency is read the wrong way, as we believe it is in the language right now, under Bill C-30, it opens up opportunity for provinces to make some initial efforts, but actually falls far short of what our international obligations are holding us to and, in a sense, makes the concept of national targets even more difficult to achieve, because provinces will have various equivalencies that they've then orchestrated with the government that don't as a summation add up to what we actually want to achieve as a country.

So I move that amendment. I'm open to conversations. I think there's room for us to combine some of the better elements of these amendments and proceed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't know if other members of this committee have had legislative experience, but I was on a legislative committee one year ago, and there was a Liberal chair, and certainly there were members from all parties. How it was explained to us, as far as relevancy goes, not as far as royal recommendation goes, was that you have a ball of legislation and you can make amendments to that legislation, but as soon as you go outside of that ball and put something that's separate and apart as an entity, it has no relevancy to the legislation itself. In this particular case, I think that could be successfully argued, not only royal recommendation but the relevancy of it.

Quite frankly, many of the amendments are the same way. I think we need clarification as to what the chair is going to accept as far as amendments go and the relevancy of them, and whether or not they require royal recommendation, because if it's outside of that legislative ball, which is Bill C-30 and the legislation.... An amendment is an amendment, but a complete change or something outside of that ball is not relevant.

I would ask the chair to make a determination in relation to both of those issues.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

On this debate about royal recommendation, this is precisely why I raised it last Thursday, because I knew this was going to cause problems throughout all of these amendments put forward to amend Bill C-30. That's why I put two questions to the parliamentary secretary before I was heckled down, asking for clarification from the government. What constitutes royal recommendation expenditure and what does not? It's not clear to me. It's not clear to committee members right now. We're going to have a series.

As a former trial attorney, I would say that one could argue that this costs money. I could argue that there are probably three or four other amendments in this package of amendments that would cost money. That's why I put two pointed and specific questions to the parliamentary secretary last Thursday to try to solve this problem, Mr. Chair, before we went on this journey. That's why I raised it specifically at the front end of this process last Thursday.

I still don't have an answer. Now, clearly the government itself doesn't have an answer. So I think it would be important to nail this down before we go any further, because if this is going to be an issue that's raised in every second or subsequent or third amendment, we're going to have a problem as to what constitutes royal recommendation and what calls for expenditure and what does not.

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

Thanks, Chair.

One question is for you, Mr. Moffet, in terms of the interpretation of this, that it's to designate to an existing body, thereby avoiding any expenditures. I think the fundamental question that's been raised is in terms of why the commissioner amendment failed because it was deemed royal recommendation and this one might not. So that's to Mr. Moffet.

I have one comment to Mr. Jean about this being out of order because it's amending to CEPA. That is how Bill C-30 works. It's one long stretch of amendments primarily to CEPA. So on that as an objection, and maybe I missed his point, there's no problem with that. It's what we're doing all along the way.

So there are those two pieces.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm not speaking of the department at all on this; I'm in particular asking you what the standard is to have a royal recommendation passed—is it direct or indirect expenditure?—and the relevancy of the clause. This particular clause, for instance, is the best example, and the first one to come to us since the last one was ruled out of order. It is a clause that doesn't deal with Bill C-30; it deals with CEPA, so what's the relevancy of it?

I don't want to sit here and challenge everything that comes forward if it's a good idea, but at the same time, I want to make sure we're acting within the parameters that we have in the legislation and in Marleau and Montpetit. We have a book with rules and we have to follow those rules, and I think it would help all the committee members to know what those rules are and what particular ones you're going to rule out of order, and why.

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

I'm fine with our standing this, but we're going to come back to the debate. It just feels like we've got through this; we're looking at it right now. Obviously this is in order, but on the question of creating this independent body and as we go into the BQ-6 amendment and the questions around territoriality and jurisdiction, I'm curious if this wording in and of itself is enough to create this independent body—and if it is creating a new body, is it the act of Bill C-30 itself that does it, or is this going to have to refer back to some other act of Parliament in order to make the body exist? Can you simply move it this way?

I don't know if other committee members have any experience with this. This is some new territory for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you very much.

I have listened and I agree, I think, that the environment commissioner is probably a good idea. I agree, frankly, with Monsieur Bigras and Mr. Warawa that we're here to rewrite Bill C-30; we're not here to use the process with this committee to modify other processes. I agree that it will slow down considerably what we're doing here with respect to modifying Bill C-30, with respect to taking something back to the House on Friday to say, here's the bill.

As to what oversight there is in the bill, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is probably a good idea, and I think that will probably happen, but I don't think it's relevant to actually rewriting Bill C-30. For that reason, my ruling on this is that it would be out of order due to lack of relevance to Bill C-30 specifically.

I stand to be challenged or disagreed with, and as always, I never take it personally.

Shall we move on? Thank you for your understanding.

(On clause 2)

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments made around the table. I tend to lean in the direction of the comments made by Mr. Bigras. The Office of the Commissioner of the Environment is a very important office to keep the government accountable on environmental issues. At present the commissioner is under the Office of the Auditor General. We at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development dealt with a motion of how we should be dealing with that office—should that office of the commissioner be separate from the Auditor General? That is the direction that the committee is recommending.

For us to be dealing with that office in Bill C-30, I believe, will slow down Bill C-30. We need to move forward on Bill C-30. I don't believe it's the best place. I believe it should be dealt with separately from Bill C-30. I think it will be dealt with in an efficient and effective way. We're not opposed to considering a separate independent Office of the Commissioner of the Environment, but we are opposed to slowing down the processing in clause-by-clause of Bill C-30. I would hope that it would be considered not relevant and necessary to Bill C-30.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My comments about this amendment will be even briefer than my colleagues because I'm not sure that at the rate we're going, we'll manage to get through the entire amendment binder.

First of all, we have to remember the discussions that have taken place thus far about the position of Commissioner of the Environment. Obviously, we've had discussions, but not within the framework of our study of Bill C-30. I mention C-30, because I wouldn't want us to bring into the mix the debates that took place in the confines of the environment and sustainable development committee. I want you to recall the debates that took place in the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. There is not one single member here in this committee who raised at any time the issue of the independence of the Commissioner of the Environment. Yes, the environment committee did hold some discussions following the unfortunate events that unfolded.

We were among those who called for more independence for the Commissioner of the Environment. We believed that the Commissioner should be as independent as possible. The question I have today is this: is Bill C-30 the best vehicle for initiating a discussion on the future powers of a Commissioner of the Environment? I have my doubts about that. Of course, a private member's bill could always be introduced to endow the Commissioner of the Environment with additional powers and we could call in all of the stakeholders who were consulted to discuss the matter. That wouldn't be a problem. We could discuss it and more than likely, I would vote in favour of the amendment. The issue I have today is that we're attempting to use Bill C-30 to modify the duties of the Commissioner of the Environment whereas this is not the place to do that. Moreover, we're certainly going to discuss this matter in the future. Clearly, the Parliament of Canada Act needs to be amended, but Bill C-30 is not the way to accomplish that.

This amendment, which I would qualify as a run-on amendment, is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat, when in fact we haven't yet discussed this matter, debated it in a parliamentary committee or heard from witnesses.

In that respect, Mr. Chairman, I respect your assessment of amendment L-2.1.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your patience with this amendment L-2.1.

It replaces amendment L-2, which did have financial and expenditure implications for the government, and we heard in your ruling, which we thank you for, in the last meeting that royal recommendation does not attach to this bill in its present form. Therefore we replaced amendment L-2 with L-2.1 because it explicitly avoids new expenditures.

I'm interested to hear the question that you put to the table right now, Mr. Chair, with respect to the relevancy of this amendment, and I'd like to speak to that pretty directly in very short order to explain why this is so incredibly important for the future of the country as we seek to both, using the government's language, clean up our air and reduce our greenhouse gases.

This is not a strange matter to almost every member of this committee, Mr. Chair. We have been seized with this in the environment committee, for those of us who sit there, and this is an issue that's been debated quite openly. The amendment has inspired itself in terms of the role and purpose of the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, using standard agent of Parliament language—for example, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Ethics Commissioner—and you see that in proposed section 72.15, as written in the amendment.

We have, however, added a few additional features when we speak about the purpose of the commissioner being to monitor and report on the state and integrity of the environment of Canada under proposed section 72.15. It states:

to monitor and report on the progress of federal institutions towards sustainable development through the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, including

And you will see, of course, proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g). Two new ones are (h) and (i), which speak explicitly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the country and also speak explicitly to the avoidance of climate change—something that I believe is inherent, if not explicit, in Bill C-30 as it is presently drafted. It's not only related to Bill C-30, Mr. Chair, but it's also desperately needed if we're going to enhance the environmental accountability in Canada for this and any subsequent government that might be forthcoming.

There are also some other standard agent of Parliament powers, starting in proposed section 72.19, that again flow from offices like that of the Ethics Commissioner. However, in proposed section 72.20—again very much, I believe, on point with Bill C-30 and its purpose—proposed paragraph 72.20(2)(a) is new, and it asks the commissioner to report on the sustainable development obligations of any federal institution that has not yet complied, not having been in compliance “in a timely and effective manner”. Again, that was inspired from the essential purpose of Bill C-30.

Finally, under proposed section 72.21, Mr. Chair, which is all new, it speaks very explicitly to air quality and greenhouse gas reduction issues, again as stated in the central purpose of Bill C-30, which is to strengthen Canada's regulatory, institutional, and legal framework to deal with both clean air and greenhouse gas reduction.

It calls, for example, on the commissioner, starting in 2013 and every two years after that until 2051, to prepare a report that includes—it's important I think to single them out, Mr. Chair, for a second:

(a) an analysis of Canada's progress in implementing the Climate Change Plans;

(b) an analysis of Canada's progress in meeting its international commitments and obligations with respect to climate change and greenhouse gases;

That might be international commitments that we presently hold and international commitments that could be negotiated and entered into in the future.

Finally, proposed paragraph 72.21(1)(d) calls for:

an analysis of the progress of the Minister of the Environment in establishing a reliable methodology for estimating and auditing annual anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions for Canada as a whole and for each economic sector and large industrial emitter;

This speaks to some of the challenges we heard from our witnesses, Mr. Chair, about the need for Canada to get a robust set of data on greenhouse gases on a national basis, on a sector basis, and for that matter, even from a large industrial emitter basis.

I believe this would not only be a positive contribution to the strengthening of environmental accountability in Canada, but it would also, I think, greatly supplement the objectives of Bill C-30 that the government has put forward in intent and in words as Bill C-30 is presently drafted.

Those are my thoughts, Mr. Chair, as I present this amendment and formally move it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Anyway, we're going to be methodical about this. Because there are a lot of interrelationships between clauses, we're going to make sure we're not dealing with something that's affected by something else down the road. We will be methodical and we'll make sure everybody has the information they need.

The first one we are going to hear is the new Liberal amendment, L-2.1 that's been distributed but not yet moved. Before we do that, I want to share something with you.

Part 1 of Bill C-30 deals with amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This amendment proposes a new clause outside of CEPA, proposing a series of public hearings to ascertain the views of Canadians on the appointment process for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Bill C-30 was referred to committee before second reading, which means that there is more latitude in the amending process. The requirement that amendments must fall within the scope of the bill does not apply to bills referred before second reading. However, other rules of admissibility continue to apply. Every amendment, for example, must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill, and this rule is expressed on page 654 of Marleau-Montpetit.

It's not clear to me how this amendment relates to the subject matter of the bill before us. I just say that before we kick off. I would appreciate the honourable member addressing this point during his remarks on the amendment, and then I'll hear from other members on this before giving a decision on the admissibility of the amendment.

With that short preamble, I will turn it over to, I'm assuming, Mr. McGuinty to propose amendment L-2.1.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, if you'll allow me, thank you. It's nice to have the minister here today.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, on December 21 you received a letter from the CEO of the Toronto Stock Exchange, Mr. Richard Nesbitt. It was a ten-page memo, in fact, in which he pleaded with you to keep Canada in the international emissions trading system for several reasons: first, because it will lower the cost of compliance for Canadian companies, Canadian emitters; second, because it will lower global greenhouse gas emissions; third, because it will help Canada to participate immediately in the global carbon trading system, in the market; and fourth, because Canada's market alone is too small.

So you've been forewarned on this issue by Mr. Nesbitt, CEO of the Toronto Stock Exchange, and every expert on climate change or on emissions trading that this committee or the Bill C-30 committee has heard from has told us it would be foolish, in fact, for Canada to withdraw and not take part in the global carbon market.

Just hours ago, the Prime Minister ruled out completely Canada's participation in international emissions trading systems. You just said you're considering participating in the clean development mechanism under Kyoto. How can you participate in something the Prime Minister has ruled out?

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

Thank you, Chair.

The press are reporting that your boss today announced that in two weeks we will have targets announced in this country. The question I have is about the process that the NDP created around Bill C-30, the so-called Clean Air Act. All parties in this Parliament agreed to a process to move forward and to put our best ideas on the table, the ones we can most support, and then put that back to Canadians and at long last perhaps make Canadians proud of the work MPs are doing on the environment for a change.

Does the announcement by your government that you're coming forward with targets not supercede some of the good work some of us here entered into in good faith as members of Parliament, to set targets and timelines for Canada, which is what the Clean Air Act is being rewritten to do?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a point of order. Thank you, Chair.

The motion that Mr. McGuinty is speaking to had no time limit. You have scheduled one hour to deal specifically with the supplementary estimates, which is the motion that Mr. McGuinty speaks to. There was an additional hour where the minister is willing to speak about anything, and so Mr. McGuinty has used up 15 minutes of his supplementary motion time.

So the motions that he speaks to are appropriately dealt with, with the agenda that we have before us. We just had a committee meeting, Mr. Chair, where the Liberals tried to hijack Bill C-30, and now we see a continuing pattern where they're trying to hijack and delay this government moving forward.

Mr. Chair, we need to listen to the minister. He's here. I don't want the delay happening anymore, and procedurally what you have is accurate. There was one hour allotted to dealing with the supplementary estimates, which is totally in harmony with what the committee approved. But I will not allow, Mr. Chair, that—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make a comment about that if I could. It's very unfortunate. In fact, it's a bit troubling to find out, after hearing the minister and various government members say many times in committee, in the House, and on television that we want to work together to put a much stronger Bill C-30 together, that what I hear implied in the ruling is that this bill doesn't spend any money and can't spend any money.

I'm not sure I know what we're going to be doing here with all these substantive amendments we've tabled if this is an impotent bill. I hope there's a way around this procedurally. I'm not an expert on parliamentary procedure, but my staff have handed me a relevant passage from the compendium. It states that

The Royal Recommendation can be provided after a bill has been introduced in the House, as long as it is done before the bill is read a third time and passed.

I think it would be useful for us going forward, for the suite of amendments we put forward, and for all parties who put substantive and serious amendments forward. I think it would be important for us to know, perhaps through Mr. Warawa, the parliamentary secretary who represents the government on this committee.... Before we go any further, I think Canadians need to know two things. First, is the government going to bring a royal recommendation later on in the House so we can pass spending amendments here, or is this process effectively a sham when it comes to money? Second, are we going to be a side show while the Prime Minister runs around announcing billions of dollars worth of programs that pre-empt the work of this committee?

I think Canadians who are watching deserve to know. We'd like to know. We've put forward some very serious substantive amendments, because this is a bad bill, and we're doing everything we can to rescue a bill.

So we put these forward, and now we find out that there is no royal recommendation attached and we can't talk about spending money. How can we possibly put forward a so-called Clean Air Act that doesn't call on the government to spend money? I'd like an answer to that before we go any further. How can Canadians trust this process if it was set up to fail in the first place?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As for the substance and the spirit of the motion, I adhere to the principles outlined. However, I wonder if it is truly within the confines of Bill C-30 that the changes proposed by the Liberal Party should be made. I consider the wish expressed to be interesting, but given that it would have an impact on amendments 32 and 33, it is my belief that this would place us in a precarious situation.

I therefore find the Liberal Party's actions today less than generous, despite the fact that they flow from valid principles. I am afraid that in using Bill C-30 to this end, we might be missing a golden opportunity to grant greater powers to the commissioner for the environment. The way in which this process is unfolding makes me uncomfortable.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking forward to your ruling. As has been expressed, I too am very concerned about what's happened this morning. We are all here to move forward on Canada's Clean Air Act, and yet what we see now is nine or ten pages of legal text provided to the committee on one amendment.

What has been the result of that? We're now an hour into this meeting, and we've been stalled. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, but the results have put this committee into a quagmire and made it very difficult to move forward, both on the issue of Bill C-30 and also on dealing with the commissioner and the appropriate ways of dealing with the office of the Commissioner for the Environment. I'm very disappointed. I think it's important that you do provide a ruling on this, and I look forward to that.

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

The initial concerns I have with the process we are undertaking remain. Having heard your earlier considerations of this, my worry is that through this very short debate that we're now engaged in on however many pages of legal text the Liberals have proposed today, we will lose this concept in Bill C-30 of the commissioner of the environment simply due to the Liberals not having done their homework and not having brought this in a timely fashion to the committee.

I'm concerned about even this process of questioning whether it's valid or invalid or whether there are parts of concern. None of us sitting around this table.... I suspect even Liberal members of the committee haven't seen this, and we are at the point right now of passing consideration as to whether it's admissible, from the clerk's advice, or whether the committee members want to vote for this or challenge your ruling or any of those other considerations.

Here's a potentially excellent idea put in jeopardy because of some obscure delay tactic that I'm still grasping to understand on the part of the official opposition.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm glad we're back on the agenda. Terrific.

First of all, I'm not going to take the time to read the entire amendment, Mr. Chair, but I do move it, and I'd like to say a few words about it, if I could, to explain to Canadians who might be watching and those who are interested, and those here who are working on Bill C-30 together, what the import of this bill is.

In the course of the work of this committee, Mr. Chair, Liberal members have come to the same conclusion that the majority of members in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development came to on February 27. That is, if this country is going to take the 21st century challenges of the environment seriously, we need a fully independent environment commissioner. Currently, the environment commissioner is an employee of the Office of the Auditor General and reports to it and not to Parliament. This is a subject that has been addressed in detail by many esteemed witnesses, Mr. Chair, before the environment committee. For example, Mr. Jim MacNeill, the former secretary general of the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland Commission, wrote a letter that quite bluntly stated:

I was extremely disturbed to learn that the Auditor General had recently dismissed the incumbent Commissioner from office. In my view, this action has potentially very damaging implications for the visibility, autonomy, responsibility and accountability to Parliament of future Commissioners and their Office.

He gives his complete support to the idea of a fully independent environment commissioner. I think a letter that's this direct, Mr. Chair, from a person of his character, is clearly a call to action.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, Madam Gélinas, the most recent environment commissioner, sent a persuasive letter to the environment committee on this very subject. Some of the operative paragraphs and passages from her letter go as follows:

If we examine the duties of other commissioners (Official Languages, Ethics, Information, Privacy, etc.), we find that in addition to carrying out investigations, these officials have a duty to promote and encourage best practices, without however becoming merely an advocate for one particular side.

She goes on and makes the comment that

Attaching the CESD’s position to the Office of the Auditor General was not intended to restrict the CESD’s mission and role to that of an auditor. And yet, this is what the position has become.

She goes on further to say:

The recent direction taken by the Auditor General, Mrs. Fraser--aimed, among other things, at integrating the work of the CESD group into her own reports and thereby eliminating the Commissioner’s report as we have known it since the position was created--leads me to believe that the risk is now real and that this fragile equilibrium is going to be disrupted.

I think, Mr. Chair, perhaps the most telling point of all is where she says:

A commissioner must be able to offer a vision, an approach, a way of acting and a general orientation. He or she must be able to debate, to promote activities, to work with departments in other ways than simply through audits.

Finally, she writes, for all members here to hear, especially those members who hold her work in such high esteem, as, for example, the Minister of the Environment has--and rightly so--offering to nominate her to the Order of Canada when she was removed from her duties, that:

If Canada wants the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development to exercise his or her role fully, he or she must be independent of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, because the two mandates are incompatible.

As you may recall, Mr. Chair, not too long ago the Minister of the Environment said--and I repeat--that he was so impressed with the work of Madam Gélinas that she should be appointed a member of the Order of Canada. He went further by saying he would nominate her personally. I fully agree.

I agree with Madam Gélinas' testimony; the environment committee agrees with it. It is time to take action now before the next environment commissioner is selected. Our motion lays out the essentials of an independent agent of Parliament, a separate office with a separate budget, full discretion for hiring and firing staff, and a mandate to investigate and report on any issue within the commissioner's jurisdiction. That is the state or integrity of the environment in Canada and the implementation of sustainable development in the federal government.

Members will see, Mr. Chair, that the provisions are very carefully circumscribed, just as they are for existing agents of Parliament such as the ethics commissioner and the official languages commissioner. If we would like to get something done on the very first day that we begin to rewrite the so-called Clean Air Act, in my view, this would be the way to begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

My apologies to you, Chair, but particularly after having heard your words already on this ruling, the problem with this is that a concept like this is something the New Democrats have been pushing for, as Mr. Godfrey pointed out. Because it has been done in such a hurried way, it has thrown into jeopardy the very possibility of moving this into Bill C-30. Because of it not being prepared and ready and tabled with due consideration and time, it sounds like we're going to lose this whole amendment entirely. While I'm urging the committee to get down to work, this has thrown what could be a very good idea into total jeopardy because of the Liberals delivering it so late to the table. I'm not sure we've gotten due consideration on this.

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

Two points, Mr. Chair.

First of all, the location of this amendment about the Commissioner for the Environment comes as a result of advice from the drafters. They felt this was the logical place to put it. I understand and share Mr. Cullen's concern that it's come early, that there hasn't been that much notice for it.

The second observation I would make is that I thought--unless I misunderstood him during the discussion on the Commissioner for the Environment--that at some point Mr. Cullen thought it would be a useful idea to migrate the independent Commissioner for the Environment into Bill C-30.

So while I understand the difficulty of confronting a new piece right off the top, it was suggested strongly by the drafters that we do so, and that this was the place for it. Secondly, the overall idea is not out of line with what I understood Mr. Cullen's thinking to be.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair, but this is important. If the Liberals are proposing that this come up now for our vote and our consideration in debate today, and this is the type of precedent we're setting for the rest of Bill C-30, then--

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

Well, then, Mr. Chair, this is a critical moment in terms of setting a tone for this committee. We've attempted to be up front. We've all agreed upon the rules. I'm looking at your ruling when we decided on how amendments would be brought. The suggestion that a substantive amendment....

We heard testimony about the Commissioner for the Environment many weeks ago. This did not happen in the last few days. So while it may be valid to have this consideration with regard to Bill C-30, it's irresponsible to drop it on the day of. And to expect committee members to discuss and cast votes on it can be seen as a form of delay. This is a substantive amendment on which we heard testimony some weeks ago, and suddenly we want committee members to address it and vote on it today--to change Canadian law, change the role of the Commissioner for the Environment, all with five minutes.

I think it's irresponsible on the part of my colleagues in the Liberal Party when we've been trying to work in a spirit and environment of cooperation and forthrightness. My goodness, we in the NDP tabled our amendments in November.

This is just totally unacceptable.

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

There are two substantive new amendments that are put forward in the package. The first deals with the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development, and it is based on the hearings we had previously. The proposal is to incorporate the work we were doing on that into Bill C-30, because the occasion has presented itself. That's the first substantive amendment, and it is the one that affects today's work, because it comes early in the proceedings.

The other substantive one has to do with the carbon budget, which was announced by Mr. Dion last Friday. We thought that to flesh out the references to large final emitters in Bill C-30 would be helpful.

Those are the two substantive new amendments. Many of the other amendments you have seen before. It's simply a question of renumbering the existing amendments that we had pre-submitted. There were some consequences from submitting these two new amendments.

The good news is that most of that will come later in our proceedings. That is to say, if we're going to proceed on the basis of the bill as it's currently constructed, the only new one we have to deal with this morning, we suspect, has to do with the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

We do apologize, of course, to committee members for this, because these are new developments, but they're not 34 new amendments. They're really two big new amendments with consequences for numbering and so on. Most of those consequences will be delayed to future meetings because of where they occur. The only one that affects today's discussion is the insertion of the concept of the Commissioner for the Environmental and Sustainable Development, which we have discussed at length in this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I don't disagree.

Before I go to Mr. Warawa, I'd just point out that amendments to Bill C-30 are to be submitted to the clerk of the committee prior to clause-by-clause consideration, without limiting the ability to present additional amendments at the meeting itself. However, your point is well taken.

Go ahead, Mr. Warawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

I call the meeting to order, and I would ask the media to take their leave.

I want to welcome you all to the 19th meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30. The easy part is over. This is where the recycled rubber hits the road.

I want to say at the beginning that in the process, we have a lot of expertise in the room. I intend to be methodical as we go through this, and rely on this expertise that we have in the room, both at the front and at the back. We have some members from Environment Canada here today. They are John Moffet and Michel Arès. Phil Blagden is here from Health Canada. We'll also have other officials from NRCan and Transport Canada here as we need them, as we go along.

You also have a document called “Bill C-30 Clause-by-Clause for Members”. That's from the department, and it is the department's expertise on the bill.

I would also like to share some information with committee members before we proceed with the clause-by-clause study of this bill. As you know, there is a possibility that divisions on certain clauses, amendments or subamendments may result in tied votes, at which point I will be asked to deliver a casting vote.

The issue of the casting vote is explained on pages 268 and 269 of Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Therefore, without anticipating any results in clause-by-clause, I want to inform members that if there are tied votes on clauses of the bill, I will vote in the affirmative in order to leave the bill in its existing form. If there are tied votes on amendments or subamendments, the chair will vote in the negative in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment, either here in committee or in the House at report stage.

Finally, I intend to notify the Speaker of any casting votes delivered on amendments. Normally, the Speaker will not select, at report stage, any motions that are defeated in committee. However, the Speaker does exercise a discretionary power of selection, and I intend to provide him with as much information as possible on which to base his selection decisions for report stage in the House. I trust this information will assist the committee in the decision-making process on this bill.

We're now going to embark on the detailed clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30. I'd like to take a minute to ensure that committee members have the documents they will need. I think they do.

At the end of last week, 66 amendments had been received by the clerk. These were packaged into a binder and distributed to members first thing on Monday morning, March 19. One additional amendment was received from the NDP after the binders were sent out, and this has just now been distributed this morning. Earlier this morning, we received 34 amendments from the Liberal Party. We are advised that they are to replace the Liberal amendments currently found in your binders. These have been copied, and I believe you have been given them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

In closing, Mr. Chair, in the name of accountability, I'm sure members from all parties would want to have the minister attend. I'm hoping they'll agree that we should schedule a meeting with the minister and his officials for the first week after the break so that we can have an opportunity to get into the details.

It also gives us the break. Those of us who are doing Bill C-30 are already consumed with amendments, I'm sure, during the break, and with other responsibilities. But it would also give all of us on this committee a chance to look again at supplementary estimates (B) and be better prepared to put questions on accountability and value for money, for example, to the minister directly.

That's my thinking behind the motion, Mr. Chair.

[Ron Thompson]

It should be part of a plan. Whether it should be part of this legislation or not, I don't know.

I'm being a little evasive on that because there is Bill C-30, but there was also published, not too long ago, a notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions. This is a document that I think came out of Environment Canada, so there's a little bit more to what I would call a plan than perhaps Bill C-30. That's why I was suggesting that maybe the plan that will eventually unfold isn't quite here yet.

In terms of the plan, if I can put it that way, whether it's in Bill C-30 or someplace else, these two things should be part of it.

[Ron Thompson]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I could comment just briefly on that, I can try to explain what should be in Bill C-30. Let me take another cut at that.

In a climate change plan, a plan to address the climate change issue, we believe very strongly—and this was in the report last fall—that there's a need to have clear, measurable expectations or targets for the short, medium, and longer terms. Otherwise, there's no way of really knowing whether the plan is unfolding as it should, or whether activities being carried out during the year or over a period of two or three years are actually working. You need expectations and you need targets, and you need them for those three timeframes, I would suggest.

The other thing I would suggest it is important to have in addressing climate change would be to take those targets and capture them in what I'd call a concise periodic report to parliamentarians from time to time, so that they know in plain language whether the program is in fact being worked on and if the long-term program is having any effect. I firmly believe that kind of report is possible to prepare. In fact we're going to do a little bit of work next spring to take a look at that.

That's the key to it all, I think, sir: clear, measurable expectations or targets. Get them firmly in place so that everyone can see them for the short, medium, and longer term, and then report back on those periodically. It needn't be annually. It may be every three years or something, but then all of us—primarily members of Parliament, but the Canadian people too—could know whether or not the initiatives we're taking on are working.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I would go to Mr. Thompson, please, and your presentation.

As we all know, we adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and you finished up a report, I would say, in September 2006, looking back over those almost ten years. Just to quote you for a moment, you said:

In a nutshell, we said • that Canada was not on track to meet its international obligations to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, • that Canada was not prepared to adapt to the effects of climate change, and • that the federal government's efforts were not well organized and not well managed.

You follow that by saying, in paragraph 13, “In our report, we made a series of recommendations to address the deficiencies we had identified.”

I'm wondering if you could put forward today, if possible, some of the recommendations that you think should be part of Bill C-30. Should some of those recommendations be part of the bill, or should they be just policy directives off to the side?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm asking whether 6% below our 1990 commitment should be articulated as the specific short-term target and timeline in Bill C-30.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

This committee will be hearing a number of amendments when we reconvene at the end of March. One of them could be literally putting in writing in Bill C-30 that the short-term target and timeline for the government to meet its Kyoto objectives could be put in there.

Should the short-term target and timeline for Kyoto be enshrined in Bill C-30, in your opinion?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses for appearing here before the committee. I certainly appreciate your lending your insights to us as we examine Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act.

As you well know, we have heard from many witnesses over the last few weeks. And I can assure you our government is committed, not just for today but for the long term, to tackling the issues of greenhouse gas and pollution reduction for all Canadians. Your efforts will help us in that regard. I know many of my colleagues will be asking questions of all of you.

I'd like to begin by focusing my questions for the moment on Ms. Clarke-Walker and Mr. Jackson with the Canadian Labour Congress.

To lay some groundwork concerning your pro-Kyoto position, when did your organization adopt that, in what year?

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

Thank you.

I have a quick question for the interim commissioner. We well know the reluctance of the Ministry of Finance to change any of its policies at all. We've read the reports where the government has declared an intention, you've audited the performance of that intention, and you've said they're doing wrong, and then the Ministry of Finance has rejected your audit recommendations. I've not seen a more stark example.

One thing to point out, though, is that you talked about Bill C-30 and your preparation to analyze, after it's all said and done, as part of a larger government plan. I think it's important for your office to know that government members have been before this committee and held up Bill C-30 as the plan and said, this is it; if you want the Conservatives' plan, if you want the current government's plan for climate change, you're looking at it. One would throw a line of caution to you as to what you might be studying in the very end, they claim.

In terms of efficacy, because this is important in terms of how government spends its money, there was a program rolled out earlier last year that cost $2,000 a tonne for government to reduce GHGs, per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. From your past analysis, from the Commissioner of the Environment's past analysis on what a per-tonne acceptability and government policy has been, is $2,000 a safe or credible market for Canada to initiate our efforts to reducing our own GHGs?

[Ron Thompson, Interim Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You've introduced my colleague Richard Arsenault. I also have with me Mr. Bob Pelland, who can help us if we need him.

As you know, the commissioner's group that I lead conducts performance audits of the implementation of the government's policies and commitments in the area of the environment and sustainable development. In commenting on what has happened in the past, we make recommendations to help point the way to make things better in the future. In all of our work for Parliament, we are strong advocates for sound management of environment and sustainable development by government departments, agencies, and corporations.

As you know, I have been in the post of interim Commissioner for about a month, although I have been involved with the Commissioner’s group for some time. Allow me to make an overall observation with respect to an important challenge faced by government in the area of environmental sustainable development.

With respect to climate change, it seems to me that the task is somehow to encourage and support government officials to work as if there was no tomorrow, day in and day out, for weeks, months, and years at a time, to bring about change, much of which only our children and perhaps grandchildren will see. When you think about it, this is an incredibly difficult but absolutely essential management challenge that must be addressed. That's where the commissioner's group can play a significant role.

Frankly, we are experts at auditing the quality of environment and sustainable development management and in reporting what we find to Parliament. Our findings and recommendations are carefully crafted to help parliamentarians understand what has happened and what may need to change in the future.

For example, last September, after 18 months of detailed audit work in federal departments and agencies, we tabled a report on the management of climate change by the federal government.

In a nutshell, we said that Canada was not on track to meet its international obligations to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions; that Canada was not prepared to adapt to the effects of climate change; and that the federal government’s efforts were not well organized and not well managed.

On the positive side, we also said that the government had a foundation to build on. There are several positive programs and practices and there are many motivated and talented public servants committed to success.

In our report, we made a series of recommendations to address the deficiencies that we had identified. When we were finalizing our 2006 report on climate change, the current government stated that it accepted our recommendations and would address them in its climate change approach, the development of which was then under way. As we understand it, the Clean Air Act is seen by the government as an integral component of its climate change plan, which is still being developed. As we have done for the previous government's plans, we will eventually audit the implementation of this new plan once it is in place.

Furthermore, in future reports to Parliament, we intend to examine the status of actions by the government to address the deficiencies that we have identified and the recommendations that we have made with respect to the management of climate change programs.

Mr. Chair, it is my understanding that your committee is also interested in exploring tax system opportunities in relation to Bill C-30. We did some work in this area in 2004. Back then, we conducted an audit of the implementation by Finance Canada of three commitments it had made in its sustainable development strategy of 2001, on using the tax system to achieve the integration of the economy and the environment.

It's well known that the tax system can have an important influence on the environment, directly or indirectly, by encouraging environmentally positive activities through tax credits, for example, and by discouraging environmentally negative activities.

As part of the 2002 plan of implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Government of Canada and other countries agreed to pursue certain issues related to fiscal aspects of sustainable development. These could include issues such as restructuring taxation and phasing out harmful subsidies where they exist.

During our 2004 audit, we found that Finance Canada had analysed a range of issues associated with the tax-related commitments, made in its 2001 sustainable development strategy. However, we found that Finance Canada’s approach to implementing these commitments had been piecemeal and fragmented. We also found four cases that led us to question whether the department had the appropriate capacity for environmental analysis. Consequently, Finance Canada was not in a position to tell Parliament and Canadians the extent to which it had analysed how the tax system impedes or favours the attainment of sustainable development.

We recommended that in order to meet the intent of its 2001 SDS commitments, the department should conduct a systematic review, based on risk, of key opportunities for using the tax system to better integrate the economy and the environment. In our view this would be an important step toward using the tax system as a tool for sustainable development.

I'd like to conclude my remarks this morning with two final observations.

First, with respect to commenting on the Clean Air Act directly, our long-standing practice in the commissioner's group and within the Office of the Auditor General more generally is to avoid commenting on a bill that is before the House of Commons unless the bill directly affects the work of our office.

Second, my group of 40 dedicated environmental audit professionals is working very hard on a good dozen audits to be reported in October of this year and February of next year. They deal with issues such as toxic substances, pesticides, and contaminated sites. We have scoped out additional audits and studies that will be slotted into future reports once our consultation process with parliamentarians and others is complete.

Mr. Chair, this ends my opening statement. We would be very pleased to answer questions that members may have to the extent that we are able. Thank you.

[Jeff Passmore, Executive Vice-President, Iogen Corporation]

I don't intend to speak for ten minutes, Mr. Chair, but I thank you very much for the invitation to be here.

Members, it's a pleasure for Iogen Corporation to have the opportunity to appear.

I just want to echo the comments made by Canadian Renewable Fuels Association chair Bliss Baker, and briefly describe cellulose ethanol.

Iogen Corporation is in the cellulose ethanol business. Ethanol is ethanol. It's the same molecule. The unique difference between grain-based ethanol and cellulose ethanol is that grain-based ethanol comes from corn or wheat or barley. In our case, we would not use the corn, we would use the cob and stalks and leaves, or we would use the straw in the case of wheat or barley. The other interesting thing about cellulose ethanol, of course, is that like grain-based ethanol, it has a very good greenhouse gas emission reduction profile, which is part of the goal of Bill C-30.

Iogen is the world leader in this technology. We have a demonstration plant here in Ottawa, right in your backyard. Any of you are welcome to come and have a tour of it. We're the only company in the world to have built a demonstration plant.

This technology has yet to be commercialized in the world. We are looking forward to getting it commercialized, but there are three legs to that stool. One leg is the technology leg, which we're responsible for. Another leg is the financing leg. Third, when you do financing, you have equity and debt. On the equity side, we have our partners, Goldman Sachs and Shell, ready to provide the equity, and we've had a long-term partnership with the Government of Canada. The government has been supporting our research and development over the last number of years. But on the debt side, lenders simply don't take technology risks. They don't lend conventional debt to emerging technologies. There's where the role for government comes in.

Iogen is looking forward to the commercialization of the cellulose ethanol technology. We've had good discussions over the years with a number of countries' governments, including the Canadian government, and we certainly are looking forward to the implementation and commercialization so that we can deliver on both the greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits and the rural economic development benefits that Bliss spoke about a few minutes ago.

[Bliss Baker, Chair, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of Parliament, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Bliss Baker. I am the chair of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. I am joined by my colleague and fellow board member Jeff Passmore, who is also executive vice-president of Iogen, who will have a few things to say when I conclude.

I think, without exception, all of you are familiar with the renewable fuels industry, the ethanol and biodiesel industry. The CRFA represents a wide variety of ethanol and biodiesel producers, potential producers, technology providers, and a host of agricultural commodity groups, all of whom will stand to benefit from an expanded biofuels industry in Canada and from the passage of Bill C-30.

The CRFA has been around since about 1993 and was started by a group of corn farmers in southwestern Ontario. Since that time we have been advocating, pushing, prodding, lobbying, and educating on the benefits and merits of renewable fuels, and we are poised for a significant expansion in biofuels in the coming year or two as a result of the passage of this bill.

I have a few comments. I'll try to keep them brief because I prefer to leave some time for questions, but first let me say that I don't think I'm understating it when I say that the potential for our industry is huge with the proposed renewable fuel standard and the passage of this bill. It means a significant expansion of both biodiesel and ethanol in Canada, and when I say potential, it's because not all the work is done yet with this bill. A significant amount of work needs to be done, and I'll touch on that in a second, but I think there's little debate within most jurisdictions about the environmental benefits, the agricultural benefits, and the rural economic benefits of expanding the biofuels industry in any jurisdiction.

With respect to the environment, there are significant clean air benefits in reduction of CO2, there is significant reduction of particulate matter with the usage of biodiesel, and significant greenhouse gas reductions with the implementation of ethanol and biodiesel into the fuel pool.

Second is economic development. I think many of you who represent rural communities will know that there are dozens of communities across the country right now that are anxious to see biofuels facilities built in their towns, for the simple reason that it will have a huge impact on their local economy. The vast majority of the resources and money are spent in the community, and any town that's gotten an ethanol plant in the U.S. Midwest can attest to the fact that their rural economies have expanded significantly as a result of introducing ethanol and biodiesel plants into their town.

Third, agricultural benefits again are significant. There are three primary benefits. One is the direct impact on grain prices. Our large facility in Chatham, Ontario, has had a huge impact on the local price of corn, and farmers are benefiting from that. Secondly, it's a great hedge for farmers. When grain prices are very low and if they've invested in ethanol or a biodiesel facility, the biodiesel and ethanol plants are making money; and conversely, when grain prices are high, the plants may not be making money but the farm is making money, so it's a great built-in hedge for the agriculture sector.

Finally, from a government perspective, if you are increasing revenue to the agriculture sector through these kinds of value-added propositions, then clearly it means fewer support payments from government to the agricultural sector. Those benefits are undeniable and widely recognized across North America.

The 5% renewable fuels standard that is being promoted by the government right now will create a market for about 2.5 billion litres of ethanol and biodiesel. There are many initiatives that the government could support to reduce greenhouse gases today, but there are very few initiatives that the government can support in the transportation sector that are readily available and immediately available to reduce greenhouse gases, and expanding the biofuels sector is one of them.

The blending of these fuels into the nation's fuel pool will reduce greenhouse gases by over four megatonnes annually, and this will be the equivalent of taking thousands of cars off the road annually. Undoubtedly, today's legislation will achieve this outcome. There is no question about it. The passage of a renewable fuel standard will create a demand for 2.5-plus billion litres of biofuels in the marketplace.

The question for all of us, I suppose, is this. If we are going to achieve those other benefits, the agricultural benefits and the rural economic benefits, then we have to build these plants here in Canada.

Let me just elaborate. We're happy to say that the government has consulted with our industry. They've listened to our proposals. We've put a proposal forward that will ensure that plants are built here in Canada. It's a proposal that puts us on a level playing field with the generous tax treatment and regulatory instruments that we see in the United States, where they're launching a new ethanol plant or biodiesel plant every two weeks. Our proposal will generate over $2 billion in investment in industry infrastructure, generate thousands of direct and indirect jobs, and provide much-needed value to grain and oilseed crops across Canada.

Of course, as anyone knows who's living in the GTA right now, or even in parts of Montreal, where there have been some refinery outages, we know refineries are running at maximum capacity these days. Injecting 2.5 billion litres of fuel into the fuel pool at a time when refineries are running at maximum capacity can only have a good impact on the pricing pressures in the marketplace right now.

In short, let me just summarize what our proposal is. Many of you are familiar with it, because we've met with many of you over the last several months.

In order to achieve some kind of tax parity with U.S. producers, ensure that we build plants here, and make that $2 billion in investments, we have proposed a 10¢ per litre ethanol tax credit program and a 20¢ per litre program for biodiesel. Anything less will put Canadian producers at a serious disadvantage with U.S. producers. We run the risk of simply importing fuel to satisfy the renewable fuel standard, and the investment that we talked about will end up in the U.S. I know all of you understand that.

Again, just to close and pass it over to Jeff, we are very pleased with the level of consultation that we had with the government. We know they certainly heard us, and I believe they now understand very well the economics of production in Canada versus the United States. We await the federal budget to see the next step of the biofuels policy in Canada.

[Marie Clarke-Walker, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you. I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity to appear on behalf of over three million members of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Our brief puts forward a labour perspective on climate change issues, which form a major part of Bill C-30. It doesn't address all the provisions of the bill, but it does address some.

The labour movement strongly supports effective and concrete measures to avert catastrophic climate change, while also building a stronger economy with good jobs. Our environmental and job goals should not be in conflict. Good policies can and must address both of these goals at the same time. The science tells us clearly that we must move very quickly to make deep reductions to greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avert a planetary disaster. The costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action.

Dealing with global warming seriously will involve fundamental changes to our carbon-based economy. Major polluting industries, especially the oil and gas industry, have used the threat of economic dislocation and job loss to resist implementation of a real global warming plan. We in the labour movement reject the idea that there is a fundamental conflict between the economy and jobs, on the one hand, and environmental sustainability on the other. In fact, dealing seriously with global warming has the potential to create a strong and vibrant economy with many new good jobs.

We have a major opportunity to create a better economy, but governments must carefully plan the transition. We should not minimize the scale of the challenges ahead. Some jobs may be lost as others are created. Our climate change policies must therefore include a green industrial policy and just transition policies to create jobs and protect workers and communities.

We support inclusion of clear greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in Bill C-30, consistent with our Kyoto commitment, as well as deeper minimum, medium, and long-term reductions. Dealing with global warming will involve major changes in the structure of our economy and society. It's imperative that climate change policy be implemented with and through a Canadian green jobs/green industrial strategy to maximize the creation of good new jobs. Such a strategy will include a mix of regulation, public investment, and direct government support through spending and tax measures for needed new private sector investments.

Bill C-30 must set the framework by ensuring that the federal government has the power to regulate emissions and product standards as needed, and should also create the legislative framework for an umbrella climate change investment fund. Any new federal revenues from the imposition of charges and taxes to deal with global warming should be credited to the fund, along with a significant portion of existing government revenues. This fund can and should be used to support significant investments by the federal government as well as the provinces and municipalities. The federal government should work through public agencies and its procurement policies to promote such areas as renewable energy alternatives, energy efficiency, and green transportation technologies.

We support the elimination of perverse tax subsidies to the primary oil and gas industries in the next budget, especially the write-off of 100% of capital expenditures for tar sands development. The primary oil and gas sector is highly profitable and can afford to invest much more in carbon reduction measures without special subsidies.

We support provisions in Bill C-30 to impose hard caps on emissions by large final emitters. The goal must be to force significant real reductions in total emissions, especially in the primary oil and gas sector, not simply a reduction in emissions intensity. An emissions trading system, a responsible one, would be a useful means to lower the total cost of compliance, allowing operations that lower emissions beyond required levels to sell their excess emissions to those who have not. The details of the emissions caps will have to be established on a sector-by-sector basis through regulation. Labour should have the opportunity to have direct input to the design of an emissions trading system and allocation of initial permits.

Some industries, such as the pulp and paper sector, have already made major reductions in their use of carbon-based energy by switching to biomass and cogeneration of heat and power. These efforts should be rewarded through caps that are only modestly below current levels.

In regulations implementing a cap and trade system, competitive realities that could cost production and jobs with no environmental gain will have to be taken into account. In sectors that are closely integrated on a North American basis, significantly raising costs in Canada ahead of the U.S. could cause transfers of production and job loss with no net reduction of carbon emissions. Caps should still be imposed but at initially modest levels.

Emission caps should be accompanied by direct government support for investment in emissions-reducing new technologies and processes by industry, including accelerated write-offs for investment in effective environmental technologies.

To the extent that energy prices for households increase as a result of climate change measures, low- and middle-income families should be protected through tax credits fully offsetting the extra costs, while still giving everyone an incentive to use energy more efficiently. Utilities could raise prices above a threshold, while selling a basic allowance at low cost.

The key to a just transition for the workers affected by changes in employment resulting from transitions to a green economy is an aggressive green economic development strategy. Energy efficient economies are more labour intensive. This will create jobs and new opportunities for workers.

However, as I said before, there is the potential for job losses in some sectors with high carbon dioxide emissions. Higher energy prices may also compound problems in the wider manufacturing and non-energy based resource industries, such as forestry products.

The principle of a just transition holds that workers who are displaced or who experience wage cuts due to structural economic changes benefiting society as a whole should be fully compensated, as should the communities impacted by such changes. The principle has often been expressed in response to trade-driven economic change, but has rarely been translated into practice.

In creating the legislative framework for expenditures to deal with global warming, Bill C-30 should establish a just transition fund, to be governed by a board including labour representatives. The fund should be authorized to make payments in support of retraining of workers who lose their jobs due to climate change policies, and to compensate workers for any income losses. Communities should also be eligible for support. And provinces must also be encouraged to integrate just transition into climate change plans.

In conclusion, Bill C-30 must set a clear framework for a national action plan to meet specified greenhouse gas reduction targets, including hard emissions caps for large final emitters and an emission trading system; a framework for new regulatory standards; the establishment of mandates for funds to support a green jobs and/or green industrial strategy, including a climate change investment fund and funds for just transition. Also, funding for climate change programs and related tax reforms should be included in the 2007 budget.

Thank you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Marcu, you said that there needs to be a significant realignment of capital spending. You go on in your presentation to say: “The world cannot make an overnight transition to a non-carbon energy economy.”

Clearly, there's a lot of capital investment that has to go on in Canada. There has been some discussion about whether the Kyoto target and timeline is something that would be put into an amendment to Bill C-30 to enshrine it as a short-term target. Can we achieve the kinds of capital investments we need to transform our economy if such a thing is undertaken right now, or would we see, in the short term, an exodus, or a potential exodus, of capital invested in other parts of the world, if you will?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

I agree with that, but, again, in spite of suggestions otherwise, all I'm recommending is that we do exactly what California has signed into law. So if you want my draft or Bill C-30, go pick up Bill AB 32 and change some words.

I'm recommending something that could functionally be a Canada-California-New Mexico-Massachusetts market starting on January 1, 2009. But if we knew we were doing that, we'd all start trading into it yesterday afternoon.

A quota market is a supply management system. It's a quota market when you create a market in which what you trade is quota. You have all of the problems you have with any international quota market. Governments issue quota to whom they want, and you have to decide whether or not you like somebody's quota and don't like somebody else's quota.

If we go to product standards, everybody accounts for their emissions in the nation in which the energy is end-used, and every credit's a real credit. California's going to do it, and all of us who sell into California are going to have to comply with their law anyway. Let's just create a California-Canada-New Mexico-Washington market to start and then take it from there.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thanks to all of you for your appearance today, especially Mr. Caccia. Thank you for coming. It's nice to see you again.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Caccia, and Andrew. We've had a long-standing policy of eliminating the current accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands project. We are hoping that somehow, between this committee and the deliberations on Bill C-30 and the renewed commitment in Parliament to really deal with greenhouse gas emissions, we could maybe achieve something in this budget year. It might be wishful thinking, but we're going to keep trying to the end.

I'm wondering if you have any advice in terms of how we could make this a reality this year for the upcoming budget on March 19. Could you talk about it in terms of cost savings and money that could then be generated for other uses and to meet other commitments? Second, could you talk about it in terms of the urgency with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and the role the oil sands play in that and the whole question of the planet?

[Stephen Kaufman]

Thank you for the question. On some of the specific challenges in developing Bill C-30 into regulations, the government has asked for responses on it, and we provided a letter to the Minister of the Environment in December regarding the new Clean Air Act. It outlines some of the areas that we felt needed to be addressed.

In particular, we don't believe the targets should be prescriptive in choosing one technology over another. Companies need to be allowed to have flexibility and choose the right way for them to achieve reduction targets. We also believe that an offset system is an important element, because it could be a less expensive tool for companies to use in achieving their targets.

[Stephen Kaufman, Suncor, ICON Group]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, honourable members, and thank you for the opportunity that you've given Mr. Wishart Robson, from Nexen, and myself, to speak to the community on behalf of the ICON Group.

Since this is a complicated subject and my French isn't very good, my comments and my answers to your questions will be in English.

We've provided you in advance with a slide deck that you may want to follow through as I give my initial remarks, and you might refer to it in questions.

The ICON group is comprised of 14 companies whose names appear in slide 2 in your package. We are in the electricity generation, oil sands, industrial, and chemical sectors. These companies have a strong interest in carbon capture and storage, or CCS, as we refer to it. We're working towards creating a functioning, long-term, integrated carbon dioxide network—hence our name, ICON. That network would be able to handle large volumes of carbon dioxide at minimum overall cost.

ICON is not a single project. It is a set of policies, regulations, and ultimately private and public sector investments to make large-scale carbon capture and storage a reality.

CCS presents a tremendous opportunity for Canada, and we're here today to highlight the key considerations with respect to CCS as your committee considers modifications to the proposed Clean Air Act.

Slide 3 describes, in a very simple way, how carbon capture and storage works. Carbon dioxide from large industrial sources of any variety can be separated from the flue gas and compressed and dried for transportation. You can use a conventional high-pressure pipeline system to deliver that carbon dioxide hundreds or conceivably even thousands of kilometres. Then the carbon dioxide is injected into rock formations two to three kilometres underground where it will remain for thousands of years. We can also inject carbon dioxide into older, declining oil fields, and this technique, which would improve oil recovery and reduce the need for water injection, is called “enhanced oil recovery”, or EOR.

The IPCC from the United Nations has said, in a big report that was published in May 2006, I believe, that carbon capture and storage can be a safe, long-term, and cost-effective way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

CCS is very important for Canada as it's potentially the most substantive way for Canada to directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions within a five- to ten-year timeframe. This was indicated by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in a report that was done last summer. Some of their analysis is shown in slide 4 of your deck.

CCS will assist with the transformation of our economy to a lower carbon energy economy. It's necessary to realize clean coal as a low environmental impact energy source, as Mr. Lewin referred to. It will allow for more sustainable growth of Canada's oil sands resources, and it will allow for the use of coal, coke, or bitumen, when gasified, to replace the limited sources of natural gas we have and to free those up for other uses in the economy.

In short, carbon capture and storage is a made-in-Canada solution. The investment will occur here, the carbon dioxide reductions will occur here, and the technology development can occur here. Canada can fulfill its potential as an energy superpower and lower its GHG emissions at the same time by deploying technologies like carbon capture and storage. Canada could become a world leader in this approach to GHG reduction.

Slide 5 shows a breakdown of the carbon dioxide emission sources in Canada. What we'd like to point out is that of the total commissioned sources in Canada, nominally half of them would have the potential to use carbon capture and storage as a technique. The other sources of emissions, which tend to be more widely distributed from residences and small commercial activities, as well as transportation, really aren't suited to carbon capture and storage. For those types of emissions, we look for energy conservation, for switching to lower carbon fuels, and other means to reduce carbon dioxide.

With carbon capture and storage, companies can achieve carbon dioxide reductions that are greater than their reasonable share of national targets, but we need a mechanism to reward and incent this behaviour. This will lessen the burdens for other sectors of the economy that don't have CCS available while ensuring that Canada can achieve meaningful reductions.

Adoption of CCS must also be balanced with Canadian competitiveness to ensure that investment remains in Canada. This is particularly true with respect to oil sands upgrading, which needs to be competitive with locations in the U.S., where this activity could alternatively take place.

The ICON study showed that there are benefits in planning a large-scale system for carbon dioxide capture and storage from the beginning and building it in phases. This is shown on slide 6. We estimate that up to 20 megatonnes, or 20 million tonnes, per year could be captured and stored by around the year 2015. This is equivalent to removing from million vehicles from the road, or about 25% of our light vehicle fleet in Canada.

ICON envisions an open access pipeline system that would connect multiple capture and storage locations. The map you see on slide 6 shows a conceptual routing--this certainly hasn't been decided--from source to end-use for the Alberta portion of the ICON network.

While carbon capture and storage will likely start in western Canada, including B.C. and Saskatchewan, we also think that our system approach is well designed to work anywhere in Canada. In particular, we believe there's potential to extend the concept to Ontario and the Maritimes, where you have similar large point-source emitters and suitable geology.

A network like this will be the key to the success of carbon capture and storage. When you compare it to individual projects, a network approach allows for economies of scale and optimized long-term efficiency, and, most importantly, it minimizes the environmental footprint of the pipelines and the other infrastructure that you would build.

However, such a scheme does require participation by various industry sectors and coordinated input from governments. Specifically, Canada's overall GHG reduction plan must work to encourage CCS.

Slide 7 talks about shared responsibility. A successful integrated system will include three elements: the large-scale capture of CO₂ from industrial point sources; a pipeline system to connect those sources to end uses; and the storage infrastructure, and there are really two pieces to that. There are EOR fields that can be used as a customer base and to support some of the costs in the short term, but more importantly, direct storage that provides no revenue source to the system is going to be essential to achieving large-scale volumes of CO₂ reductions.

Left to market forces, very little CCS will proceed, even with tightening CO₂ emission constraints. The risk profile and economics of large-scale CCS are simply unfavourable. There's a transition role for governments to help enable this to take place in the future, and a true three-way private-public partnership with two levels of government is essential.

Slide 8 refers to some of the policies that you might want to consider as you're looking at Bill C-30. It's important that innovation be considered by both industry and governments when constructing the CCS infrastructure, and using both existing and new technology at a large scale while we wait for market mechanisms related to CO₂ to develop.

The full range of policies and mechanisms should be considered to deploy this technology. Companies should retain the option to undertake CCS along with other compliant strategies. We don't want to see CCS mandated, and we don't want regulations that would discriminate based on technology sector or geography.

Companies that can embrace CCS should have no greater compliance burden than other sectors of the economy, and the policy must work to incent direct storage and CO₂ capture. It's in these areas that we face significant hurdles.

Continuing on slide 9 with policy principles, companies that elect to use carbon capture and storage may be able to achieve reductions greater than their reasonable share of national targets. So a mechanism to reward and incent this behaviour is needed. Any trading or offset system that's designed needs to work to support this idea.

I'd also like to make the point that we're at the stage of deployment. Significant research has already occurred on some of this technology, and some of it is well understood. We believe any technology fund mechanisms that are proposed should be focused on large-scale deployment and not on direct research.

The government has a transitional role to help CCS right now. At these early stages, the risk is the highest and our understanding of the scale, technology, costs, and timing is the lowest.

Just in closing, then, the ICON Group has done a substantial analysis of how a carbon capture and storage network could function. We encourage the federal government to confirm CCS as a key part of Canada's environmental strategy and to make the ICON concept a priority.

I'd also like to make it clear that capture companies are willing to pay their fair share of the costs of CO₂ reductions. We do not expect to profit from CCS if that is the chosen compliance mechanism for any company.

Developing an integrated CO₂ network will be a transformative environmental step, one that can be most effectively taken as a private–public partnership. We would like the federal government to work with us and the provincial governments to develop the scope, size, and policy options that will enable ICON. Collaboration is essential, and the ICON companies are ready to engage the government in substantive discussions.

Thank you for your attention. I eagerly await your questions.

[Dr. David Lewin, Senior Vice-President, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Development, EPCOR Utilities Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members.

EPCOR commends the efforts of this committee to develop effective environmental legislation addressing greenhouse gases and other emissions. It's clear that the results of your efforts here will have great significance for the future of Canada and the Canadian electrical industry.

For those who are not familiar with EPCOR, I'll just briefly introduce our company. EPCOR Utilities Inc. builds, owns, and operates power plants, electrical transmission distribution networks, water and waste water treatment facilities, and infrastructure in Canada and now in the United States.

Our Canadian operations include facilities in British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta. EPCOR's generation fleet includes power generation from wind, biomass, run-of-river, small hydro, recycled energy, gas, and coal. EPCOR has been named one of Canada's top 100 employers for seven consecutive years, and it is headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta.

The EPCOR Power LP has the largest market capitalization in its sector and owns plants across Canada and the United States. EPCOR owns 31% of the LP and is the manager of its operations.

In 2000, EPCOR Utilities Inc. and a number of other Canadian companies formed what we refer to as the Canadian Clean Power Coalition, or CCPC. The CCPC was formed to investigate technological developments that could lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas and other air emissions from the continued use of coal for power generation.

Today we wish to discuss our company's perspectives on the implications of Bill C-30 and the challenges and opportunities for managing air emissions from the electrical industry within Canada. Further, we would like to update you on the progress that the Canadian Clean Power Coalition has made on the development and deployment of new technology. EPCOR strongly believes that a rational regulatory framework has the potential to deliver major reductions in Canada's emissions profile over the long term.

While we are discussing emissions at the national level, electrical generation is regulated by the provincial governments and in some cases owned by those same governments. Not surprisingly, the dominant fuel types used to generate electricity vary quite broadly across the country, largely due to geography and resource availability. For example, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Maritimes depend heavily on coal-fired generation. Those regions lack significant hydro opportunities. Alberta in particular has a more than 1,000-year supply of low-sulphur sub-bituminous coal reserves. British Columbia, Quebec, and Manitoba have been blessed with an abundance of hydro, again based on their specific geographies. Ontario has benefited from a diverse fuel mix, including a significant share from nuclear.

Canada's electricity generators are individually and collectively capable of delivering substantial emissions reductions in line with those envisioned by the act and this committee. But the reality is that the reductions will take place in stages over decades, rather than over a few months or years. As you've heard from other presenters to this committee, our industry is highly capital-intensive, with large facilities and significant life spans. In addition, facilities have little ability to switch fuels without complete renewal of the capital asset in place.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, Canada experienced a significant build of power generation that now forms a significant portion of the generation across the country. Much of that generation is fueled by coal and will reach the end of its economic life between now and 2020. As such, the country will require another wave of investment in baseload power generation to replace this aging infrastructure.

EPCOR and others in the industry are strongly advocating an approach that takes advantage of this capital stock turnover and promotes the adoption of what we call best available technology economically achievable, or BATEA, when a plant is retired. Replacing our older power plants with today's best available technology that is economically achievable will lead to a dramatic and immediate reduction in emissions from power generation and is part of the pathway to near-zero-emission power generation. I would never say zero-emission power generation

This approach is already working today. In 2000, EPCOR did an extensive review of the technological developments in coal-fired generation. This review then formed the basis of our technology selection for EPCOR's Genesee Phase 3, or G3, application to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. That project was approved in 2001.

G3 employs the best available technology that is economically achievable, and it has been generating 450 megawatts net to the Alberta grid since March 2005. Through the investment of an additional $90 million, EPCOR was able to significantly reduce air emissions from this state-of-the-art facility. In comparison to a number of coal-fired facilities that retired in 2003 and 2004, G3 reduced emissions of NOx and SO₂ by 63% and 80% respectively. In addition, G3's supercritical technology resulted in an 18% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt hour, compared to the provincial average for coal-fired generation in the province. So there was a significant reduction in GHG emissions. Such technology substitution has great potential to reduce air emissions in Canada.

Let me return to the Canadian Clean Power Coalition. I’m pleased to be serving as the chairman of this coalition as we work toward the deployment of new technology options for coal-fired generation. Integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, is the technology we are pursuing today, particularly in Alberta.

The coalition recently began a 28-month front-end engineering design effort, or FEED, at EPCOR's Genesee site just west of Edmonton. This project is currently being funded by EPCOR and the Alberta Energy Research Institute. At the completion of the FEED study, coalition members will be able to evaluate the opportunity to build an IGCC plant in Alberta. Indeed, this study could accelerate the ability to deploy such technology.

Our hope is that an IGCC plant will allow us to have a relatively pure CO₂ stream available for enhanced oil recovery, perhaps in the nearby Pembina oil fields. Such a plant would also improve air quality by dramatically reducing key air emissions. Compared to vintage coal-fired facilities, IGCC technology has the potential to lower emissions of NOx by 96%, particulate matter by 98%, and SO₂ by 99%, for significant improvement in air emissions. While this technology is not commercially available at this very moment, we continue to believe it is important for industry and governments to keep investing in its commercialization.

In the context of the Clean Air Act, we believe it is important for government to continue its partnership with industry as we work on technology research and commercialization. It is equally important that the regulatory standards and targets set by government reflect an objective assessment of the best available technology that is economically achievable.

So where do we go now? While there is limited opportunity for companies like ours to make significant changes in the short term, we would support a policy environment that mandated near-term targets, as long as they weren't at the expense of longer-term real reductions. For many generators, the only option to achieve short-term reductions would be through the purchase of reductions from other sectors in the form of offsets. We believe the near-term target should ensure that power generators retain sufficient capital to invest in the commercialization and deployment of new technology like IGCC and carbon capture and storage.

As we mentioned earlier, we support a model for our industry that would require that a plant reaching the end of its economic life be replaced or perform to the same level as the best available technology that is economically achievable of the day. Genesee 3 is a perfect example of how this would work and the potential reductions that could be achieved.

In the short term, EPCOR would support the concept of a technology fund as one compliance mechanism for the electricity sector. You've already heard about this from TransAlta, so I won't spend any time on it, except to agree with TransAlta that this would be an effective way to overcome economic hurdles and accelerate capital stock replacement with new low-emission technologies.

Another compliance mechanism must be a robust domestic offset system and an active national emissions trading regime that allows real and verifiable international credits to be transacted. EPCOR is one of the most active Canadian participants in the offset market. We believe it can result in real and verifiable--third-party verifiable--reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If it would be helpful, we'd be pleased to provide the committee with information on how we have approached offset trading to meet our Alberta requirements.

With such mechanisms in place, EPCOR could achieve the government's proposed target of a 65% reduction in greenhouse gas levels by 2050. We've already shown with Genesee 3 our ability to reduce NOx, SOx, and greenhouse gas levels significantly.

We are in agreement with TransAlta's estimation of the costs to the sector, so I will not address that further today.

EPCOR has demonstrated its commitment to deployment of new technology and leadership in searching for the next technology leap for our industry. We see tremendous potential for greenhouse gas reductions across the industry in the medium to long term. We are mindful that what could put those reductions at risk is a policy framework that is focused on short-term action in an industry that has a long-term timeframe at play.

We encourage this committee to focus on the medium- to long-term significant reductions that our industry can make. Don't sacrifice the long-term goal for the desire to show immediate action. Targets today must take into account the realities of the different sectors and their respective abilities to make changes in the short, medium, and long term. There is not necessarily one solution that fits all sectors.

Finally, we note that the bill does address provincial and federal equivalency. We applaud this, as it removes an additional source of uncertainty for our industry.

Thanks again for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We now have quorum, so we can call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 16 of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

The topic de jour is CO₂ capture. We have some well qualified witnesses: from EPCOR Utilities Inc., David Lewin, senior vice-president of integrated gasification combined cycle development, and Tim Boston, director of public and government affairs; from the Forest Products Association of Canada, Avrim Lazar, president and CEO; from the ICON Group, Stephen Kaufman, with Suncor, and Wishart Robson, with Nexen; and from the University of Calgary, David Keith, Canada Research Chair, Institute for Sustainable Energy, Energy and Environmental Systems Group.

Welcome all. Our usual proceeding is about 10 minutes, less if possible, for each presenter, and then we'll start a round of questioning, varying between opposition and government side, and get all the facts out on the table. I appreciate you all joining us today. It's an important topic that we've been following closely, of course, for a long time.

Without further ado, I would like to call on David Lewin from EPCOR Utilities for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Lewin, the floor is yours.

[Sidney Ribaux]

We said that Bill C-30 does not properly address climate change and air pollution.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ribaux, at the very beginning of your presentation, you said that there was nothing in Bill C-30 that really helped to solve greenhouse gas and air pollution problems.

Am I right?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I want to come back to the economic questions. Clearly, in terms of municipalities, you need an industrial tax base to fund your budgets. Of course, your citizens who live there need to work.

I want to come back to the short-term window, because with respect to Bill C-30, I sense there's a strong desire in the opposition parties to probably make some amendment to enshrine the Kyoto target and timeline into the legislation itself. It would then become something very real and fixed that would have some consequences for you and for the businesses in your communities.

There are some of us who would like to see our industries make the kinds of investments required for the deep transformation of a carbon-constrained economy. It's a concern that if we have to comply with Kyoto by purchase of credits, for example, we're avoiding the investments right now to begin that kind of transformation.

Are you concerned that in the short-term window there could be some economic problems in the next four or five years? I'm not talking about the medium or long term, because we can see where industry needs to go and what the opportunities are, but if there's an amendment for a specific target and timeline that's difficult in the next four to five years, what are the repercussions at the municipal level? Are there some concerns about that?

We want to get the targets right. I guess that's what we're looking at.

[Gord Steeves]

From our perspective, I'll try to slant my comments towards the bill that's in front of the committee. You heard me talk about the prospect of including municipalities in the discussion by virtue of the changes in the legislation that are being considered. In clauses 2 and 18 of Bill C-30 there is talk about amendments thereto. It talks about who should be included in the discussions. The first thing I would say is please include municipalities in those discussions, because the air quality problems you're talking about exist, to the largest extent, in the largest centres, and these people in these cities have a lot to offer. And the organizations that represent them, FCM and the provincial organizations, have a lot to offer. That's very important.

We are suggesting as well that in clause 18 in Bill C-30, amending section 103.09--this is all in our ask--that we add in references to the Canada–U.S. Air Quality Agreement, because you may be aware that a lot of the problems in terms of air quality that we're seeing in our cities are not as a result of pollution that's happening in Canada, but is in fact pollution that's coming up from the United States of America and flowing up to our north, which is a real issue for some of our cities. You've heard me talk about the kick-starting of the new loans under the Energy Efficiency Act. That's important. And we also talk about, in clause 47 of Bill C-30, putting in implementing a lot of the standards we've seen in the acts that have been implemented by California, which we have reviewed and we think are very progressive and would work in Canada.

So all of those, with the addition of the offset aggregator and the role that we might be able to play in cities and as an organization, we think we could really make a difference.

[Gord Steeves]

Once again, thank you for the question.

I can't speak with any great knowledge of the particular project in Montreal, but I can say, with respect to Bill C-30 in front of the committee and the amendments spoken thereto, in particular subclause 46(2), which talks about amending section 20 of the Energy Efficiency Act, that what we are suggesting with respect to this act is that the federal government establish a continued revolving loan fund to help kick-start municipal energy efficiency projects, including those targeting water and waste water treatment facilities, street lighting, and building energy performance.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has historically found that the method of helping municipalities help themselves with this type of legislation and this type of regulatory framework is best for augmenting already existing critical mass energy at the municipal level. Again, it has the benefit of creating those types of synergies. Hopefully in the discussion the committee will agree with us on the wisdom of putting those programs in place that don't simply offer a handout but offer a partnership. Obviously, incumbent and implicit within that request is that municipal governments continue to be—I don't say become, I say continue to be--partners with the federal government ongoing.

[Gord Steeves]

Thank you for the question. I would like to answer in English.

It was an excellent question. I have a pretty good answer.

If the direct question is how can the federal government maximize its efficiency in terms of dollars spent, I might suggest using programs like the program we have in place at the FCM, which we've called green municipal funds. I wouldn't expect members of the committee to necessarily be familiar with the program, but it provides a lump sum to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in the amount of about $250 million, which municipal governments can access to do grants to municipalities to do studies for energy efficiency in all the projects they are doing--be it buildings, water and waste, rapid transit, or whatever happens to be the order of the day for that particular municipality. That program is then followed up after the grant with a reduced interest loan, not a grant, to municipalities. The municipalities can access that money and leverage it against their own dollars within their municipality to complete the project.

This is done over and over again in municipalities right across Canada, and this is a project that has been going on for the past several years. It's a wonderful project, and a great example of how it can work. It has the beautiful effect of the federal government being able to loan money, not grant, to the larger extent, and have it matched at the municipal level. It is a good example of how those partnerships can be created. What happens from coast to coast is that you see literally hundreds of projects being done, big projects, in municipalities that are completed and have a great effect on greenhouse gases.

The good news in this story is that in many cities over the years, even though the private sectors, the people going to and fro in the cities, haven't made that marked a decrease, there actually has been a great deal of effect made in Canadian cities--Calgary, Edmonton, for example--where the city administration output has been drastically reduced. They're truly good news stories. When Bill C-30 talks about domestic offset systems and how those can be arranged, groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities are ready to step in and act as clearinghouses and aggregators to collect and distribute those types of offset systems that can work. While every municipality is setting its own course for greenhouse gas reduction, there can be a system that amalgamates it, aggregates it, and keeps track of it over time.

There are really some great success stories out there. That would be my answer to some of the issues you pose.

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

Mr. Ribaux, has Bill C-30, in its current form, and the various announcements made over the last two months by the Conservative government, resulted in a comprehensive plan to fight climate change?

[Gord Steeves]

Absolutely, Mr. Godfrey, and I'm sorry that I missed that part of your question, because that's a huge part of our suggestion as municipal governments from across Canada. We have specific asks in our written presentation, not the least of which is we're recommending that the preamble as talked about in clause 2 of Bill C-30, which talks about the amendment of the preamble of CEPA, be amended to include municipalities as part of the consultation process. Also it goes deeper, in that with respect to clause 18 of Bill C-30, which talks about the amendment of section 103.02 of CEPA, there's some debate as to “may” versus “shall”, wherein the federal government is given the “shall” directive to consult certain sectors of society and then given the “may” option of consulting municipalities. We would certainly like to see that changed in the auspices of the definition of committee, going back to the original legislation, wherein municipalities are simply made a partner of this process going forward.

This is not because we want to step on anyone's toes. We think our ambitions as municipalities ultimately are the exact same ambitions as the federal and provincial governments, but we think we truly have something to offer. Obviously, as everyone at this table is well aware, the lion's share of greenhouse gases is produced in concentrated municipalities, and we think we have something to offer.

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

It's good to see the FCM again. We've dealt with each other in the past.

I was wondering when you heard the presentation from Équiterre whether you agreed with the position that in fact Bill C-30 ought to be a more aggressive or ambitious piece of legislation in terms of the various things that Mr. Ribaux spoke of--for example, reaffirming the Kyoto Protocol, setting out targets for the 2008-12 period, having a regime in place for large final emitters. What was your reaction to the ambition of Mr. Ribaux's comments?

[Gord Steeves, First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

My name is Gord Steeves and I'm the acting president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I'm joined by one of our senior policy analysts, Mary Jane Middelkoop.

As you may be aware, Mr. Chairperson, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the organization that represents virtually all Canadian municipalities, from the very largest to the very smallest, encompassing about 90% of the Canadian population.

I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I won't speak in detail to all the specific recommendations we are making for Bill C-30. These are spelled out in our submission.

I apologize for not having our brief available in French. It was impossible for us to have both versions ready for today, but we will have the French version tomorrow.

While municipal governments will not be heavily regulated by the proposed Clean Air Act, how it is implemented and its effectiveness are important to Canadian cities and communities. Bill C-30 provides the Government of Canada and Parliament with the opportunity to recognize formally the fundamental role municipal governments play in combatting smog and greenhouse gas emissions.

Unfortunately, in its current form, the bill does not meet that criteria. That is why we are proposing specific amendments which I will come back to in a moment.

The 1,500 municipalities that belong to the FCM are already making a significant contribution to Canada's environmental targets. For example, we are taking part in projects to reduce energy consumption, encourage the use of public transit and reduce the amount of garbage sent to landfills.

We could do more. Our current efforts are largely uncoordinated, without an overall plan or design. We could make an even greater contribution to cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within a national plan and with national coordination.

A long-term intergovernmental partnership is the only way to meet the challenges posed by climate change and air pollution. In the framework of this partnership, we will have to redefine and clarify roles and responsibilities based on more functional criteria.

It is essential that Bill C-30 recognize the role of municipal government in meeting Canada's environmental objectives and that it be implemented in partnerships with cities and communities.

The importance of a coordinated intergovernmental action is illustrated by a recent U.S. report. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a U.S.-based think tank, surveyed climate change activities in ten U.S. cities that signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. It found that while cities' commitments are real and in some cases involve significant programs, they face an uphill struggle. Not more than one or two of the ten cities will meet their goal of reducing emissions 0.7% below 1990 levels by 2012. The report found that some cities had hoped to achieve their goals with the help of state and federal policies such as renewable electricity standards, improved vehicle efficiency, and stricter fuel economy standards.

This offers important lessons for Canada. Despite their good intentions, municipal governments cannot meet the challenge to clean the air and stop climate change on their own. Actions by other governments can have a huge impact locally.

On the plus side, subsidies, standards, and incentives can support local efforts. On the negative side, confusing rules and regulations or a failure to provide resources can hinder them.

Coordinated intergovernmental action is needed to ensure that municipal governments can reach their full potential. Our inability to focus the potential of municipal governments would be a lost opportunity.

Municipalities generate emissions through the operation of buildings and facilities and as a consequence of services like waste management, water treatment, and public transit. In addition, we have influence over land use practices, transportation systems, the energy efficiency of community building stock, and the sources of energy used. Efforts to enlist the municipal sector in meeting broad national environmental goals such as FCM's green municipal fund are producing results. However, the scope of the problem as well as the untapped potential of our cities and communities requires more.

The FCM believes that there is a clear opportunity for the federal government to adopt an integrated and strategic approach to clean air and climate change. However, this approach will not be without its challenges. Municipal governments lack the resources and fiscal tools they need to maintain their infrastructure and meet their other responsibilities.

In addition, we may not always have the legislative authority to introduce new fees or levies to promote emission reduction activities.

The FCM submitted a plan to the previous Minister of the Environment for a collaborative approach towards cleaner air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We met Minister Ambrose and agreed to strike a joint FCM and Environment Canada working group. The working group was designed to make the partnership real by advising us on the opportunities to work together for cleaner air and lower greenhouse gases in our communities.

The municipalities are prepared to help clean our air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they can start now. We do not need to wait for new legislation in order to start working together. Investments in public transit, energy efficiency and climate change adjustment measures by municipal governments can produce immediate results.

However, framework legislation such as Bill C-30 can and does set the tone for government action. Its silence on municipal government's potential and role in combatting smog and climate change undermines the cooperation necessary for progress. For this reason, we are proposing an amendment to CEPA that recognizes the role of municipal governments.

The FCM recommends that the composition of the CEPA National Advisory Committee, as outlined in part I, subsection 6(2) of CEPA 1999, be amended to require participation of a municipal government representative.

Canada cannot achieve its climate change and clean air targets without the commitment and active participation of municipal governments. And, without this amendment, Bill C-30 will not help to resolve this situation. The municipal governments are prepared to work with the federal government and the governments of the provinces and territories in order to make a concrete and quantifiable contribution to the fight against climate change and air pollution.

Bill C-30 should be amended to recognize the role and place of Canada's cities and communities in combatting smog and climate change. Only then can the legislation serve as the foundation of a credible coordinated national strategy on clean air and climate change.

Thank you.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I need to go on, because my time is limited.

Obviously what this committee is trying to do is take Bill C-30 from a series of just minor amendments to CEPA into something that really does give you an array of choices, both through cap and trade and perhaps other things that are in that tool box, to use the term you've been using.

You mentioned that the new technology is really the principal driver of your ability to reduce emissions and to make a substantive dent in getting to whatever those emission targets might be. Can you tell me what role you see government playing in that regard? We have the technology partnerships program—something along the lines of a green version of that? What role do you see government playing in assisting the research and development process, if any? How important do you see that being?

[Rahumathulla Marikkar]

In terms of Bill C-30, to improve the air quality in general, it's to incent with market-based mechanisms. I think Mr. Gagnier mentioned that at one point.

We have green procurement policies within governments, and there are also many private sector organizations that look for greener products. We have a mechanism with EcoLogo to certify the top 20 products. And if there is a market-based mechanism, we take out the rhetoric and we start moving industries in the right direction on their own, and it will also pull the others toward it. Regulation-wise, we encourage the policy-makers to regulate the bottom 20 in each sector. It has to be considered sectorally, and then I think we will have a better direction.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Marikkar, you provided very impressive figures on your companies that are engaged in greenhouse gas reduction efforts in a variety of ways, such as energy use reduction, pollution reduction, reduction of water use, and fibre recycling.

What do you expect Bill C-30 to deliver in terms of incentives making it possible for you to continue improving your performance?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming forward.

I would like to read a quote that I received from the Library of Parliament. It says, “Canada could not conceivably meet its emissions reduction target through domestic measures alone without essentially bringing its industrial economy to a halt.” The chief economist for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers agree. Does anybody here disagree with that? Great.

I think everybody agrees that we want to have cleaner air for Canadians and get rid of some pollutants. Obviously, Bill C-30 goes beyond GHGs, which is all Kyoto deals with. It deals with indoor air, which is amazing, actually. It's an amazing step by any government. But there's a balancing act: economy versus cleaner air.

I want to go on to the cost of meeting Kyoto, just very briefly. I was doing some calculations. I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research on what it would cost for a Kyoto commitment--and just to buy credits, not to meet our domestic changes, and they actually come out to say that the president of the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium says it would be a minimum of $26 billion to $38 billion. It could cost up to $38 billion over the Kyoto time period of five years. That works out to $2,500 per taxpayer, or something in the neighbourhood of $5,000 per home.

We heard evidence from people from Quebec who the Bloc brought forward—one particular gentleman was very impressive—that for infrastructure dollars invested, you get a huge return in benefits in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and emissions generally. And $36 billion, quite frankly, could buy a lot of infrastructure in this country, where we're in a deficit position. It could also buy a lot of technology that we could sell internationally to people so they could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Gentlemen, would anybody disagree with that?

[Denis Fraser]

I'd like to express a slightly different point of view on the international trading system than what my colleagues here have expressed.

I'm part of a large international group, Mittal. We operate in 60 different countries, so we're seeing both sides of the equation. A lot of steel is produced in countries that are not signatories to the Kyoto accord and that have demonstrated very little, if any, interest in pursuing avenues like the ones we're committing to under Bill C-30. We're concerned that the simple conclusion that you can adopt an international trading system and buy your credit will simply overtax some industries, the steel industry, and just move the production elsewhere. It's very easy to offshore steel production, and it is a concern that is significant for our industry.

We'd rather see policies that encourage and foster reinvestment in technology in the country so we can further advance our own ability to achieve increasingly more difficult targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We've heard from witnesses generally on the importance of having that clear framework, and we believe Bill C-30 provides that, but as a government we're open to how to strengthen it and make it better.

We've also heard from a few select people that there is a silver bullet in making an additional charge for manufacturing. For example, yesterday I believe it was, or on Tuesday, it was said that adding an extra dollar per barrel in the oil sands would be the silver bullet to help us meet the Kyoto target. What we've seen over the last 10 years were dramatic increases in Canada in greenhouse gas emissions, yet our goal is to be down here. Is there a silver bullet, or do we need a very clear plan that will take us down here—not immediately, but on a very clear trajectory, provide an inertia that will bring us to that goal?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the witnesses being here. Thank you for the handouts and the very good presentations.

Mr. Gagnier, you've said in your presentation Canada needs a smart policy framework, smart regulations, and pragmatism, a tool box. We need to know where we're going. The government has worked hard on Bill C-30, and that's what we're discussing today. I'm sure each of you has looked at Bill C-30 and the notice of intent. I'm sure you're all aware that includes short-, medium-, and long-term targets that will be set. The short targets are intensity based for greenhouse gas emissions, to be announced very soon. And they're hard caps, on the short, relating to pollution levels.

You've also mentioned the frustration in the lack of direction being provided by the previous government, and you've moved ahead on a voluntary basis, where Bill C-30 takes us from a voluntary to a mandatory regulation regime.

So do you agree that we should be moving from the voluntary? There is the memorandum of understanding, and each of you has made mention that you've been actually doing the work anyway. But are you sensing much more clarity in direction from this government? And I don't mean that politically, but are you sensing a much clearer direction that we are moving to achieve greenhouse gas emissions through Bill C-30? Are you happy with the basic structure?

[Denis Fraser, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mittal Canada Inc., Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, and members of this panel.

First of all, on behalf of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, I welcome the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Canadian steel industry.

We recognize the need for concerted action to protect the environment, and we believe it is possible to achieve environmental and economic performance that will generate sustainable growth and prosperity in the Canadian economy and the industry. Our companies have demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving substantial environmental gains, while maintaining an economic balance.

In my remarks, I will first highlight the strong performance of our industry in addressing clean air issues over the past 15- plus years, surpassing the Kyoto targets on greenhouse gas emissions and achieving large reductions of other emissions.

Next, I would like to advocate our approach to sustainable success, which combines environmental and economic performance. I would stress the need to continue investing in break-through "clean" technologies.

Thirdly, I would like to highlight some of our industry's efforts to contribute to a sustainable steel sector that will continue to benefit Canada.

It is unfortunate that too much of the general public perceives the steel industry to be a large contributor to Canada's air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, as Environment Canada's publication indicate, we produce only 1.8% of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions and 1% of air pollutants.

We're a small contributor in relative terms, but we have worked to have a larger impact on our footprint. We were an early mover in reducing emissions, even before 1990. And since 1990, a period during which Canadian steel shipments grew by 13%, our industry has reduced greenhouse gas intensity by 24%, and we have reduced absolute greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15%. Indeed, we exceeded the Kyoto target of a 16% reduction very early in 1991.

Similarly, we have reduced harmful pollutants significantly. For example, between 1993 and 2003 we reduced benzene emissions by 75%. We have a CEPA code of practice target of 90% by 2015, which we expect to meet in 2008, a full seven years earlier than the target set.

These statistics clearly show that our industry has made strong efforts over an extended period to improve our environmental performance. We will continue to improve, but we believe it is important that all sectors, and Canadians at large, work together in a manner that fairly and sustainably addresses the issue.

Canada's steel industry has managed to move the needle very significantly in the past two decades because our members showed tremendous early commitment to coupling environmental sustainability with financial performance and investment. We have successfully worked to reduce emissions of major air pollutants. From continual adaptation of environmentally efficient technology to investments in energy efficiency, we have maintained that leadership role.

We're understandably very proud of these results, and we trust that in setting any new regulatory framework and targets, the government will fully recognize what has been achieved to this point. We further seek recognition of the practical limits to what more can be done in the short term. It would be wrong, we submit, to ignore this track record and to assume that large gains remain immediately or easily before us.

We believe it is vital for Bill C-30 to develop a policy framework that advances Canada's global environmental objectives with domestic policies that combine both environmental and economic sustainability.

The two are inextricably linked. If we, as a country or an industry, are not economically viable, we cannot invest in advanced environmental technologies. We know that investment, innovation and environmental improvement go hand-in-hand. Over the past two decades, Canada's steel companies have invested billions of dollars in equipment and processes that have brought the environmental progress I just discussed. Without economic as well as environmental returns, the steel industry could not—in fact would not, have made those investments.

Looking forward, Canada and other countries will need to make major investments and work collaboratively to develop and implement break-through environmental technologies, if we are going to achieve major additional gains in sectors like our own. I emphasize break-through technologies because the scope of further improvement in the short term is very limited, given what we have already done.

For this reason, new legislation and regulations must take into account several considerations.

First, as I said at the start, there are practical limitations to achievable improvements in the short term. If appropriate and affordable technologies do not exist, they cannot be deployed. This is not a Canadian-only perspective. Our counterparts around the globe agree that it will take a quantum leap in technology to achieve the same kinds of greenhouse gas reductions in the future that we have achieved over the past 20 years.

A second reality we face is cost and complexity of capital stock turnover in our plants. Our business operates on 25 to 30-year investment cycles, with long pay-back periods. So do our competitors abroad. We cannot quicken the pace, since to do so would escalate our already enormous capital costs to uncompetitive and unsustainable levels. This would cause migration of investment out of Canada's steel industry.

If a standard is set that is economically or technologically unachievable, the impact will be seen in the marketplace. What is not made in Canada for our market will simply be imported. Canada has probably the most open steel market in the world; already over 50% of our steel is imported. It would therefore frustrate our economic and environmental goals if it became necessary to replace Canadian steel with products from other countries with lower environmental standards. This would raise, not lower, global greenhouse gas emissions, and we would not be earning the capital to reinvest in productive technologies for the future.

Let me be clear, we do not advocate for lower standards than our competitors in the other advanced nations. What I'm saying is that Canadian policies must recognize that we do not operate in an environmental or economic vacuum. Our legislative and regulatory framework needs to allow Canadian steel to be competitive and environmentally responsible at the same time, in an international as well as a domestic context. We're looking for a legislative and regulatory approach that is sensitive to our capital investment realities, our performance and commitment to date, and the need for breakthrough technologies in the future. This means setting realistic medium- and long-term targets, not unachievable ones in the short term.

The Canadian steel industry wants to be part of the solution and to partner with governments and others to do so. To this end, we are working, on many different levels within our industry, on critical issues such as energy efficiency and improved emission performance. In 2005 we negotiated a memorandum of understanding with Environment Canada and the Ontario ministry to work together on short-term and longer-term means to address reductions in greenhouse gases without undermining the competitiveness of the Canadian steel industry. The MOU provides a valuable framework for ongoing analysis and collaboration, which we wish to continue.

In addition, we focus seriously on energy efficiency, which improves environmental performance. We play an active role in the CIPEC program of Natural Resources Canada. We're working in conjunction with the Brussels-based International Iron and Steel Institute to benchmark best practices throughout the world, based on the best available technology economically achievable for individual steel processes. This is a critical principle that needs to be followed in the short term.

For the longer term, we're working in partnership with the Government of Canada in an international research program through the IISI to develop precisely the kinds of breakthrough technologies that other steel-making nations will need.

Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting a number of our specific concerns.

Most of all, we're asking you to appreciate that Canada needs a steel industry that is both environmentally and economically sustainable, one that can continue to generate the capital necessary to improve performance in both areas, just as we have for more than two decades.

Second, we ask that the government consider the relative size of the contribution our industry has made so far and the significant improvements we've already made.

Third, we ask that any regulatory regime not duplicate or contradict existing requirements for industry. Recognizing provincial governments' regulations through equivalency agreements would minimize the compliance burden on government and industry.

Fourth, we ask that regulations be developed that recognize the limits of science and technology that can be applied to our process in the short term. A failure to do so will simply tax the sector and push production to other countries. We also ask that you support policy and fiscal measures that stimulate investment in new technology, understanding that environmental improvement as well as reduction in energy usage will flow from investment in new products and processes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

[Daniel Gagnier, Senior Vice-President, Corporate and External Affairs, Alcan Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will spare you the company commercial. You can read about it in the presentation. But I'd like to start off basically by outlining some of the things we've been doing and how we've approached the issue of clean air and greenhouse gas.

I'll begin by talking about Alcan and greenhouse gas emissions. To us, climate change represents both a commercial challenge and a business opportunity. Our strategic approach has been driven by a win-win philosophy based on both environmental and economic benefits. The energy measures Alcan instituted in the early 1990s showed that it was indeed possible to reduce GHG emissions significantly, while maintaining economic growth. Our experience in Quebec has shown that governments and industries can work together in order to achieve voluntary reductions.

Concerning Alcan's early actions, the record will speak for itself. Total smelter GHG emissions from 1990 to 2005 were reduced by an actual 25%; smelter GHG emissions by intensity—and we measure both—were reduced by 45%; there was an 80% reduction in PFC emissions, which has a high concentration of greenhouse gases; and there were production increases of up to 40%. That's worldwide.

In Canada, from 1990 to 2005, total smelter GHG emissions were reduced by more than 30% and smelter GHG emissions intensity was reduced by 50%, while we increased production by 50%.

So we've established, I think, the bona fides of our approach to the issue of clean air. We have another 10% further in targets that were announced in Montreal at the beginning of this week, between now and 2010.

The next slides from the deck that you will see are merely proof points showing the trend lines on PFC emissions, on reducing emissions of air pollutants—fluoride emissions in particular—on polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and on total emission reduction by installation over the years.

Now, let's take a look at what we are doing today.

Process-related improvements to older technologies are continuing, and Alcan is intensively modernizing its Canadian assets with new technologies. Those efforts are leading to significant positive impacts in energy efficiency and reductions in GHG emissions. Alcan's AP35 series electrolysis technology is the most energy and GHG efficient technology in use today. And, while we continue to enhance that technology platform, we are also investing in its future, namely AP50, by building a US$550 million pilot plant in Jonquière, Quebec.

To give you an idea of the potential convergence of this technology and other technologies, we believe that in five years, GHGs will have dropped and energy efficiency will have improved by 20%.

We are aggressively pursuing win-win opportunities in the downstream applications of products and their inherent energy and GHG benefits, through development, promotion and sales of a range of aluminum products, including a focus on end-of-life recycling benefits.

These efforts and their results are proving that economic growth and competitiveness, and responding to environmental challenges, can be mutually supportive objectives.

On slide 17 in the long deck you'll find a chart on the cost of abatement that is very complicated, but I'll simplify it for you. Everything below the line shows things that we can achieve today, and if you look above the line, for nuclear, wind, forest, solar, coal-to-gas shifts, and avoiding deforestation, you have a series of technologies that can be invested in and that will yield results.

On policy and regulations—slide 18 in the longer deck—to leverage existing solutions and encourage future solutions and build on early action to date, Canada and companies like mine need a smart policy framework. We need smart regulations and we need pragmatism in terms of the tool kit at our disposal that we can use.

The strategic combination of policy, regulations, and tax as an incentive to strongly encourage investment in technologies and energy efficiency will assist companies in leveraging business plans and investment cycles and we believe will contribute to win-win solutions.

We need a suite of approaches that recognizes what companies have already done. We need these approaches to be flexible, in the sense that all sectors deal with different realities, and while we need incentives on the technology front to do more, there's much that we can do and have already done. Sectoral approaches within Canada can be effective to build on, where provinces have already taken a lead, as they have done with the aluminum industry in Quebec, including voluntary measures within the tool box used by regulators.

Let's talk about our coordinated approach.

Federal-provincial cooperation is critical if we are to effectively regulate GHG emissions and emissions of air pollutants. Provisions on equivalency in Bill C-30 need to be passed to facilitate the avoidance of overlapping or conflicting regulations. Equivalency of effect will achieve the same results as equivalency of regulation in meeting overall policy objectives.

We support the federal government's power to regulate directly, when necessary, but advise caution in revisiting standards for a sector such as aluminum when it is already being well-covered provincially on both air pollutants and GHGs with significant results to date, and concrete plans moving forward.

On policy and regulations, slide 21, mandatory targets need to be an important part of the tool box, as they set clear, transparent, and consistent long-term objectives and represent a strategic intent regarding where we want to be. Long-term targets set clear mandates along the way to unleash competitive market forces. But we also need short- and medium-term targets that provide the foundation for an immediate call to action. Some of us have already started to act.

Finally, on market tools, the government needs to establish the rules and regulations of the market aimed at ensuring proper market functioning, including emissions trading and offsets, and then pull back to let the market forces operate effectively.

As for targets in the aluminum industry, for some industries like aluminum it will be important to measure both the actual and the intensity level of emissions to know where we are, until reductions from downstream applications are also recognized. To put the context around intensity targets, they merely allow us on an efficiency basis to continually improve and to set the benchmarks. That's why they're important. However, absolute reduction targets that don't take into account consideration of growth, capital stock turnover for product, and recycling opportunities can severely handicap the ability to leverage the inherent energy- and GHG-saving qualities of any material.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Alcan has been taking this challenge on both air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and the general challenge on environmental performance, seriously since 1990, and we've demonstrated many successful actions to date. If we want to be competitive—and there is an issue of competitiveness here—we will all have to take action and we will need smart, pragmatic approaches that foster environmental performance improvement while enhancing Canada's economic competitiveness.

Our message is that we've had that belief for some time and we believe that now is the time to act.

Merci beaucoup. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We finally have quorum.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I am obviously preaching to the people from the committee who aren't here, but if you could ask your colleagues to please be more timely, it would be much appreciated. We have a full agenda today.

This is meeting number 14 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

I want to welcome, from Alcan, Mr. Daniel Gagnier, senior vice-president, corporate and external affairs; and Mr. Patrick Tobin, director, government and corporate relations. From the Canadian Steel Producers Association we have Ron Watkins, president; Denis Fraser, president and CEO of Mittal Canada; and Jim Stirling, general manager, environment and energy, for Dofasco Inc. From Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc., we have Rahumathulla Marikkar.

We are waiting—but we'll start—for Mr. Avram Lazar, president and CEO of Forest Products Association of Canada; and from the Mining Association of Canada, Mr. Gordon Peeling, president and chief executive officer.

I've just been advised that Mr. Lazar is not here; he will be here another day. That gives us 10 more minutes.

What we do typically for witnesses is give you about 10 minutes—or less, please—to talk about your interest in Bill C-30. Obviously we're going to learn something about your industry or your company, but we'd like to keep it as focused as we can on Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, and what can be done to make that act stronger. Then we'll get into the round of questioning.

We will start with Alcan and Monsieur Gagnier or Monsieur Tobin.

It's Monsieur Gagnier, for 10 minutes, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

This is our 13th meeting on Bill C-30. I appreciate your being here. I think all the testimony we've heard thus far has invoked a lot of good, healthy debate. We're looking forward to your recommendations. Most of you have provided verbal recommendations, so thank you for those.

I'd like to focus a bit on moving from a voluntary system to a regulatory one and the importance you see in that, which is what Bill C-30 does, along with the notice of intent to regulate. I think each of you have made comments on the importance of carbon trading.

Is the importance of having a stable, predictable structure with Bill C-30 what takes us in a direction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Bill C-30 also deals with reducing pollution, cleaning the air that we breathe, but today I just want to focus on the greenhouse gas emissions, which I think is relevant to your testimony.

Is it important to have a regulatory structure—as opposed to a voluntary—to have a domestic or international carbon market actually function? Right now it is voluntary. People can participate in a voluntary way within the carbon markets. But we've seen greenhouse gas emissions skyrocket under the previous government. This government wants to take seriously the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

So how important is it that we move from voluntary to regulatory?

[Don Wharton]

What would be the result of such a framework? TransAlta believes it could achieve the government's proposed target of a 65% reduction in levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. We believe we could achieve similar levels of sulphur dioxide and NOx emission reductions in the same timeframe. These are tremendous levels of reduction, given the growing demand for electricity in the economy.

Do we know exactly today how we can get there? The answer is no, but we trust we can find a way.

An outstanding question is, what will this cost? That will be the key issue in determining one of two outcomes: either (a) an environment in which, with punitive sanctions on emitters, yearly compliance is a struggle and minimum efforts are the norm; or (b) an environment where innovation is encouraged with accelerating reductions, and where big-step changes in emissions are possible.

Depending on the ultimate targets established, TransAlta has estimated that the cost of fossil-fired electricity generation in Canada could rise by several percent. In some jurisdictions these costs will not easily be passed to consumers, and companies could face large financial burdens. In the near term, if compliance requirements are stiff, cashflow and market valuation will become real concerns. It becomes imperative to design a system with the full understanding of its cost implications.

Compliance cost for industry will be a function of two factors: depth of target and the availability of compliance mechanisms. It is our strong advice to this committee that the setting of emissions targets attempts to mirror the fundamental realities of each industrial sector.

Electricity is different. For electricity, it would look like a slow start but big finish. That means a ramp-up, starting with modest and achievable short-term targets, and finding a way to direct capital where it will have the biggest, most sustained effect over time.

Ours is a long-term business, and we are good at finding long-term solutions. We fully understand the environmental urgency. However, we should not let short-horizon, urgent strategies undermine much more substantial longer-term approaches to make the real big gains.

What does this mean in the context of Bill C-30? We believe that the bill should establish the framework for subsequent targets and regulations that focus on measures that are measured in progressive emission reductions. Long-term, large, and sustained reductions must be the key. The challenge is to start now, start sustainably, learn by doing, and use our financial resources in the most effective manner.

In conclusion, the key issue for electricity is one of timing. Our objective is to manage through the near term in a way that allows us to finance fundamental technology change in the long haul, while staying commercial in the marketplace.

Thank you very much.

[Don Wharton, Director, Offsets and Strategy, TransAlta Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members, I will be sharing my presentation this afternoon with Dr. Bob Page, who is a senior adviser on climate change to TransAlta and was formerly our vice-president of sustainable development.

TransAlta firmly supports the purpose and intent of Bill C-30 to address greenhouse gases and other air emissions. We commend the efforts of the committee to develop effective environmental legislation. The results will have a great importance for the future of the Canadian electricity industry.

By way of introduction, TransAlta is Canada's largest investor-owned power generation and wholesale energy marketing company, with operations in a number of Canadian provinces and in the U.S., Mexico, and Australia. Our facilities operate with a diverse mix of fuels: coal, natural gas, wind, hydro, and geothermal. In Alberta we supply approximately 60% of the province's electricity requirement.

Today we wish to discuss our company's perspective on the implications of Bill C-30 and the challenges and opportunities for managing atmospheric emissions.

Let me start by saying that TransAlta believes it is possible, with a rational regulatory framework, to make major reductions in its emissions profile in the decades to come. We are excited about this opportunity from both an environmental and a competitive perspective. If we lay the right groundwork, starting with Bill C-30, the potential is enormous.

Our industry is highly capital-intensive, with large facilities having long lifespans. We provide an essential public service. Provincial governments are the regulators of our industry and in some cases the owners, but there is a diverse array of regulated and non-regulated structures across the nation.

In every jurisdiction, the historic charge to the electricity companies has been to provide secure, reliable, and low-cost electricity to meet growing demand. Canada is fortunate to have a diverse set of electricity-generation fuels, which vary regionally. This also means that some regions are more emissions-intensive than others.

For companies with fossil-fired assets, such as TransAlta, big changes are tied to capital stock turnover. This is my first key point. Our plants have economic lives of 40 to 50 years. These plants are normally very large and specifically designed for burning one type of fuel. They are relatively efficient for their inherent design. Today these plants have limited ability to reduce their fuel use and emissions or to convert to alternate fuels. In the near term, then, emission reductions from existing plants will be finite and small. However, real opportunities come when existing plants are retired, to be replaced with new technology.

As a specific example, TransAlta closed three units of its Wabamun plant between 2003 and 2004 and effectively replaced them with generation from the state-of-the-art Genesee 3 plant, resulting in an improvement of over 25% in greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt hour and a net absolute reduction of 600,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

I'd like to turn over to my colleague Bob Page.

[Marie-Josée Nadeau, Executive Vice-President, Corporate Affairs and Secretary General, Hydro Québec]

Merci. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting Hydro Québec to share with you and the members of your committee our position as well as comments on Bill C-30.

I will be speaking in French. You have been provided with my notes, and I will be commenting on each of the slides that you have before you.

Of course, when the question period comes, I'll be more than happy to take questions in French or English.

Hydro-Quebec is an electricity generation, transmission and distribution company. Its sole shareholder is the Government of Quebec.

In 2005 Hydro-Quebec did nearly 11 billion dollars' worth of business. It produces 35,315 megawatts, and 95% of the production is renewable energy. It is because of this renewable energy that Quebec has the best greenhouse gas emission record per capita in Canada.

Hydro-Quebec's net exports to neighbouring markets amounted to 6.7 TWh in 2005, for revenues of nearly $830 million. Hydro-Quebec can take advantage of 18 interconnections with markets in Ontario, New England, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. A new interconnection with Ontario, with a capacity of 1,250 MW, is currently under construction here, just outside the National Capital.

Hydro-Quebec's exports to neighbouring markets in Canada and the United States helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the continental level and also helps reduce air pollution.

The energy strategy adopted by the Government of Quebec in 2006 emphasizes development of renewable energy. The strategy focuses on and gives priority to the ramping up of hydroelectric development, the development of wind energy, increased energy efficiency and more energy innovation.

As a result, Hydro-Quebec has adopted three main areas of focus.

The complementary development of hydroelectricity and wind power. Hydro-Quebec is moving ahead with a number of projects that together will account for approximately 4,000 MW of additional power. Wind energy will provide Hydro-Quebec with installed capacity of 3,500 MW following two calls for tenders involving 1,000 and 2,000 MW. The 1,000 MW call for tenders was the largest one ever issued in North America.

Energy efficiency measures have also been taken to a new level. Hydro-Quebec has adopted an Energy Efficiency Plan, which is expected to produce 4.7 TWh in annual energy savings by 2010 and 8 TWh by 2015.

We are also undertaking technological innovation to make our company even more efficient. In order to deal with the problem of climate change, it is essential to focus on land transportation. Hydro-Quebec has played an active role in this area with Cleanova II, a fully electric vehicle with an engine developed by our subsidiary TM4.

In the electricity sector, an effective federal strategy to fight greenhouse gas emissions should be based on four major principles: first, consider hydroelectric potential to be part of the solution; second, ensure fair treatment for hydroelectricity; third, apply the principle of polluter-pays, or emitter-pays, if you like, fairly; and fourth, promote—and I mean by that recognize—the contribution of all types of renewable energy projects.

Those principles will maximize the contribution of renewable energy as part of an effective policy to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants in Canada.

The environmental approval process is much shorter in Canada for coal-fired power projects than for hydroelectric projects. In fact, thermal power plants often do not even require federal authorization. A hydroelectric project takes an average of 8 to 12 years of preparation and preliminary steps before it is up and running, whereas a thermal plant of the same capacity can be operational in less than five years.

The regulatory process must be quick and effective. I would point out that the federal government has made a special effort over the past few years to speed up the project approval process. That has a direct impact on the ability of producers to respond to changing energy needs.

The recent approval of our Eastmain-I-A-Sarcelle-Rupert project at the federal level will enable us to begin providing megawatts of clean energy to Ontario as scheduled, that is, by the end of the decade. Ontario will thus be able to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. That is an example of a concrete positive effect of developing renewable energy.

In our opinion, the main thing that Canada can do is to create an effective emissions trading market. How can we ensure that it is effective? To begin with, like my colleagues, I would say that we need to set out clear, straightforward rules—we will come back to this further on; ensure that the laws of supply and demand can operate by not having an artificial minimum or maximum; indicate clearly that emitters must assume the cost of their emissions and that non-emitters must receive clear recognition; enable companies to make good long-term investment decisions and adapt to regulatory constraints as profitably as possible.

I have just said that the rules need to be clear and straightforward. We would like to suggest a few such rules that are already being discussed in the industry and are very realistic.

All electricity projects that have become operational since 2000 should comply with a national standard based on emissions of a combined cycle gas turbine, a standard that takes into account Canada's energy budget. To go beyond that would create too heavy a burden on a number of large emitters. Under that scenario, a new plant emitting less than a combined cycle gas turbine would receive extra credits and permits up to 350 t/GWh, and would have to pay for its extra emissions, for example, by buying permits and credits on the market.

More specifically, in the context of the bill that is before you, the timetable for targets and emission caps should not create any uncertainty. As I have said, the rules regarding long-term constraints need to be specific. Maximum emissions should decline incrementally in accordance with the timetable set out in advance. The timetable might include, for example, adequate notice for companies to be able to make the necessary investments. This is particularly important in the electricity generation sector. Investment decisions are made a long way ahead and cover long, even very long, periods.

I would also like to say a word about certain ideas circulating to the effect that standards and rules might be set for various generation streams. That is not a good idea and would only result in promoting higher emissions, which goes against the objective. Comparing coal with coal, or wind with wind, would not move Canada ahead in any way.

In closing, although we recognize that there is no magic solution, Hydro-Quebec would like to emphasize once again how important the issue of climate change is. Canada must control and reduce its emissions. The clearer the rules are and the sooner they are set, the better our performance will be. All companies planning major investments are waiting. Moreover, if Canada wants to achieve the dual objective of reducing its emissions and remaining internationally competitive, it must develop its renewable energy resources.

Thank you for your attention.

[Dr. Robert Hornung, President, Canadian Wind Energy Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here today.

I'll start off just by telling you a little bit about the Canadian Wind Energy Association. We have 300 corporate members, including turbine and component manufacturers, several utilities, project owners and developers, and a range of service providers to the wind energy industry.

Interestingly, our membership is quite diverse. We have some of Canada's largest energy companies. Some of Canada's major oil and gas producers are part of our association. We have a number of electricity producers that have quite a mix of fuels from which they're producing power. We have utilities that are primarily coal-fired. We have utilities that are primarily hydroelectric. The thing that unites them all is that they're all investing in wind, and they're all looking at wind as an opportunity going forward.

Wind energy does not produce greenhouse gas emissions and it does not produce air pollution. From the perspective of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, increased deployment of wind energy must be an important component of any credible strategy to clean the air or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to its environmental benefits, wind energy also provides a number of economic benefits, particularly in rural areas, where the best wind resources can be found. Those economic benefits include investment, job creation, improvements to the municipal tax base in rural areas, and also lease payments to land owners who provide their land for placement of turbines in order to generate electricity.

In terms of wind energy in Canada, as is the case with many types of natural resources, Canada is actually blessed with a tremendous wind resource. It's probably the best wind resource in the world, and it has to be at least in the top three. Canada's installed wind energy capacity has increased from 137 megawatts in 2000, to 1,460 megawatts at the end of 2006, a fairly significant rate of growth.

At this point in time, provincial governments have established targets for wind energy in most jurisdictions across Canada. If you add all of those together, they add up to about a minimum of 10,000 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity by 2015. Having 10,000 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity in 2015 would account for about 4% of Canada's total electricity, starting from essentially zero in 2000. Most importantly, if you look at the new electricity generation facilities expected to be built in the decade between 2005 and 2015, and at the electricity that will be produced from those facilities, we project that wind energy will produce about 20% of that electricity, which gives you a sense of how wind energy is fitting into future investment plans at this point in time.

While Canada is a leader in the exploitation of some renewable energy technologies, like hydro power, which we've discussed, we've really only scratched the surface of our wind energy potential. Today, wind energy accounts for about 0.5% of Canada's electricity demand. It accounts for about 20% of Denmark's electricity demand, 8% of Spain's, 6% of Germany's, 4% of Ireland's, and 4% of Portugal's. These are all countries that are looking to significantly expand the penetration of wind energy in their systems going forward.

Canada is in a very unique situation because of our large hydro dominance in the electricity sector. Because wind and hydro are very complementary—Pierre Fortin mentioned this in his presentation—hydro can in essence serve as a storage mechanism for wind energy. That will allow us to achieve higher levels of penetration for wind energy in Canada than we might have seen in a number of other countries around the world.

I have included a couple of graphics that I won't speak to. They're there just for information. They look at the growth of Canada's installed wind energy capacity and how that capacity is distributed across Canada at this point in time.

To increase the deployment of wind energy in Canada, we need a stable, long-term, and sustainable policy framework. We've seen some initial steps in that regard at the federal level. We've had the Wind Power Production Incentive, and now the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program. At the provincial level, we've seen a mix of renewable portfolio standards, requests for proposals for wind renewable energy, and standard-offer contracts in some jurisdictions.

Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, can play a very important role in complementing existing government policy measures by putting in place regulatory and market mechanisms to incent and accelerate investments in wind energy going forward.

From our perspective, Bill C-30 should do this through regulated limits on emissions and the rapid establishment of a domestic emissions trading system that includes mechanisms to allow for participation by wind energy and other renewable energy sources.

Reflecting the environmental benefits of electricity generation in the market will further enhance wind energy's growing cost competitiveness. I can tell you that in the last 20 years, the cost of wind energy has declined about 80%, and if you talk to people like the International Energy Agency, they will tell you with a high degree of confidence that their expectations are that the cost of wind will continue to decline going forward, which is clearly not the case for a number of other technologies.

It's important to reflect these costs in the market, because putting environmental costs into the marketplace will allow players in the market and investors in the market to have better information. Better information will lead to more optimal decisions. We can really make the market system work by essentially dealing with a market failure—the fact that these costs, the externalities are not reflected in the market at this time.

From our perspective, an emissions trading system should strive to put all new investments in electricity generation on a level playing field, and it must also provide opportunities for wind and renewable energy to participate directly in the system. There are a number of ways you could do that. You could do that through the allocation of emission allowances to wind or renewable energy. You could do that by allowing wind or renewable energy to produce emission offsets that would be able to participate in the system. No matter what path is chosen, we believe it's important that these technologies be able to participate.

Several of the preceding speakers already pointed out the importance of getting the market signals right. Investments in electricity generation are for the long term. If you put in place a new generation facility, you're going to have that facility in place for the next 20 to 60 years, along with all the attributes that come with it, positive or negative. A long-term, stable policy framework is required to provide investors with a clear understanding of emission reduction requirements and targets and of how these will evolve over time.

We believe that ultimately, if Canada wants to move forward and become a leader in emerging renewable technologies—like wind, like solar—and not just in some of the existing renewable technologies that are well established, like hydro, we'll need to do what other countries have done. Ultimately, we'll need to build on existing policies, to build a domestic emissions trading system, and actually develop a comprehensive strategy to move some of these technologies forward.

Some elements of the strategy might include targets, green power procurement initiatives, the streamlining of environmental assessment and permitting processes, education and training initiatives, research and development, and public outreach.

I'll give you one example. The country of Spain, in the year 2000, had about 1,000 megawatts of installed wind energy capacity, so we're a little bit ahead of where they were at that time. In the year 2000, their government adopted the outlandish goal of having 13,000 megawatts of wind energy in place by 2011. In 2006 they abandoned that goal, and they replaced it with a new goal of 20,000 megawatts by 2010, which they are on the path to meeting.

We can move quite quickly to put in place renewable energy technologies if we have the political will and the desire to do so. Canada has a tremendous wind energy opportunity. We have an opportunity to clean the air, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build an industry. In 2006, globally, wind energy directly employed 163,000 people. Investments in new wind energy capacity in 2006 totalled $23 billion U.S. globally. Wind energy now provides electricity for about 22.5 million homes worldwide. Again, ten years ago, that number was almost zero.

We remain far behind the global leaders in wind energy deployment. Bill C-30can make an important contribution to closing the gap by providing clear and sustained market signals that incent and accelerate development and deployment of wind energy and other renewable technologies.

Thank you.

[Pierre Fortin]

Where did you lose me?

Finally, because hydropower is uniquely flexible—responding instantly to power demand fluctuations—it is the best source to support the development of other renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar. As the production of electricity from intermittent sources of renewable energy increases, the need for complementary energy storage systems will also increase. Hydropower is the only low emitting large-scale storage option.

With climate change and air pollution widely recognized as major environmental issues, producing our electricity from hydro power plants is the most advantageous solution open to us now and in the future. If we truly wish to address air pollution and climate change, hydro power must be recognized as part of the solution, and it must be an integral part of any clean air and climate change strategy and supported as such.

I will now turn this over to my colleague, Mr. Clark, to comment on Bill C-30 specifically.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lambert, you talk about new technologies being a key part of moving forward on deep domestic reductions. Some have suggested around this table over the course of our hearings that the Kyoto target and timelines be enshrined in Bill C-30 as the short-term target. I want to focus on that scenario in the short term. Can carbon sequestration be widely applied and immediately deployed in your sector to achieve measurable reductions in order to meet that type of a target in the short-term window?

[Michael Cleland]

I'll answer the question in two parts. First of all, the regulations that might arise under Bill C-30, or Canada's Clean Air Act when it's passed, if they create a signal to investors to invest in greenhouse gas reductions...as long as it's even-handed in its application, it will tend to make people make the right choices. That's one step.

My point earlier on, and thank you for the question on that, was that the other half of the equation, the other 50%, is something that doesn't lend itself to treatment under direct regulation of that sort. We put forward some ideas that essentially involve having the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and industry, contributing to investment in local energy technology, such as combined heat and power systems, hybrid systems involving on-site renewables, and energy efficiency, to get at the other 50% of the equation. What's important is a level playing field among fuels to make sure we use the right fuel in the right place.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I've been in Fort McMurray for almost 40 years now. I remember something I'm not allowed to mention in Alberta, the national energy program, which was brought in by the Liberal government some time ago. What it did to our community and to Alberta's economy generally—I just want to talk about it very briefly. There were 25,000 people in the community at that time, I think. My parents were in business. Every private business in the area closed down within probably four or five years, putting many people out of work and into bankruptcy. It was based on something that you talked about, which was investor confidence.

I would just like to ask you what you see as the most important thing we can do as a government, on policy, in relation to what we're doing now on Bill C-30. Is it in relation to investor confidence?

[Matthew Bramley]

I'm certainly troubled by the fact that the federal government does not currently have a comprehensive climate change plan. It has made a series of isolated announcements that do not address all the key sources of emissions in Canada. Bill C-30, as it stands, is essentially a set of fairly technical amendments to existing legislation; it's certainly not a climate change plan.

By the way, a climate change plan would have to be much more than simply a bill. In fact, we know the government could act immediately using existing legislation, CEPA, if it wanted to move ahead immediately to put in place regulated greenhouse gas targets. Given there is this opportunity to amend Bill C-30 and make it stronger, I see that opportunity essentially as one of turning what is currently “government may” legislation into “government shall” legislation--in other words, to put in some requirements to give increased confidence to Canadians that the federal government will be obliged to put in place some of the elements one would expect to find in a credible climate change plan.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

My first question is to Mr. Bramley.

A question was posed around the effectiveness of Bill C-30, but you didn't get a chance to answer. Would it be fair to say at this point that Bill C-30 really represents a series of minor amendments to CEPA, and that the work of this committee, in your opinion, might be that we have to make substantive amendments if we're to put forward a real action plan for dealing with climate change?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I appreciate the testimony that has already been provided. What we've done with Bill C-30 is broken it up into topics, and the topic today is the focus on large industry, oil and gas. That's what I want to focus my questioning on.

I find it interesting that we're focusing on the 50% of large industry—oil and gas—and there have been comments made on the other 50%, which is us as consumers. As consumers in Canada, in the world, we are fueling this hunger, this thirst for this energy. That's what's fueling the expansion. China has a huge hunger for all this energy.

We're a good country to put an investment in. We have a peaceful country. It's a good place to invest. I think that's why we see the investment coming to Canada, why the United States is looking at Canada, why the world is looking at Canada. I believe we are number two in the world, second to Saudi Arabia, in terms of natural resources for that good, clean energy.

But they are connected. And I think, Mr. Lambert, you alluded to that. You said we all need to do our part. So as a consumer I am trying to reduce the amount of energy I use. Each of us, I'm sure, has that responsibility to try to reduce.

But we're focusing today on how large industry, oil and gas, can actually reduce. I think what Mr. Bramley is saying is make large industry reduce the amount now. Don't let it gradually go in that direction; make them do it now. I don't want to put words in his mouth. He can clarify that in a moment.

There is an urgency. We've heard that. Climate change is happening, so we have to change. We've seen the charts. We've seen the graphs where emissions have gone up, climate change is happening, and we need to meet this target down here.

Capture, sequestration, I think, is where we're hoping your industry will go. You've made comments about that, that you want an incentive. You want a carrot and a stick. In the past we've used voluntary; we've used MOUs; we've said all sectors of industry will be part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But you've put a warning out there that we have to be careful that it's not just a stick, that it is a carrot.

You've also said that it will take time to build the infrastructure. You've studied. I've gone up to Fort McMurray. I saw the oil sands. I've read the material from Pembina. They've been very involved with this.

Our plan is to present regulations. We have notice of intent to regulate. The short term will be intensity-based and the mid term and long term will be real caps. That's the plan. Those short-term targets will be announced shortly. Are you concerned that that is too big a stick? I hope not.

Mr. Bramley, maybe you can comment too. Are we on the right track with Bill C-30, or do you feel it's too regulatory?

[Matthew Bramley, Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute]

Good morning.

Thank you very much for your invitation to appear before you today.

Today I'm representing both the Pembina Institute and the Climate Action Network of Canada. I'd like to elaborate today on one of the recommendations contained in the package of proposed amendments to Bill C-30 that was submitted by some 23 Canadian environmental organizations.

The recommendation is that the bill require that regulations provide for, one, a fixed cap on absolute emissions that extends the Kyoto-level target to heavy industry for the 2008-2012 period; and two, an allowance trading system to facilitate efficient allocation of emissions reductions. This is an extremely important recommendation for us because heavy industry accounts for almost half of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and because those emissions have been increasing more rapidly than the national total.

I prepared a seven-page technical document that describes how this recommendation could be implemented. It's entitled “Fair Share, Green Share: A proposal for regulating greenhouse gases from Canadian industry”. Unfortunately, we were not able to prepare a French version in time for this morning, but we'll make one available in the next day or two. Meanwhile, the English version is available now on the Pembina Institute website and on request.

There's a strong consensus in Canada that greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities must be regulated, but a critical question remains. That question is how stringent regulated targets should be, and how quickly they should be applied. The government has indicated that targets should not actually reduce emissions below current levels until the 2020-2025 period, and that targets should not apply until the end of 2010. We believe this falls very far short of what is needed.

I'd like to emphasize four key points of context for answering this question of how stringent targets should be and how quickly they should be applied. First, not only does heavy industry account for almost half of Canada's emissions, but the two biggest contributors—electricity generation and upstream oil and gas—have increased their emissions by 35% and 58% respectively between 1990 and 2004, significantly more than the increase in emissions from individual Canadians. Clearly the situation is not acceptable.

Secondly, meeting Canada's Kyoto target is a legal obligation. This obligation has been a part of international law for two years, and we believe the time when we could have a debate about the target as a take it or leave it option has long since passed. The government must focus on meeting our legal obligations, not call them into question. Canadians want their country to be law-abiding.

Third, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is not just essential but urgent. To play an adequate role in preventing dangerous climate change, Canada needs to reduce its emissions to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050, as other jurisdictions are now committing to do. To meet this target, Canada's emissions must fall to around 25% below the 1990 level by 2020.

Fourth, the Kyoto Protocol provides mechanisms for taking immediate responsibility for our emissions by investing in emission reductions in poorer countries while we begin the work of implementing deep emissions cuts at home. I'd like to make it as clear as I possibly can that this has absolutely nothing to do with so-called hot air credits from Russia. Instead, I'm talking about the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanism, under which billions of dollars in investments are being made right now in specific emission reduction projects that have to go through a rigorous transparent process to show that the reductions are genuine.

Because greenhouse gas is spread all around the world, emission reductions are equally valuable in preventing dangerous climate change in Canada wherever in the world those reductions take place. Our proposal, then, is to set, for the 2008-2012 Kyoto compliance period, Kyoto-level absolute emission targets at 6% below the 1990 emissions level for each of the electricity generation, upstream oil and gas, and energy-consuming sectors. These targets could be met by combining on-site emission reductions with domestic or international Kyoto-compliant emission reduction credits generated from projects that generate demonstrable reductions beyond business as usual.

We also propose a compliance option of payments at $30 a tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, to an independently administered greenhouse gas reduction trust that would be mandated to reinvest all revenues in domestic offset credits from projects located such that revenues stay in their province of origin.

For the post-2012 period we'd like to see an announcement by government of an intention to gradually tighten targets to reach the vicinity of 25% below the 1990 emissions level by 2020; to limit purchases of international credits as needed such that the market price for domestic credits is at least $30 a tonne of CO₂ equivalent, rising to at least $50 a tonne by 2020; and to auction a steadily increasing proportion of allowances.

This proposal has been designed to meet six key objectives. The most important of these is environmental fairness. The proposal meets this objective by requiring heavy industry as a whole to contribute to achieving Canada's Kyoto obligations in proportion to its share of emissions. Heavy industry accounts for close to half of Canada's emissions and would contribute close to half the reductions needed to meet the target.

The proposal ensures environmental fairness by requiring the most emission reductions relative to business-as-usual levels from the sectors contributing most to emissions growth post-1990, which is the internationally accepted base year for emission reduction commitments.

The proposal also meets the critical objective of economic feasibility, because it distinguishes sectors according to their ability to pay. I'd like to take a moment to justify that statement.

The proposed targets represent reductions in emissions relative to a business-as-usual projection of approximately 11% for the energy-consuming sectors, 36% for electricity generation, and 46% for upstream oil and gas. I'll discuss each of these in turn.

The target for the energy-consuming industries is obviously modest. The proposed emission reduction of 11% relative to business as usual is close to the 12% reduction proposed by the previous government that was broadly accepted by industry. These industries could face difficulty in taking on a more stringent target as they are relatively mobile and exposed to international competition.

The electricity generation sector can manage a more stringent target because the need to generate electricity relatively close to the consumer means the sector has little vulnerability to international competition, and in addition, electricity prices in Canada are often regulated. Costs should be reduced by widespread government support for electricity conservation, low-impact renewable energy, and cogeneration, helping reduce the quantity of emission reductions that electricity producers would have to pay for themselves.

Assuming that such government support existed and that coal phase-out in Ontario proceeded rapidly, the cost to the remaining coal-fired generators would be between about 0.6¢ and 1.3¢ per kilowatt hour. This could be compared to an average residential price of electricity in Canada of nearly 9¢ per kilowatt hour in 2004.

The upstream oil and gas sector also has relatively little vulnerability to international competition because its profit margins are large and because resources such as oil sands cannot be moved to a different country. Even though the proposed emission reduction of 46% relative to business as usual may seem large, it is similar to the 50% reduction that Shell Canada has voluntarily committed to achieve by 2010 for its first oil sands operation.

We calculate the cost to an oil sands producer would be only between about 58¢ and $1.16 per barrel in U.S. dollars. This is a small amount compared to recent variations in crude oil prices.

The calculations of the costs I've just outlined are very straightforward, and I'd be happy to explain them during questions.

I'd like to add that our proposal also meets four other important objectives. It provides environmental integrity by setting targets in terms of actual emissions, not emissions intensity, and ensuring that all options for compliance represent real, near-term emission reductions.

It provides for urgent domestic action by signalling an emissions price of $30 a tonne, designed to stimulate large-scale development of low-emission technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration.

The proposal provides for geographic balance via the guaranteed $30-a-tonne domestic compliance option that would provide an alternative to investing in international projects.

Last but not least, it provides for certainty: price certainty for industry, by initially limiting the cost of emission reductions to $30 a tonne; quantity certainty in the form of a clear outcome for actual emissions levels; and broader regulatory certainty by including indicative information about targets and prices out to 2020 and by adopting a design that will be robust for the long term.

I'd also like to note that although the proposal is applied on a sectoral basis, it would not be very different if it were applied on a territorial basis because of the way the three key sectors are distributed regionally.

In conclusion, requiring that industry assume a fair share of responsibility for cutting greenhouse gas pollution will not only get us nearly halfway to Canada's Kyoto target, it will also put Canada on track to have the world's cleanest oil and gas production, a 21st century electricity system, and eco-efficient manufacturing. We believe this is the vision we need to be aiming for.

Thank you.

[Michael Cleland, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will endeavour to respect your time limitations.

Thank you and the committee for the opportunity to appear here with some comments on Bill C-30.

Just very briefly, the Canadian Gas Association is the association that speaks on behalf of the downstream end of Canada's natural gas system, the delivery end. In essence, we deliver natural gas to almost six million Canadian customers, businesses and residents alike, from coast to coast in Canada.

Today I will indeed focus mainly on Bill C-30, but I wanted to start by saying a couple of things about how natural gas fits into the system, about our record on GHG management, and then about Bill C-30. Then I will give a couple of other perspectives on the other part of the debate, which really doesn't come up very much when we talk about industrial emissions.

Just on natural gas, the numbers are in the documents we've left you. I won't go through those, except to say that natural gas accounts for a little over one quarter of the energy used by Canadians, and it's growing. It's growing particularly in power generation—particularly in distributed generation applications—and it has potential for growth in transportation, albeit from a very small base.

The reason for that is pretty straightforward. Natural gas, for a variety of reasons, is a very preferred form of energy. It's flexible; it's clean; it's reliable; it's in abundant supply; and it can make important contributions to both our air quality objectives and our climate change objectives. Natural gas should be an important part of Canada's strategy for dealing with climate change.

In terms of my industry's record on greenhouse gases, we're a relatively small contributor in a direct sense—from the industry. But we are part of the process; we would be part of any regulatory process or system that is put in place. We have in fact made some progress in the reduction of our GHGs: from 2000, about 6%, and actually a little bit less than that from 1990.

Let me turn to Bill C-30. First of all, on target setting in general, CGA strongly supports the idea of a framework that has short-, medium-, and long-term objectives for targets. We think that sets the kind of long view that's essential, as well as the short view needed to get us moving. But should it go further? Should it include actual detailed targets in the legislation? I would argue that there are some important reasons for not doing that.

With respect to Kyoto per se, we've said before parliamentary committees, and I'll say again, that there is no physical way of achieving Kyoto, and we would argue that building Kyoto targets into Bill C-30 is indeed to set it up for failure when Canadians are asking us to focus on possibilities for success.

I would argue as well that in any event legislation is not the place for this type of detail. Legislation should set the framework, and the authorities to regulate and the detail should be incorporated in regulations. More detail at this stage means a less stable framework as we look forward.

Moving on to the natural gas distribution sector and the targets we might set, I won't go into the details except to say that we have done a lot of work with Environment Canada. We have the data in hand. We are in fact well on the way to understanding how we could comply with any reasonable regulatory framework, and we therefore urge you to get on with passing Bill C-30 and the government to get on with getting that framework in place.

I want to comment on the issue of intensity-based reductions. I know it's controversial. Our point is simply that an intensity-based system allows you to focus on what you can control, not what you can't control, and is simply a management system. An intensity-based system, depending on how big the numerator and the denominator are, can ultimately produce absolute reductions. We should try I think to get past that debate and focus on putting a practical management framework in place.

With respect to air contaminants—I know this hasn't been the main focus, but it is part of Bill C-30 and it's important—we think we need to be moving there as well. But we're not in a position, and I don't think most industries are in a position, to move as quickly, because we haven't done the homework. We've been doing a lot of homework on greenhouse gases; we need to do a lot more on air emissions.

In any event, air contaminants and local air pollution are more complex issues in some respects. Therefore, we would argue that it is entirely appropriate to include both air contaminants and GHGs in the same legislative framework, but they probably need to move on somewhat different tracks in a regulatory sense.

In the meantime, we are getting on with it. We have hired a third party to do an inventory of air contaminants from our industry, and we expect to be in a position to move on that front reasonably quickly.

There are two points on compliance options that I want to emphasize. I know they are being debated at this table. We would argue that there should be a menu of compliance options, and two in particular that we think are important.

First, within a domestic offset system, we should allow for offsets related to utility demand-side management programs—something that we and the electrical industry both do. Since 2000, gas utility efforts have reduced natural gas use by something over 700 million cubic feet. That's the equivalent of about 250,000 households' heat and hot water. We can do more on that with the right incentives. We think one of the incentives that would help us do more would be to allow demand-side management offsets as one of the suite of compliance options.

Another part of the compliance options that we would argue in favour of is a technology investment fund. This is something that can allow us to invest in the future. It can be structured in a way to give some upside cost protection to industry. I would only add that it's important that such a fund be able to invest in a variety of technologies, including, we would argue, downstream-related technologies.

I won't spend a lot of time talking about compliance assessment, monitoring, and reporting, except to say that as you think about Bill C-30, think about ways of making that more efficient, as well as effective and transparent. There are a number of measures, in our submission, that would allow you to do that.

Finally, on equivalency agreements, CGA supports that as a mechanism that allows you to avoid overlap and duplication if the provinces want to step up.

One last thing is that there is a specific issue in Bill C-30, as structured, that in effect would require reporting every time somebody turns on their furnace. The release of a greenhouse gas, including CO₂, would need to be reported under the way it's worded at present. I don't think that's the intent. It's a minor thing, but it's probably something about which something should be done.

Mr. Chairman, wrapping up, let me just say that the other side of the equation, the non-industrial side, is that about half the energy we use in Canada is used in our communities. We have to come at that differently. It doesn't work in a regulatory framework. There are other things we can do and do more of. One of them is to significantly accelerate our energy efficiency and conservation efforts to take a more systematic approach, building on the good work that has been done over the past decade. We need to do more, though.

Building on that, we should include fuel switching as part of energy efficiency and conservation efforts. To put that in perspective, by using natural gas in a direct-burn application, as opposed to using electricity, you can get about a 50% increase in efficiency over the most efficient stand-alone electrical generation option. Notwithstanding the size of that prize and the opportunities it affords, a lot of energy efficiency programs across Canada, including in the federal government, don't treat fuel switching as a legitimate mechanism. We think it should be treated as such.

Finally, there's technology development. We strongly urge that we make sure we have the programs in place to support new technologies downstream as well as upstream. Downstream includes small-scale fuel cells, on-site renewables, combined heat and power, and making best use of the gas and electricity grids as they exist in our communities today. We can make a lot of progress in the next five years by doing a demonstration of those sorts of technologies.

Mr. Chairman, I'm over time, so I'm going to leave it at that and pass it back over to you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You are aware of the situation Canada finds itself in, in that we're one of the worst among the OECD countries for our environmental record. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years not much was done, but we're committed with Bill C-30, the piece of legislation that this legislative committee is mandated to deal with.

I'm hoping I can hear from each of the witnesses recommendations on how we can strengthen this piece of legislation to truly have that end result. Bill C-30 includes short-, medium-, and long-term targets. You mentioned, Dr. Weaver, the target of 60% to 80% or 90% reduction. Our long-term target is a reduction of 45% to 65% by 2050, and heading for that goal.

You're encouraging the larger the better. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have quorum. I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

We have two witnesses with us today in person and one via teleconference. In person today we have Professor Richard Peltier,

from the Physics Department of the University of Toronto, and Mr. John Stone, Adjunct Professor at Carleton University and member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Welcome to you both.

And from the University of Victoria we have Professor Andrew Weaver, from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences.

Welcome, all.

We'll start off with the usual for witnesses: we give each witness about 10 minutes and try to keep it to 10 minutes, if we can, so that we get maximum questioning in. We'll go through all three presentations and then we'll open it up to questioning from members of the committee.

We'll start in a little different order than that showing on your agenda. We'll start off with Adjunct Professor John Stone from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Stone, the floor is yours.

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning consultation. The member made this one of the key elements, that is, the lack of consultation by the government, particularly with a group that is most affected by the piece of legislation being discussed.

It is reminiscent of what had happened, and on which we heard testimony just recently, on another government bill, Bill C-30, the alleged clean air act, where the AFN came before the committee and was asked directly by myself and others what level of consultation it had received. The government had made a whole series of presumptions about first nations involvement around the environment, particularly around carbon sinks and the use of massive tracts of land. The AFN had a longstanding dispute with the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative one. The element of consultation had been left off the table. The government just proceeded to go ahead with legislation and decision making before consulting.

Many Canadians watching this will be confused. The reason this is such a critical point is it has been proven time and time again in the courts, from coast to coast to coast in this country. First nations have gone to seek rights and due diligence from government, and the courts have interpreted our Constitution and our laws, and said that the government has an obligation to consult prior to making those decisions.

I know the member has a number of first nations in his riding. With respect to mining in particular, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which his government brought in, had no real basis for serious and concrete consultation, which led the Tahltan and the TRT, the Taku River Tlingit, and a number of other groups, to long litigation battles, seeking just the common decency of consultation.

Is it not time that we do a broad cast across a number of pieces of legislation, not just this badly designed one, but a series of them, because government is clearly not willing to listen, no matter which political side of the spectrum it is, to the courts, to the first nations people? Should we not truly engage in real consultation with the first nations people?

[Aaron Freeman]

If I can make a suggestion on this point, in my view, the issue of whether or not we're going to meet that level is really beyond the scope of this bill. I think whether or not we're going to meet our Kyoto obligations is an important question, but the purpose of Bill C-30 and the scope of Bill C-30 is to achieve the deepest domestic reductions that we can in this country. Once we've achieved those reductions we can then have that debate, and obviously we've been having that debate in other venues, but we can have the debate about how we're going to meet those targets, whether we're going to meet them through offsets, whether we're going to take the penalty in the second Kyoto period. Those are all relevant questions, but the scope of this bill deals with the deepest domestic reductions that we can achieve.

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

If I understand correctly, the text of Bill C-30 says that the government “may” regulate—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Freeman.

There has been much talk about cleaning up the air by the government under Bill C-30, yet when we look through the bill and through the notice of intent, I can't really find the specifics of the actual standards that will be implemented. Am I missing something? How clear is this bill, as it is presented right now—and Dr. Drouin has made a good case for the need to have better air quality standards in terms of health costs and benefits and the rest—on the standards that are being set?

[Aaron Freeman, Director, Policy, Environmental Defence Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear on the air pollution sections of Bill C-30. I know the committee's time is short, so I'll focus my remarks on the changes that I feel are necessary to make Bill C-30 effective in dealing with air pollution in Canada.

I've tabled with the clerk a set of proposed amendments to the bill. These amendments are in line with what NGOs proposed early on to the committee, and I'm pleased to note the common ground we found on these amendments with other sectors. These sectors include the Canadian Chemical Producers Association, although we disagree on issues such as equivalency, which I'd be happy to elaborate on in today's discussion.

The amendments we see as necessary for Bill C-30 in addressing air pollution are as follows: first is the setting of mandatory ambient air quality standards; second is establishing emissions regulations to meet the ambient air standards; third is empowering the Minister of Environment to designate significant areas that are uniquely vulnerable to pollution or significant generators of pollution; fourth is introducing the principle of substitution, to ensure that the use of toxic substances is reduced; fifth is removing the equivalency provisions in Bill C-30; and sixth is providing a deadline for the coming into force of the act. I'll touch on each of these announcements, but I'll focus most of my time on how to go about setting air quality standards.

Currently there are generally no binding air quality standards at the federal level governing air pollution in Canada. We have what are called the Canada-wide standards, but these standards are purely voluntary. By contrast, the United States and many other industrialized countries have mandatory national standards that protect their citizens' health and the environment. In Canada we have the legal infrastructure to put in place such standards; what's been lacking so far is the political will.

As proposed, Bill C-30 does not introduce a comprehensive schedule for setting or achieving air quality objectives. Bill C-30's amendments to CEPA should require that national mandatory standards for ambient air quality be introduced to replace existing voluntary standards. These standards should be based on a review of standards in pure jurisdictions such as the United States, the European Union, and, as Monsieur Drouin just mentioned, the World Health Organization's standards. We should be aiming to meet or exceed the best practices among these jurisdictions.

The standards should be established and in place within six months of the Clean Air Act coming into force, and emission regulations to meet these ambient air standards should be established and in place within a further six months. Both ambient air quality standards and emission standards should be reviewed every five years with a view to ensuring they remain consistent with global best practices.

I would note that although the major problem with the Canada-wide standards is that they are not enforceable, they're also weaker than standards in other jurisdictions. The CWS ozone standard, just to take one example, is more than eight times weaker than the U.S. EPA standard.

To implement the new standards, the Minister of Environment would establish air quality zones and monitoring regimes for each zone. The zones may be based on county or municipality, as is the case in the United States, or census district. For each zone the minister would publicly report quarterly on air pollutant levels and on whether ambient air quality standards have been met in that zone.

The amendments to Bill C-30 should stipulate that if an area does not meet its ambient air quality standard because of pollution sources from international jurisdictions—in most cases for Canada that would be the United States—the emission standards for that area must nonetheless be in the most protective category of emission standards, even if this will not result in attainment of the ambient standard. In the case of pollution from a source in another province, if the two provinces cannot come to a bilateral agreement for addressing the pollution sources, the federal government should act as the arbitrator.

Under our proposed amendments the Minister of Environment may provide exemptions from the emission standards for a particular zone, but only for cases of severe economic hardship and only on a time-limited basis.

The model we have provided may be overseen through the existing equivalency approach in CEPA. In practice, provinces will likely reach agreement with the federal government to meet the ambient air and emission standards.

This brings me to the equivalency provisions in Bill C-30. Section 10 of the bill allows the Governor in Council to grant provinces exemptions from federal regulation. Currently, if such an exemption is to be given to a province, CEPA requires that the province have a regulation that is equivalent to the federal regulation. Bill C-30 proposes a shift from equivalency of regulation to equivalency of effect. In other words, provinces would be able to win an exemption if they can show that their measures have the same effect as the federal measure. This is intended to allow provinces the flexibility to grant permits on a one-off, per facility basis, rather than ensuring that all facilities from a particular sector must meet the same standard.

These provisions of Bill C-30 should be deleted for two important reasons. First, this change would substantially weaken the regulatory authority of CEPA. It is critically important in dealing with pollution that we maintain consistent national standards. Pollution migrates across political boundaries, and the vague wording of “equivalency of effect” will likely lead to a patchwork of provincial measures to deal with transboundary pollutants that affect neighbouring jurisdictions. Ensuring equivalency of regulation is a far better means to achieve a uniform level of protection across the country. While I am aware of the industry's concern about having two regulators, watering down the equivalency provisions in the way proposed section 10 proposes would fail to ensure that we have one effective regulator.

The second reason to maintain equivalency of regulation is that this standard has been tested in the courts, and we know that it is constitutionally sound. The unfortunate history of environmental jurisprudence in this country suggests that when we wander into new territory with regard to separation of powers, litigation inevitably follows. Even if this litigation ultimately fails in the courts, it succeeds in hampering the administration of environmental law. Parliament has an equivalency model in the current CEPA that is tried and true. It should not risk a new model that will undoubtedly lead to costly lawsuits.

The most recent Supreme Court case in this area is the Hydro-Québec case. This case upheld the equivalency provisions of CEPA, but only by a narrow majority of the court. Under the federal government's criminal law power on which the Hydro-Québec case was based, the more flexibility that is built into a legal measure, the less likely it is that the measure will be viewed as valid under the criminal law power. In fact, in the Hydro-Québec case the existence of equivalency agreements was presented as an argument against the validity of CEPA. By providing regulatory authorities with more flexibility, the proposed change virtually guarantees litigation in this area.

Our third set of amendments deals with the power to designate significant areas. The preamble of CEPA recognizes the importance of an ecosystem-based approach. Particularly for air pollution, it is essential to first identify the most important ecosystems for the legislation to focus on.

For example, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin is where 45% of Canada's toxic air pollution is generated and where 58% of the facilities under the national pollutant release inventory are located. A “significant area” designation could be used to match U.S. legislative commitments to deal with toxic pollution and other issues in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. Given recent Canadian election campaign promises from all four major political parties to clean up this area, identifying the basin as a significant area for attention under Canada's overarching pollution law would be a sensible starting point. Future areas that might be considered could include the Arctic, a highly sensitive ecosystem that is especially vulnerable to persistent and bioaccumulative pollutants.

l'd like to touch very briefly on two other important amendments. The first deals with the principle of substitution. In many cases, the most effective form of pollution control is to substitute harmful substances for more benign alternatives. Neither Bill C-30 nor CEPA currently deals adequately with substitution, nor does the government's recently announced chemicals management plan. In the amendments package I've provided, I've outlined the different legislative sections in which this principle should be implemented.

The final amendment I would recommend is to ensure accountability in the legislation by fixing the coming into force date at 90 days after the day on which Bill C-30 receives royal assent.

My written submission provides further details on all these amendments. I hope the committee will consider these amendments in order to provide a firm basis for protecting the health and environment of Canadians from the harmful effects of pollution.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

Mr. Holland, let's not get into a discussion. We're trying to move on here and make some progress.

This is just a gentle reminder, as we've all been reminded at every meeting, that we are trying to stay focused on Bill C-30, and today's topic is air pollution. There inevitably will be some wandering. There always is, and that's fine. But let's try to remember that today's topic is primarily air pollution and stick to that.

Let's not waste any more time on that.

Mr. Drouin, from the Montreal Public Health Authority, you have ten minutes, please.

[The Chair]

No, I agree. Topics can touch extensively on other areas. That's going to happen. But this is just a reminder, as committee members have reminded me, that this is about Bill C-30 and changes to Bill C-30. Today, as part of that, we're primarily focused on air pollution.

So I'd just ask everybody, presenters and questioners, to try as much as possible to stay focused on that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, I do have a point of order.

I didn't want to interrupt the witness, Mr. Chair, but I want to bring it to the attention of the witnesses that we have different topics. We have the topic of climate change, the topic of transportation, the topic of target setting, the topic of international input, and the topic of air pollution, which is today's topic. We have the topic of oil and gas and large industrial, and we have tools, energy, emissions, fiscal issues—all these topics.

We appreciate the testimony we just received, Mr. Chair, but the topic for this morning is pollution. Part of Bill C-30 deals with pollution levels, deals with air quality, both indoor and outdoor. I know that the witnesses are passionate about the issues, and they have provided good testimony, but the topic today is pollution.

So I'd ask the witnesses to please stay on topic. Thank you for the recommendations, but please stay on topic.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC)]

We have quorum, so we will proceed.

Welcome to meeting No. 10 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

We have four presenters today. From the David Suzuki Foundation, we have Dale Marshall, who is the policy analyst for the climate change program,

and from the Montreal Public Health Authority, we have Louis Drouin, who heads up the Urban Environment and Health Department, and Norman King, Epidemiologist, Urban Environment and Health Department.

We have Aaron Freeman, director of policy for Environmental Defence Canada, and, on teleconference, Dee Parkinson-Marcoux, as an individual.

As witnesses may know, we're looking for about a 10-minute presentation. Please try to keep it to 10 minutes. Please try to keep your remarks and responses to the questions relative to Bill C-30 and with the aim that we are trying to make it a stronger piece of legislation to accomplish the objectives of dealing with climate change and greenhouse gases and pollution.

Without further ado, let's start off with the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Marshall, the floor is yours for up to 10 minutes.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on Bill C-30, a very good bill. For the first time in Canada's history, greenhouse gases and air quality will be regulated. I hope that this bill will have the support of the Bloc Québécois because it is very important for the health of Canadians.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed further with the argument perhaps I will address that one short issue. I would refer you to pages 711-2 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order.

At this point in time, we have not reached that stage. Therefore, I would argue that this is in order; however, I will continue with the argument as you, Mr. Speaker, instructed.

The main point I would like to make with the bill is that as it purports to create standards or targets that the government must then try to meet through whatever means it has, then this is, in effect, an attempt to do indirectly what the House cannot do directly, and that is, force the government to spend money as the measures in the bill are trying to achieve and cannot be implemented without the expenditure of funds. As a result, this matter goes to the heart of the principles of responsible government and the financial initiative of the Crown.

Let me turn to some specific aspects of the bill that underscore these points.

First, on this general rubric of attempting to do indirectly what cannot be done directly and the general obligations, subclause 7.(1) of the bill states that:

--the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol--

This would create an obligation to implement Article 3 of the Kyoto protocol which would require us to reduce our emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.

The government's view is that if Bill C-288 were to create a legal obligation for Canada to meet the emission targets set out in the Kyoto protocol, as the sponsor of the bill has publicly stated, the bill would effectively require the expenditure of funds. Common sense dictates that the expenditure of funds would be necessary to achieve the Kyoto targets without devastating the Canadian economy.

Members of the official opposition have stated as much before the legislative committee studying Bill C-30. In addition, the leader of the official opposition has stated that major spending measures were being contemplated in the last Parliament, although specific legislative measures to fully meet the Kyoto targets were never brought before Parliament for consideration.

We therefore have with Bill C-288 an unprecedented attempt to legislate indirectly what the previous government did not legislate directly, and on a matter which the official opposition itself recognizes would involve spending in the many billions of dollars.

By creating a legislative target, if that is what Bill C-288 seeks to do, it puts the government in the untenable position to spend resources if it is to try to meet what has been set in legislation. It is not the Crown that is initiating all public expenditure. It suffices that targets be set in legislation for the government to have to come to Parliament to appropriate the funds needed.

With the greatest of respect to the Chair, it is not sufficient to say that the government can come forward at a later point in time with its specific measures to comply with Bill C-288 with that royal recommendation attached at a later time, which is what I take to understand as one of the Speaker's previous rulings.

The House would in effect be compelling a royal recommendation as there would be no alternative left to it. The only question is, what exact form of that royal recommendation would it be, not the requirement for that royal recommendation.

In effect, the House would have indirectly required expenditure of funds, which it cannot directly require through the provision of a private member's bill. I think that is a very significant bridge that we would be crossing here and it would have profound consequences for the operation of Parliament for generations to come and would be inconsistent with the history of how these matters have been dealt with in Parliament.

Clause 6 of the bill is one issue that I do not believe has been fully addressed. It authorizes the governor in council to enact a broad range of regulations to implement the Kyoto protocol. A new bureaucracy would be necessary to implement and enforce such regulations. The government is therefore of the view that clause 6 entails the expenditure of funds and requires a royal recommendation.

In addition, clause 6 authorizes regulations “respecting trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions, removals, permits, credits, or other units”. However, the Minister of the Environment informed the legislative committee last week that an emissions trading market would cost the government billions of dollars.

Therefore, the bill clearly contemplates not only direct government spending, for example, due to regulations providing for trading in greenhouse gas emission credits, but also considerable indirect government spending on the bureaucratic and administrative support necessary for implementing the regulations.

As you noted in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if spending is required then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill.

Given this, Bill C-288 creates a legal obligation for the expenditure of funds. That is the only way in which the government would be able to comply with the requirements of Bill C-288 regardless of whether that was in the provisions of the bill specifically as laid out now.

This would be an example of the House doing indirectly what the House cannot do directly forcing the government to spend money that has not been authorized.

I think that the parliamentary traditions of this place are very important and the question of the royal recommendation does indeed go back to the very beginnings of our Parliament. Since the bill purports to indirectly force the government to spend money, allowing this bill to proceed to a third reading vote would be inconsistent with the principles of responsible government and the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. As Marleau and Montpetit note at page 709:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown” is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

This principle makes perfect sense in a parliamentary democracy, as the government is responsible and accountable to the House for its budgetary priorities.

Bill C-288 appears to seek to force, and more than appears to, in fact it does, force the government to change those priorities. It takes the initiative away from the Crown.

Through Bill C-288 the opposition is attempting to reverse the principle on its head by attempting to legislate obligations that everyone recognizes will require the expenditure of funds. Passage of this bill would create a dangerous precedent whereby the opposition can direct the future expenditure priorities of the government. The precedent could forever change the nature of our parliamentary system.

Similar analogous arguments can be seen bringing forward legislation requiring that everybody in the country achieve a minimum standard of compensation and guaranteed minimum income without specifying what that would be or how the government would go about achieving it. However, if those goals were there and were seen as enforceable, obviously they could only be achieved with government spending. Again, that is an example of the kind of loophole that would be opened, the kind of path that would be tread should Bill C-288 be regarded as being acceptable and not offending the royal recommendation.

Given the significance of such a precedent I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these issues carefully.

The government also has significant constitutional concerns with the bill. The regulatory provisions of the bill appear to be ultra vires as they cannot be said to be within the federal government's criminal law powers or the general powers of the federal government for peace, order and good government.

While I recognize that the Speaker cannot rule on matters of law, I wanted to take this opportunity to advise the House of the government's significant legal concerns with the bill.

In conclusion, ultimately, Bill C-288 is an example of a bad law. As the current Standing Orders governing private members' business are relatively new, I believe all parliamentarians should wish to avoid creating a precedent that puts this process into disrepute.

The government believes that the credibility and authority of Parliament to legislate in a clear and open manner is at stake on this matter.

If a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-288, that bill will not proceed further. However, the government will continue to move forward with its legislation on the environment, such as Canada's clean air act and the additional legislation to implement the government's February 12 announcement of a $1.5 billion ecotrust fund.

If a royal recommendation is not required for Bill C-288, the only conclusion that Canadians can draw is that this bill is a political attempt to do indirectly what the previous government was not willing to do directly.

As we look forward to what would be opened, the precedent, if we could simply establish targets, goals and objectives, and say that by so doing we are not creating an obligation for spending, yet a government would be obliged to meet those targets and objectives, we are creating indirectly a requirement for a royal recommendation.

I repeat, as I said before, it is not sufficient, with the greatest of respect, to say that the government can worry later about how it meets those objectives and targets, that the government can worry later about how it achieves the specific details and that the government can later craft a royal recommendation to do so.

The fact is the obligation will have been created now at this stage of the process. That is what the principle of the royal recommendation was always intended to prevent.

If we were to allow this to proceed at this point in time, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, you would be making a ruling that would be turning on its head over a century of parliamentary practice. With the greatest of respect, I think there is great risk in going down that path.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, just for clarification, Mr. Godfrey was asking about the regulations. It is part of the notice of intent to regulate. Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, is part of what was announced on October 19. So I encourage him to read the notice of intent. Actually, I'm quite sure he has. He may have forgotten that part of it.

In the summary: 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.

So again, hopefully that clarifies issues that were raised by Mr. Godfrey.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our guests for their appearance here today. We certainly thank you for the recommendations you have put forward for amendments to Bill C-30, which is before for us.

I noted with interest some of the statistics that Mr. Maybee used. There were certainly some eye-openers for sure. I found one stat that I always knew to be high, but not that high. As Canadians, we spend 90% of our time indoors. The environment is on the top of people's agenda across the country now, but certainly indoor air and taking care of things at home here in our own country are priorities for everybody.

A new guideline on radon will be a basis for a national radon strategy. In your presentation, you mentioned the notion that government is to be congratulated on its recent action to reduce the radon guidelines. Would you like to elaborate on some of the things that you would like to see under Bill C-30, with which the government could go forward to more or less further that strategy?

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

So in order to satisfy Mr. Warawa, we will be waiting for an amendment to clarify the point that, in terms of air quality, we're absolutely dealing with enforceable standards. So perhaps we can look forward to a government amendment on that. It's just an observation.

Let me also understand that you've raised a number of other issues. One, which has been raised as well by environmental organizations, is the whole question of altered equivalency provisions. I gather that whereas the current bill refers to “equivalency of effect”, you take exception to that and would rather we had “equivalency of regulation”. Could you explain your concerns about what Bill C-30 seems to be doing in terms of altering what we have under CEPA?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

At the moment, even before Bill C-30, we have standards. As for whether they're legally enforceable or not, they haven't been court challenged yet. They're just a standard. The bill itself suggested objectives that didn't hit the nail on the head, if you will, for the fact that they're going to be regulated. Objectives are regulated standards.

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

Is your reading of Bill C-30 as currently presented, that we do not in fact have clearly enforceable air quality standards?

[Dr. Barbara MacKinnon]

It's as Bill C-30 is written.

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

I mean as Bill C-30 is written.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, witnesses.

I was taken with the remark of Mr. Warawa that the government was moving from voluntary to mandatory regulation. I'm wondering if this is true in the case of national air quality objectives. I don't know whether this is appropriate--I'm using the brief of the Lung Association--but to your understanding, with the way Bill C-30 is currently written, is there anything mandatory about these objectives?

[Stephen Samis]

I think you will see the information in Bill C-30 come under the targets—the measures in the targets and the goals that would be established under those. I think what Bill C-30 will do is compel the government to develop those.

I think that's why it's particularly important that we do stipulate clearly in the bill the goals for the reduction of air pollution, in particular, as well as stipulate very transparent and effective reporting and accountability measures, because it's only through those mechanisms that we will get down to the next level. I really do agree with Barbara MacKinnon that the next level is the implementation of the bill.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maybee, in your report, you recommend reducing fossil fuel consumption. In your opinion, does Bill C-30 demonstrate the government's determination to reduce our dependency on oil and gas? In your opinion, are there passages in Bill C-30 where this determination is clearly expressed?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses for coming today.

I too suffer from allergies, but there is nothing like having your son suffer from asthma and being hospitalized to really know what is important in life. I can assure you that I have seen that many times. That is why I was so impressed with this particular bill, Bill C-30, and the fact that clean air is the topic and household air is the objective.

My understanding, after doing some research, is that 90% of Canadians' time is pretty much spent indoors, and in fact, I would suggest that's where many people get sick and become ill. Indeed, I was impressed with the ability to regulate fireplaces, the ability to regulate fuel combustion inside and organic compounds such as solvents inside.

I want to follow up with something Mr. Warawa said earlier. Do you believe we are on the right track with Bill C-30 as far as indoor quality of air is concerned, which is obviously the first-ever attempt to do so?

Mr. Maybee.

[Dr. Oxana Latycheva, Vice-President, Asthma Control Programming, Asthma Society of Canada]

At the Asthma Society of Canada, we have a similar position to that of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. We are here to support, in general, the air pollution provisions under Bill C-30.

In terms of the Kyoto standards, we don't have a position at the moment, but we can discuss it internally at the Asthma Society of Canada and consult with our medical and scientific committee, and we can put our position in our briefing note.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The last question is this. The government, with Bill C-30, is moving from a voluntary to a mandatory regulatory regime and pollution hard caps announced, which will be short, medium, and long term. So you start off on a goal and you will achieve that. Are you okay with moving from the voluntary to the mandatory regulatory?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

The committee is committed to working together to strengthen Bill C-30 and move it forward. I think that every member would find that helpful as we consider the bill.

Mr. Maybee, you mentioned the combustion caused by the burning of biomass. Actually you raised concerns about the high pollution levels coming from burning biomass as opposed to fossil fuels. Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I'm one of the Canadians who have allergies and take shots for it. I'm 56, and what a disappointment it is to have to deal with allergies--and mine are minor compared to those of many Canadians. But when I was musing with my GP, he attributed it to air pollution, so I experience it first-hand.

In fact, much of a member's time on the Hill here is spent sitting and listening and thinking, and so it's a good practice to try to find time where you can actually do some cardiovascular to stay in somewhat decent health, and also keep your mental faculties somewhat alert. But the air quality is a concern when, as I've said, 90% of our time is spent indoors, so air quality indoors and outdoors in a downtown area is a concern.

I'm from the Fraser Valley, and there was a study done to find out what the ingredients were in the haze over the Fraser Valley. Aircraft would fly through it and do the sampling to try to determine what the ingredients were. It was interesting to discuss the report afterwards and to find out that the high pollution levels seem to actually travel along with the Fraser River itself, where there are the highest concentrations. People would go down there to exercise, ride their bikes along there, and that's very close to where I live too.

So I appreciate your comments. I too am excited about Bill C-30 and actually moving toward cleaning up the air, and the commitment that makes to cleaning up the air Canadians breathe both indoors and outdoors.

In my questions I want to focus on the qualities of the fuel . Before I start, Mr. Maybee, you provided an actual written brief along with the recommendations. The other two presenters, from the Asthma Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation, did provide a good verbal brief, but do you have a written brief with recommendations that you'll be able to hand in?

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

In fact, the issue is whether the standards are being respected, and that is the subject of my second question.

On page 8, you talk about the quality of indoor air and you are proposing that Ottawa create a list of indoor air pollutants, including tobacco smoke. In principle, I fully agree with you.

However, I have some questions. What do you see as the federal government's role? In my opinion, it is rather removed from the quality of indoor air. I'm saying this in all honesty.

We see that it is extremely difficult to apply CEPA. How do you see this being integrated into Bill C-30?

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

We don't need Bill C-30 to do it.

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

On the other question I have, I'm glad you brought this up, Mr. Maybee. In your presentation, you spoke about Bill C-30 and the fact that it removes substances from the CEPA toxic list, puts them on another list, and therefore essentially opens up CEPA to a constitutional challenge. Why do you think the government is doing it this way? Why don't they leave the six greenhouse gases that the previous government put on the CEPA toxic list, despite threats that the opposition at the time would bring down the government if it did so? We got the job done. We went ahead and did it.

Why do you think the government is using this kind of shifting approach?

[Stephen Samis, Director, Health Policy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Samis. I'm director of health policy for the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. I'm also chair of the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, although I'm here today in my capacity with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, a volunteer-based health charity, leads in eliminating heart disease and stroke and reduces their impact through the advancement of research, its application, the promotion of healthy living, and advocacy. It was our fiftieth anniversary this year, and in our fifty years, just to note, we've funded about $1 billion in research in this country.

Today I would like to stress the importance of addressing the cardiovascular health effects brought about by air pollution and, by extension, climate change. By reducing air pollution, we can help significantly reduce the burden of death and disability stemming from cardiovascular diseases. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada applauds the efforts by the federal government to address the health and economic burden posed by air pollution and climate change.

As you are no doubt aware, cardiovascular disease inflicts a terrible toll upon Canadians as the leading cause of death in our country. In total, approximately 72,000 Canadians die of heart disease and stroke annually, representing 32% of all deaths. Cardiovascular disease is also the leading cause of both hospitalizations and drug prescriptions, and is responsible for about $18.5 billion dollars annually in direct and indirect costs.

There is strong evidence to support the assertion that air pollution has a serious effect on cardiovascular disease and health. For example, Dr. Stephen Van Eeden, associate professor with the Faculty of Medicine at the University of British Columbia and a Heart and Stroke Foundation-funded researcher, has been conducting studies on how air pollution contributes to heart disease. Air pollution causes an inflammatory process in the lungs that activates blood vessels and ultimately leads to atherosclerosis, which causes plaque to build up in the arteries, increasing risk of heart attack and stroke.

A study by the air health effects division of Health Canada in 2004 estimated conservatively that 6,000 excess deaths in Canada occur each year due to air pollution. That includes both the short- and long-term exposure to air pollution. The American Heart Association estimates that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter in major U.S. cities causes 60,000 deaths each year in the United States. And a study on 65,000 post-menopausal women between 1994 and 1998 in 36 U.S. metropolitan areas was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study concluded that long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution was directly associated with the incidence of cardiovascular disease and death among these women in the study.

High levels of pollution have also been associated with acute myocardial infarctions. In other words, pollution not only contributes to the development of underlying cardiovascular disease and other health problems over the long term; it has also been shown to lead to increases in the number of acute myocardial infarctions—or heart attacks—whenever pollution levels are particularly high.

Given the above evidence and the clear links between air pollution and cardiovascular disease, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada is pleased that Bill C-30 is proposing to take a concerted approach to reducing air pollution in Canada. The foundation seeks to impress upon this legislative committee the immediate and ongoing effects of air pollution, specifically of fine particulate matter, on cardiovascular health.

In addition, the foundation would like to make several general recommendations to the committee. First, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada would like to express its support for the amendments that make specific reference to health as affected by pollution. The requirement for the Minister of Health to conduct studies on the role of pollution in health is viewed very positively, as is the clause that recognizes that air pollutants and greenhouse gases represent risks to both health and the environment.

Second, it should be stressed that unlike climate change, which is a problem of mainly long-term scope, the effects of air pollution on health are immediate and costly. As a result, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada supports the recommendation of the Canadian Lung Association, that the bill clearly separate air pollutants from greenhouse gases.

Third, the Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends the adoption of achievable and significant short-, medium-, and long-term goals to reduce air pollution.

Fourth, the Heart and Stoke Foundation supports several of the Canadian Lung Association's recommendations, specifically the following: targets for fixed caps on emissions, rather than intensity-based targets, with the timelines for these to be outlined and tightened as much as possible; that the federal government embrace aggressive goals that will result in early real reductions in both air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and that these goals be tailored to each separately; and with respect to accountability, that the bill designate clear responsibility for compliance and specify the details of when, where, and how monitoring will be conducted. The bill should specify reporting deadlines and the requirement for public engagement in the process.

Fifth, while not addressed specifically in Bill C-30, the Heart and Stroke Foundation would like to point out the importance of built environments with respect to pollution, climate change, and health. The topic of the built environment is one in which the foundation has been deeply involved and very active lately. Briefly, built environments that emphasize active transportation and public transit use have the potential to create extremely positive effects for both health and the environment simultaneously. For example, a recent study conducted in King County, Washington, which includes the city of Seattle, found that a 5% increase in the walkability of neighbourhoods was associated with a 6.5% decrease in driving and a 5.5% decrease in pollution. These relationships are inextricably linked. In short, reducing auto dependency helps to promote physical activity and, ultimately, reduced air pollution.

In sum, improvements to the built environment and increased federal funding for infrastructure that promotes healthy, active living will decrease air pollution and prevent deaths in Canada. Among the actions the federal government could take to address air pollution are enhancing federal investments in intra- and inter-city transportation—for example, providing funding for emissions-reduced public transit systems in our cities and for improved inter-city passenger rail service, particularly in busy corridors such as the Windsor–Quebec City corridor and Calgary–Edmonton.

In conclusion, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada would like to stress the importance of taking a broad view with respect to Bill C-30 and of giving serious consideration to the health effects of air pollution, both short- and long-term. The regulations proposed in Bill C-30 have the potential to not only reduce air pollution in the interests of climate change, but also to have significant positive effects on the health of Canadians, including their cardiovascular health, and particularly those Canadians living in our largest metropolitan areas.

Thank you.

[Kenneth Maybee, Vice-President, Environmental Issues, Canadian Lung Association]

Honourable Chair and honourable members of the legislative committee that is reviewing Bill C-30, thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak on this important issue.

Before I start the formal part of my presentation, you are probably all looking at your materials and no doubt have found the straw. I would like all the members to please take out the straw, put it in your mouth, pinch your nose, and breathe for about 30 seconds.

The purpose of that, ladies and gentlemen, is to let you know what asthmatics or a person suffering from severe allergies or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease feel like when they are undergoing an exacerbation. The motto of the Lung Association is, “When you can't breathe, nothing else matters”.

If there is nothing else in my brief that you remember at the end of the day, I am starting off with what a patient feels like. You have gone through a small test. I will start and end with the words “When you can't breathe, nothing else matters”, and I hope that will position a picture of what it is like for citizens throughout Canada.

The Lung Association commends the federal government for increasing awareness and promoting action on air pollution through the tabling of the Clean Air Act. We also commend all parties for participating in this committee to develop the very best legislation for reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The Canadian Lung Association is Canada's oldest health charity, representing and assisting Canadians who suffer from lung disease. Every 20 minutes, one Canadian dies from lung disease, 2.5 million Canadians have asthma, and the rate in children is four times higher than it was 20 years ago. By 2020, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease will be the third leading cause of death in Canada.

More people will die this year from lung cancer than from any other type of cancer, including breast, prostate, and colon cancer combined. Approximately six million Canadians suffer from lung disease at an estimated cost to the economy of over $15 billion. This includes the direct cost to the health care system, as well as the estimated cost of lost work time and degraded productivity.

The Lung Association has a particular interest in air quality since air pollution exacerbates many respiratory conditions, causing lost work or school days, emergency room visits, hospital stays, and even mortality. Health Canada has estimated that 5,900 people die each year in the eight Canadian cities involved in a recent study. The Ontario Medical Association estimated that in Ontario alone the total yearly costs of death, pain, suffering, lost work, doctor's office visits, emergency room visits, and hospital stays are a staggering $7.8 billion.

General comments. The Lung Association clearly asserts that the guiding principles of a Clean Air Act component of CEPA should be the protection of human health, especially the health of the vulnerable population, such as the young, the elderly, those with pre-existing diseases that make them more susceptible to environmental toxins, and certainly socially vulnerable groups such as the lower socio-economic group categories and first nations.

The Lung Association recognizes the important connection between climate change and air pollution, from causal, impact, and solutions viewpoints--on the connection between climate change, air pollution, and respiratory health. With respect to the Lung Association mission to improve respiratory health, these connections are particularly important in justifying actions to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Caution must be exercised when replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources, and careful consideration should be given to the impact on both air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. For instance, the use of biomass as an energy source is problematic from the perspective of respiratory disease, because combustion of biomass produces high levels of air pollution.

Under our recommended amendments to Bill C-30, in our paragraph 1.1 regarding CEPA's overarching considerations, CEPA 1999 is currently under review, and both the House of Commons and Senate committees have received many recommendations for the improvement of this bill. These recommendations include aspects relevant to clean air and greenhouse gases.

The final recommendations, through Bill C-30 and the CEPA review process, should be amalgamated so as not to lose the excellent recommendations that have already been tabled in that review process.

Although the Lung Association has advocated for many years that we must link actions on air quality and climate change, each topic must have its own and equal priority within the bill. While some of the remedial actions for each problem will dovetail, they should stand distinct within the bill, because air pollution and greenhouse gases are interrelated but distinct problems, each requiring its own set of solutions.

Related legislation and international agreements will be focused on either air quality or climate change, but not necessarily on both problems. Thus it is recommended that the amended bill clearly separate air pollutants from greenhouse gases. However, the actions resulting from the bill must ensure that remedial measures on air pollution do not increase greenhouse gases and vice versa. Co-benefit analyses of proposed actions should be conducted.

In our paragraph 1.2.1, under the title “National Air Quality Objectives”, our recommendation regarding proposed section 103.07 is that the word “objectives” should be changed to “standards” and should mean a legally enforceable level.

In 1.2.3, Canada's air quality standard should be set as equal to or lower than the most health protective standards existing internationally. Recognition must be given to the fact that air quality standards cannot be met only by reducing emissions per vehicle or by an intensity basis from industries and power sources. Emissions must also be reduced by efficiency measures—for example, efforts to support a reduction in kilometres driven by vehicles.

In 1.3.1, regulations to eliminate or reduce emissions should be mandatory for all substances on the CEPA toxic list. Wording to this effect should be explicit in Bill C-30, using words such as “will” instead of “may” when indicating regulation.

In 1.3.2, it is also recommended that the bill explicitly stipulate that regulations should aim to reduce emissions to a level equal to or below the level achieved by the most stringent international examples. For certain emissions, such as vehicle emissions, aligning with the United States is a reasonable initial goal. For other emissions, such as those from coal-fired power plants, aligning with other jurisdictions that are leaders in reducing emissions in this area should be the objective.

In 1.3.3, mandatory timelines should be specified in the bill, such that regulations are in place for substances on the toxic list, within the timelines already advised by many groups through the CEPA review process.

In 1.4, regarding the separation of air pollution and greenhouse gases from the CEPA toxic list, Bill C-30 removes these substances from the list and places them in a separate new designation. There is no substantive rationale or benefit in doing this, and there exists a reasonable risk. The federal government has a well-established jurisdictional and historical authority to regulate substances that cross borders, including provincial borders. If those substances cause identifiable risk to Canadians, removing the word “toxic” from the air pollution and greenhouse gas list may make the regulation of these substances vulnerable to provincial or industrial court challenges.

In 1.4.1, it is strongly recommended that the bill use the CEPA toxic list for air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a manner similar to that existing in CEPA 1999. The Clean Air Act component of CEPA should focus action on the air pollutants and greenhouse gas subset of this list and assign new terminology to the air pollutants, referring to them as “hazardous air pollutants”, thus explicitly designating them as dangerous to human health.

In part 1.5 we list our amendments to greenhouse gas provisions.

First, the most contributory greenhouse gases should be included in the CEPA toxic list, which would thus trigger the duty and authority of the ministers of environment and health.

In the interests of reducing or mitigating the threat to human health, including respiratory health, posed by global climate change, the provisions of Bill C-30 must ensure that Canada achieves early and aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. From this perspective, the targets and timelines specified by the Kyoto accord should be viewed as a starting point for action.

The Lung Association strongly recommends that the federal government pursue measures that will accomplish actual emission reductions over the use of monitoring mechanisms to meet the Kyoto targets. The rationale for this stance is that emission reductions mitigate both greenhouse gases and air pollutants released locally in Canadian communities. Thus emission reductions will improve the health of Canadians as well as reduce the threat of global climate impacts. Priority should therefore be given to measures that achieve reductions and emissions in Canada, complemented by expenditures that would produce actual greenhouse gas reductions in other areas of the world.

Although Bill C-30 does not specify the targets and timelines for reducing greenhouse gases, action arising from the act must recognize the urgent need to achieve even greater reductions in the near term, in the interest of mitigating potential harmful effects on the respiratory health of Canadians.

With the goal of achieving early actual reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gases, it is recommended that all targets be for fixed caps on emissions rather than intensity-based, and that the timelines be tightened considerably.

Under 1.5.4. we list some actions regarding greenhouse gases that should be triggered by the provisions in Bill C-30.

First, in terms of short-term goals, Canada must make every effort to meet the target of reducing its greenhouse gases to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. If this is not possible with action emission reductions in Canada, the federal government should complement its domestic efforts through financial expenditures on projects that will achieve reductions elsewhere in the world, and set a target date--for example, of 2015--to meet actual emission reductions to 6% below 1990 levels.

With regard to mid-term goals, stringent mid-term targets could be drawn from other leading jurisdictions or international examples. Canada's continued participation in UNFCCC should provide a guideline for those incremental targets. Once again, with a view to protecting the respiratory health of Canadians, the Lung Association recommends that the federal government embrace aggressive goals that will result in early real reductions in both air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In terms of long-term goals, Canada must develop five-year incremental targets to achieve a reduction to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Moving to indoor air quality, the Lung Association is very supportive of the inclusion of indoor air exposures as being equally important to outdoor air exposures, requiring the attention of government, industry, and the public. Standards related to indoor exposure should be set at a level that's protective of the health of vulnerable populations.

The wording in the bill of proposed section 103.09 should be reassessed to ensure that it covers exposure to such substances as radon, which has natural, not anthropogenic, sources. While radon cannot be regulated, activities such as housing construction can be regulated to reduce exposures.

The government is to be congratulated on its recent action to produce radon guidelines that reduce radon from 800 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3.

With regard to accountability, Bill C-30 mentions briefly that emissions will be monitored and reported. It is essential that the act designate clear responsibility for compliance: specific details of when, where, and how monitoring will be conducted; specific reporting deadlines; and the requirement for active public engagement in this process. Actions arising from the act must specify fiscal support to relevant government departments and to jurisdictions as needed.

Due to the time, I'm going to bypass some of these parts, Mr. Chair, but I think it's important to stress that this brief was done and reviewed in consultation with a wide range of experts, including the following: Dr. Monica Campbell, Toronto Public Health; Dr. Paul Hasselback, medical consultant; Dr. Michael Brauer, professor of medical epidemiology at the University of British Columbia; Mr. Bruce Dudley, vice-president of the Delphi Group; Dr. Scott Giffin, Medical Officer of Health, New Brunswick; Dr. Tom Kosatsky, Santé publique de Montréal; and Dr. Menn Biagtan, British Columbia Lung Association.

As I said at the start, thank you very much. This committee, in my mind, has one of the most important challenges facing Parliament today: to come together and produce something for all Canadians, something that we need, that being action on climate change and action on cleaning up the air.

I will close by simply saying what I started with. Gentlemen, ladies, members of Parliament, when you can't breathe, nothing else matters. Please remember that.

Thank you very much.

[Rob Peacock, Vice-President, Advancement, Asthma Society of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. On behalf of the Asthma Society of Canada, I wanted to thank the legislative committee for allowing us to speak with you regarding Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act.

We also welcome the opportunity to briefly speak to you on the new national respiratory care strategy for the Asthma Society of Canada, which concentrates on asthma, associated allergies, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, otherwise known as COPD, which will be positively impacted by this bill.

First, the national strategy focuses on defining several priority tactics that aim to substantially increase the number of patients who have full control of their disease, as well as to empower patients to access the care that they require and identify the steps required to prevent both asthma and COPD. The recently renewed mission in supporting Canadians with asthma, associated allergies, and COPD is designed to achieve a managed life through the funding of respiratory disease prevention; the delivery of accredited, relevant breathing tests; the delivery of patient-centred asthma, allergy, and COPD self-management education; and advocacy efforts to ensure that the essential respiratory health programs are delivered in every province.

Everyone needs to fully understand that asthma prevalence has increased dramatically in western countries in the last 25 years. It has been estimated that both allergies and asthma affect 30% to 35% of the Canadian population. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a disease that is similar in many ways to asthma; it has been generally estimated that approximately 714,000 Canadians are currently diagnosed with COPD, but it is also estimated that more than 50% of the patients are undiagnosed, which suggests there might in fact be over 1.4 million Canadians suffering from COPD.

Asthma prevalence is increasing worldwide and is generally more common in western English-speaking countries and less common in developing countries. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that asthma and COPD exact a heavy economic and social burden. The costs of loss of productivity and medical spending are clearly underestimated for COPD and asthma, and these are generally perceived as more serious conditions.

The Asthma Society of Canada is very much in support of Bill C-30, given the improved environmental impact it will provide for the health of Canadians. In particular, the Asthma Society of Canada recognizes the intent of the bill to provide mandatory regulations with national targets, which will be a vast improvement over the current situation. As the bill states, the purpose “is to promote the reduction of air pollution and to promote air quality in order to protect the environment and the health of all Canadians, especially that of the more vulnerable members of society”.

In June 2006 the Asthma Society of Canada completed a new special research initiative that clearly demonstrates how polluted air negatively impacts on the respiratory health of Canadians. Breathe Free in Canada outlines the scientific connection between air pollution and increased respiratory exacerbations for Canadians affected with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Poor outdoor air quality affects more than individuals with respiratory disease. Indeed, the greatest burden of disease occurs with mild effects because of the large base of the population affected. Improvements in air quality can have dramatic effects on the rates of respiratory tract symptoms on a national scale.

Thus, regulatory proposals contained in Bill C-30 help deal with the realities of those affected by poor air quality. From the perspective of the Asthma Society, this bill helps recognize that the time has come for a respiratory care revolution in our country. In addition, this bill will help allow patients the right to breathe more freely and easily.

Supplementary to these discussions with the bill, the Asthma Society is currently working with the Minister of the Environment and undertaking discussions regarding outdoor air quality initiatives. One of those is the Breathe Free Canada program, which will support organizations that have taken concrete action in implementing operational processes that demonstrate a clear reduction in air pollutants. The ASC officially recognizes Canadian firms that are able to demonstrate environmental initiatives while allowing Canadians to breathe more freely. That particular program was unveiled back in October 2006 with Robert Kennedy Jr. at a special event we held in Toronto.

Secondly, air quality indexes only tell part of the story and need to be expanded to deal with patients suffering from asthma, allergies, and COPD. The ASC has developed the breathing score program, which will assign grade levels to the air quality index and pollen index on a daily basis and forecast periodically. There will be specific recommendations for people with asthma, allergies, and COPD in regard to the air quality of the day, and it will be a comprehensive tool that will be clinically proven to help manage asthma, allergies, and COPD. The ASC proposes to make a grading system applicable to people with asthma, allergies, and COPD and make recommendations per each grade level for each disease.

The ASC also recognizes the indoor air quality aspects of Bill C-30 with the asthma friendly certification program. This program has been established to help Canadians with asthma and associated allergies identify suitable products in the retail environment. All products with an asthma friendly® certification mark have been independently tested by standards approved by the Asthma Society of Canada. This program will advertise and be marketed by the ASC and therefore create consumer demand for asthma-certified products. This program is currently already up and running and in retail stores in Canada.

The Asthma Society of Canada welcomes the opportunity to explore other possibilities and wishes to reiterate our support for Bill C-30 in that it will help strengthen the need to be more conscious about the air we breathe. We strongly urge committee members to support this important initiative and to move forth with the proposed mandatory regulations necessary for better indoor and outdoor air quality for all Canadians.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the witnesses' being here.

My questions are going to be primarily for the EU.

And to Mr. Drexhage, thank you for being here. You may want to forge in.

First of all, I want to assure you that your comments are being received in a political environment in which the government is hoping to move forward in dealing with the very important issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We've committed to doing that. And as my colleague Mr. Jean mentioned, we're looking forward to your recommendations on how to strengthen Bill C-30, the government's bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to clean the air that Canadians breathe.

I'm tempted to correct some of the comments made by Mr. McGuinty, but I'll save that for the House and get down to business today.

Concerning the EU's experience in curbing greenhouse gas emissions through voluntary versus mandatory means, the history in previous governments in Canada is that they've used the voluntary means, and we have not found that successful. As you are aware, we are now 35% above the Kyoto targets of 6% below 1990 levels--35% above. So we're in a very difficult situation, and we're looking forward to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I really appreciate the positive comments you've made. You've acknowledged that it's a major industrial challenge, but you're happy to take that challenge on. And we are happy to take the challenge on here in Canada.

But specifically on mandatory measures, how did you find the importance of moving to mandatory, which is what the government plans to do, to move from voluntary to mandatory? What was the experience in the EU?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for coming today and presenting.

I'm wondering, first of all, have the witnesses seen our Bill C-30 legislation? Have you had an opportunity to review it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum, and I'd like to bring the meeting to order.

I'd like to welcome everyone to meeting number 8 of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

As we said yesterday, we are short one witness due to a family situation, which is regrettable. So we have two witnesses today: Mr. John Drexhage, director of climate change and energy from the International Institute for Sustainable Development; and by video conference from Brussels, Mr. Jos Delbeke, director, climate change and air, from the delegation of the European Commission to Canada.

Welcome to both our witnesses. And Mr. Delbeke from Brussels, thank you very much for joining us.

As is customary, we will give each of the witnesses about ten minutes for an opening statement. We'll probably have a little bit more time for Mr. Drexhage, as he has some helpful information that will assist the committee with regard to the witness we're missing.

Mr. Drexhage, the floor is yours for your initial ten minutes, and then we'll take it from there.

[Michael Murphy, Executive Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll only make a couple of quick comments here.

I think when you're looking at public policy development and planning in terms of dealing with climate change, it strikes me that you have to bring a whole lot of stakeholders into the picture. One we have been arguing about for some time now is on levels of government other than the federal government.

Clearly, if you accept our premise that energy and economic questions have to be part of the discussion, you need to stop talking about this question strictly from a silo perspective, if you want to put it that way, which I think we did too much of for too long and right from the get-go.

Provincial governments need to play a very significant role here. I don't mean in terms of looking at some of the specifics that might occur on things like provincial equivalency agreements, for example, which we think would be very important in terms of dealing with regulations in the right context, but it's also in terms of the fundamentals of making sure we make good decisions in Canada.

There's an issue with respect to the roles that provinces play in the energy area. Many of our members deal with provincial governments today. If you look at the two areas that are involved here from the standpoint of Bill C-30 in terms of both air emissions and GHGs, provincial governments are an important stakeholder.

Throughout the process, we've been arguing there's a list of people who you need to make sure are engaged sufficiently from a policy perspective. Provincial governments are right up there at the top of the list, I would say.

[Alexander Wood, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the committee members for providing the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy with this opportunity to present you with our views on the issue at hand.

At the outset, I would like to apologize for not bringing the documents that I would have liked to have with me today. We had problems with translation and producing these documents, but they will be available from the clerk as soon as possible.

My testimony today, Mr. Chair, is going to be of a fairly general nature. I'm going to talk about work the national round table has done on the issue of long-term targets for the country, specifically with reference to an advisory note the national round table released this summer on how Canada could achieve a 60% reduction in its GHG emissions by 2050 while still meeting the energy needs of its growing economy.

I'll also talk a bit about the fact that the round table has been asked under Bill C-30 to provide some advice to the government on a number of matters. That's an issue I'll discuss later, but just to say at the outset that our response to that is being developed right now, so I'm not in a position to comment too much on the specifics of that advice as yet.

Over the years, the round table has provided a number of reports related to the subject before the committee. We've done reports dealing with GHGs in transportation, we've done reports on domestic emissions trading, and we've done reports on the use of fiscal policy when it comes to energy and the need to decarbonize our energy system.

Our signature work in this area is a report that was issued in June 2006 called Advice on a Long-Term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change. That piece of advice to the government, requested by the previous government, was an analysis that we undertook using a model of stabilization wedges that had been pioneered by some Princeton professors. As I said, what we did, essentially, was lay out a long-term scenario by which Canada, through a series of technology measures and energy efficiency measures, might in fact reduce its emissions by 60% while maintaining economic growth in the context of a growing population as well.

To provide the right context, our analysis violated just about every principle of scenario planning, as our consultants reminded us regularly. We did one scenario, and you're never supposed to do just one; you're always supposed to do more than one. You're never supposed to do an odd number because people think you're suggesting the one in the middle. We did just one, and it does have some important messages and some important lessons have emerged from it. Those, generally speaking, are that it can be done in terms of meeting our energy needs while substantially reducing our long-term emissions. If it is to be done, it has to start now in terms of the policy response required. It will require all available technologies and all available energy efficiency opportunities to be realized. There is no silver bullet when it comes to this question. It presents a massive energy technology and energy efficiency technology deployment and uptake challenge. That is the message we want to carry forward.

In terms of the particular focus of this committee, the basic message I would like to offer is that whatever decisions are taken about short-term targets need to be set in the context of a long-term framework and a statement of a long-term objective. It's no coincidence in the minds of the round table members that the most successful of the OECD economies when it comes to meeting or substantially reducing emissions of GHGs is the U.K. We see that as proof of the necessity of setting in place a long-term target and a long-term framework for approaching this issue, as the U.K. has had for a number of years.

Turning now to the Clean Air Act notice of intent, I won't go too much into the details of what's being requested at the round table, as I assume members are familiar with that. Essentially, we have three separate issues before us: advice about national ambient air objectives in the long term; advice on national emission reduction targets in 2050; and criteria on air contaminants in specific sectors--and I can remind the members what those sectors are if it's required.

On greenhouse gases, here I'll use the specific language of the notice of intent, because I do want to be precise. The round table has been asked to provide advice on emission reduction targets for 2020-25 for specific sectors. I can identify these sectors, if required. This advice should be based on a recognition of the outlook for Canadian economic growth and the government's intention to build on an emissions intensity approach, with targets that are ambitious enough to translate into a fixed cap on absolute emissions.

The second piece of advice sought on the GHG side is advice on the national emission reduction target that should be adopted, within the range of 45% to 65% from 2003 levels, by 2050. Of particular importance, obviously, are the scenarios by which Canada could in fact meet the target that, as we are going to be suggesting to the government, should be the one to adopt.

There are a couple of things to note here. One thing that we know is going to be very difficult in terms of the basic research we need to conduct is this transition period that clearly will occur between 2010-15 and 2025, when, as is anticipated in the act, there is this transition from an intensity-based target approach to an absolute target approach. It's an issue that needs considerable thought and to which we will be devoting considerable research resources.

The second point I'd like to make is on the question of that long-term range, the 2050 range. Obviously it's consistent with the approach or the research that we've already undertaken, looking at that 60% number, the number that we've already provided our advisory note on. I should be quite clear on that. The round table was not advocating that particular target when that advisory note was put out. That was a nominal target chosen for research purposes, but we now have, from a research perspective, the beginnings of an approach towards meeting the requirement to actually come up with advice on a particular number.

Just to wrap up, Mr. Chair, as I said at the outset, we have been given this piece of work under the Clean Air Act notice of intent. The timelines are fairly short for the round table. We have been asked by the government to provide advice in the form of a preliminary report by the spring of this year, with a final report to the government by the fall. We are right now in the course of developing the research agenda, the basic methodological approach that we're going to use.

A large part of this is still to be discussed with the members of the round table. We're meeting with them later this week to walk them through our suggested approach. So I may not be able to give you a clear sense of what the round table members themselves are feeling about this question right now, but I'll try to answer whatever questions you might have.

Thank you.

[David Martin, Greenpeace Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

You should have before you a submission from Greenpeace entitled “Targeting Climate Change in Canada”. I would also like to note that you have received a letter dated January 22, with recommended amendments to Bill C-30 from eight different executive directors of environmental groups. Our presentation this evening addresses climate change issues, but Greenpeace would like to adopt those submissions that are in those amendments.

As drafted, Canada's Clean Air Act targets no greenhouse gas reductions before 2020, and only sets a distant and, in our opinion, inadequate target for reductions by 2050. The notice of intent calls for emission reductions of between 45% and 65% from 2003 levels by 2050. Just to put that in perspective, Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 were 754 megatonnes. That means that by those targets, we would come down to between 264 and 415 megatonnes in 2050.

Reductions of emissions are usually calculated, as you know, against a baseline of 1990. As a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Canada committed to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012, so our target for 2012 is in fact 563 megatonnes. In order to prevent dangerous climate change, Greenpeace calls on Canada and other industrial nations to meet their Kyoto commitments as the first step, and then to target further deep reductions of emissions relative to 1990 levels: 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050.

Why these levels? These levels are science-based targets designed to prevent, in the words of the Kyoto Protocol, “dangerous climate change” by keeping the global average temperature increase as far below two degrees Celsius as possible.

In terms of the actual levels of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere, pre-industrial levels were at 280 parts per million, and the current level is up to 430 parts per million. The Stern review concluded that the greenhouse gas concentration should be limited to a range of 450 to 550 parts per million. The environmental community thinks we should be targeting it at the lower end of that range. Just so you understand the implications, it's thought that the planet could reach 550 parts per million as early as 2035. At that concentration, there's a 77% to 99% chance that the average temperature increase will exceed two degrees Celsius. It's widely accepted that temperature increases of more than two degrees Celsius will dramatically increase the risk of serious and irreversible climate change impacts.

The longer we delay those emission cuts, the faster they're going to have to be reduced. That's just simple mathematics. We have only a short window of opportunity, so it's vitally important to start reducing immediately.

With regard to intensity-based targets, the notice of intent states that “the Government intends to adopt a target-setting approach based on emissions intensity”. Emissions intensity is a measure of greenhouse gases emitted per unit of economic activity. Unfortunately, these intensity-based targets can be used to misrepresent progress—or the lack of progress—that's being made. Canada's greenhouse gas intensity measured in megatonnes per billion dollars of gross domestic product has actually decreased—that is, improved—14% between 1990 and 2004. However, this improvement has occurred largely spontaneously as a result of energy efficiency improvements, at the same time that the absolute levels of greenhouse gas emissions have increased 27%. Therefore, Greenpeace rejects the use of intensity-based targets and supports the use of absolute targets for greenhouse reductions.

What about Canada's climate crisis? Despite making a commitment to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Canada has had only three plans: one in 2000, another in 2002, and finally the 2005 project green plan in April 2005.

The early plans relied primarily on voluntary actions instead of effective regulation, incentive programs, or market-based programs. Thus, greenhouse gas emissions were not reduced. We know that by 2004 emissions had risen to 758 megatonnes, 27% above the 1990 level and 35% above our Kyoto target. This places Canada among the worst countries in the world in emission changes since 1990. Canada ranks fourth from the bottom among the 41 industrialized nations known at the annex 1 parties. This is a worsening of Canada's ranking since 2005, when it was sixth from the bottom.

The former Liberal government did a dismal job of fighting climate change, but their 2005 project green plan laid the foundation for positive action to fight climate change in Canada. In our opinion, it would have allowed Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment by a range of measures. The Clean Air Act as drafted would take Canada even further backwards in the fight against the climate crisis.

In our opinion, Canada's Kyoto target is achievable. While the government has not withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, lack of aggressive action will mean an effective abandonment of our commitment. The Kyoto target has been falsely characterized by the government as unachievable or unrealistic, and it is neither. However, Canada must be prepared to spend money.

The government's first budget in May 2005 slashed climate change spending from $4 billion to $2 billion over the following five years. If we need money, this is the time to create a green fund, a carbon tax similar to that of Quebec, by taxing fossil fuels. Determine the size of the fund by the amount of money required to meet our targets. The design of that fund should be a top priority.

It's scaremongering to suggest that Canada's Kyoto commitment would result in “economic collapse”. Sir Nicholas Stern, head of Britain's government economic service and the former World Bank chief economist, put that fear to rest last fall when he said that the cost of not acting against climate change will be immeasurably higher, typically amounting to about 20% of global gross domestic product per year, whereas the cost of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be limited to about 1% of GDP per year.

Last month, Greenpeace released a global energy blueprint to 2050. It confirmed the findings of the Stern review and emphasized that the world can have its cake and eat it too. We can have clean, safe, renewable energy while improving efficiency, enjoying economic growth, and phasing out dirty and dangerous energy sources such as coal and nuclear power.

We were very glad to hear Mr. Baird say before this committee that the era of voluntary compliance is over. Now is the time for mandatory emission reductions for big business, starting in 2008. These targets should be designed to achieve a Kyoto-level cap for the commitment period. Industry should do its fair share. Since they produce 50% or more of emissions, they should be responsible for at least 50% of the reductions.

Canada also needs automobile efficiency standards matching or improving those of California. We need incentive programs for green energy and conservation to be expanded, and Canada needs a million-solar-roof program for solar hot water.

We need to improve the economic playing field and level it out by eliminating direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power. Start by eliminating the 100% write-off for tar sands under the accelerated capital cost allowance. The tar sands produce five times as many greenhouse gas emissions as conventional oil.

We can also stop the subsidies for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.; $20 billion is enough to have wasted on this dirty, dangerous, and expensive technology. Nuclear power can't solve climate change, and it will actively prevent investment in more cost-effective green energy alternatives.

We also think you should set the market to work with a truly effective emissions trading system. Put tough emission reduction targets in place for each industry. Don't place a ceiling on the cost of emission credits, and don't allow industry to avoid the true cost of their pollution by paying into a technology fund, as suggested in the notice of intent.

It's also vitally important to make this trading system international. Industry should be allowed to purchase offshore credits--not so-called hot air credits, but credits for investment in green technology and other meaningful greenhouse gas reducing activities.

Finally, I'd urge you all to remember that Kyoto is not just about a 5% global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. It's an unprecedented international movement, starting with greenhouse gas reductions by the developed nations, but bringing in the developing nations in the subsequent Kyoto periods. It's the integration of those burgeoning economies into a climate change regime that is so vitally important to preventing a global catastrophe. China, India, and Brazil have already committed to the process, and we can't allow it to falter.

Canada has never before shirked its duty in either wartime or peacetime. I don't think Canadians are quitters, and we have to deliver on our Kyoto promise. We believe that these priorities should be reflected in the upcoming budget. Together we can do it a year at a time. Starting at a level of about 800 megatonnes, a 50-megatonne reduction per year from 2008 to 2012 will bring us to our Kyoto target. So let's get going.

Thank you.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, members.

It's a great pleasure for us to present our views on Canada's Clean Air Act today.

As many of you I'm sure know, because you have chambers and boards of trade in your ridings, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is the largest advocate for business in Canada. On behalf of our members, once again we thank you.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce recognizes that climate change is a serious and complex global issue that requires effective short-, medium-, and long-term strategies and actions.

The international community is engaged in a variety of processes to determine the most appropriate future framework for international cooperation on action to address the greenhouse gas challenge. This provides an opportunity for Canada and other countries to refocus the domestic and international climate change issue to a discussion of effective actions to improve energy efficiency while still meeting the energy needs of the economy. In addition, a concerted international effort is needed to develop the technological solutions required to bring greenhouse gas emissions under control over the long-term.

Industry is part of the solution. Many members of the Canadian chamber have already taken actions to reduce energy use and slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. We are committed to further efforts.

We have been encouraging our members for many years to participate in and to enhance their commitments to programs such as the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation, CIPEC. We've also partnered with Pollution Probe to develop a primer on climate change for SMEs.

I've asked the clerk to distribute copies around the table to you today.

This document is available in French and English.

This describes two smaller enterprises, the challenges of climate change, and the actions they can take individually to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is very often a neglected segment of our economy when we discuss these issues, and I would encourage the committee to make sure that small and medium-sized enterprises are considered.

I'd also like to give an example of progress that has been made in manufacturing in Canada, a sector that gets so much attention when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. While increasing production between 1990 and 2003 by 48%, manufacturers reduced their emissions by 7.4%. The large final emitter component of manufacturers reduced emissions by 20%. This represents a 38% reduction in emission intensity. One of the key lessons learned from this data is the important connection between investment and emission reductions. We need to encourage that investment in technology.

While we continue to take action to slow the growth of GHG emissions, there's no doubt that new technologies will be the key to the large-scale emission reductions needed over the long term. As you know, Canadian industries are currently developing new technologies and fuel sources, but many initiatives are only at the pilot stage and will have to be scaled up to full projects and programs to prove successful. Examples to these technologies include recovery of oil from drilling muds, utilization of gas from oil refining that would otherwise be flared, and improved animal waste management.

Given the importance of energy to the economy, new technology such as clean coal and carbon capture and storage deserves significant attention. A longer-term focus is necessary to support full development and commercialization of these technologies and to undertake the necessary research into other potential breakthrough technologies.

The business sector is part of the solution and is always quite prepared to continue doing its bit by playing an active and committed role.

Specifically on the question of targets—I know they are the subject of discussion for this committee today—Canadian industry supports the setting of responsible targets, along with an effective compliance regime. However, any targets, whether short-, medium-, or long-term, must be realistic and reflect the fact that Canada has a very energy-intensive economy with increasing energy exports. Also, in the case of industrial investments, it will be critical to look at investment cycles to ensure that we deal adequately with capital stock turnover realities.

Targets for industry should ramp up over time, recognizing that technical limitations are faced by most firms and that arbitrary short-term targets can divert capital from investments that have the potential for greater reductions in the long term. The key will be to closely integrate the targets with the capital stock turnover cycle so that new investments are timely, affordable, and most likely to have the double benefit of productivity and environmental improvements.

An integrated approach to dealing with both energy and the environment that provides for fair contributions from all regions and segments of society is needed if we want to adequately address both climate change and clean air. It must include a dialogue with Canadians about their own responsibilities and must develop measures that adequately address the consumer contribution.

We agree that the targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction should be based on emission intensity, where emission levels are compared with the level of output of the firm or sector, rather than on absolute emission levels. This ensures that companies are not penalized for growing their business even when they achieve significant environmental improvements.

I have two other points, quickly, Mr. Chair. One is on the issue of equivalency. We support the approach in Bill C-30 whereby regulations are not needed when existing provincial regulations have an equivalent effect. This ensures that industry initiatives to achieve further environmental improvements are not thwarted by overlapping and possibly conflicting regulations. You will agree, I'm sure, that we need only one regulator in each jurisdiction.

Finally, with respect to the notice of intent to regulate that was tabled in conjunction with Bill C-30, a number of principles were listed as guiding the development of industry regulations. The Canadian chamber would like to emphasize our support for these principles, and we hope they will continue to be the foundation on which regulations will be built. I don't need to repeat these principles. Some of them are ones that we feel are very positive—for example, maximizing environmental gains through a multi-pollutant approach; having some flexible compliance mechanisms; and, certainly, promoting investment in the development and deployment of new technologies. If these principles are followed, we believe the resulting regulations will enable us to make measurable improvements to the health and environment of Canadians, while promoting sustainable economic growth and competitive Canadian enterprise.

We would like to thank the committee members for giving us this opportunity to provide you with our comments.

We would encourage you to consider an integrated approach that accounts for energy and environmental issues fairly and equitably.

As one final thought for the members as you proceed with your deliberations, once again I encourage you to avoid artificial targets and instead keep foremost in your mind that in dealing with climate change in particular, we need to take into account the energy and economic realities of the country.

I'd be very happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Absolutely.

Mr. Chair, I think we would benefit from one more meeting at which we hear testimony. I'm reminded of the debate we had on Bill C-30. It now appears that government members want to delay this decision, but I do respect the fact that we need to get some good testimony here. We've seen two very good witnesses today. We had the Auditor General herself, but we may want to call Madame Gélinas and have her explain how she sees the office moving forward, for example. But I think one more meeting would be helpful for us.

I'm sure nobody here wants to delay this decision, but it's important to get some more commentary. Why don't we schedule the next meeting as one where we can get some witnesses in, and then we can put it to a vote at the end of that meeting?

Again, I would be particularly pleased if Madame Gélinas herself could show and speak to the merits of hiving off the position, about strengthening it, and so on. She would also I think help to clarify for Mr. Warawa his concerns about advocacy, about where advocacy begins and ends. There are some concerns about that, and I share those concerns.

But I think there's a consensus around the table that we need to strengthen the position, so I would like to see another day, with the indulgence of the committee members. Let's bring in one, two, or three witnesses and move on from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We did make a decision to have Tim do that research. Of course, he produced that paper for us that did summarize things. You've been using it.

There are all kinds of ways we could do this, but I don't believe Mr. McGuinty's original intention was to do full-scale research on this whole thing, because obviously this could be a major project.

I do remind members that we do have CEPA going on, and it would be nice to finish it sometime. We do have until May, but I don't think we want to go that long. And of course we do have Bill C-30 going on, and a number of you are very busy with that. I put that into perspective, again with what has been proposed.

That's the last speaker I have. Mr. McGuinty, could you now comment, please?

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill and go on the record on some fairly important aspects on the issue of climate change.

Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they are concerned about the environment. During the last election, they told us that they were not satisfied with the action that the Liberals had taken, or had not taken, on a number of things, no less in this area as well, some subterfuge, some fakes they intended on this file.

In contrast, our government will be taking action, and is taking action, on both air pollution and climate change. We are committed to protecting the health of Canadians and also of our environment.

Unfortunately, Bill C-288, put forward by the member across the way, has no mechanisms for enforcement. It renders it toothless. Despite the political games of the opposition, we will not call an election over a private member's bill that has no substance and no plan. It is basically an empty motion.

The Speaker has ruled that the bill is not a money bill and, therefore, is not a matter of confidence. The bill does not require the expenditure of money and so, it accomplishes nothing.

The stated purpose in Bill C-288 is to ensure Canada takes action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. This very single focus on short term greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets is really not enough.

The clean air act, on the other hand, would provide a strong basis for taking integrated action on emissions of smog, acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases as well, many of which come from the same industrial and transportation sources.

By tabling the clean air act, the government has clearly demonstrated that it is taking short, medium and long term action to protect the environment and human health.

Our approach is more than just a long term approach. With respect to industrial air emissions, the government has committed to determining its regulatory framework, including setting short term targets as well. Our notice of intent states that our targets will be consistent with leading environmental standards and at least as rigorous as those in the United States.

Targets for air pollutants will measurably reduce the impact on the health of Canadians. For greenhouse gases, the targets will yield a better outcome for the Canadian environment than under the plan proposed by the previous Liberal government.

Bill C-288 has a focus on the achievement of Canada's short term Kyoto target that is limited. Both its economic and environmental aspects need to be carefully examined.

Our approach needs to focus on the economic transformation needed for the Canadian economy that will lead to more significant and sustained reductions in pollutants. For example, we must, and we will, as a government encourage investment in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure.

The government wants to regulate greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions for major industrial sectors in place as soon as possible. That being said, however, the reality is it will not be possible, in practical terms, to develop requirements for both greenhouse gases and air pollutants for all industrial sectors by 2008.

Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation, as per Bill C-288, would almost certainly open the Crown and all stakeholders to very serious difficulties.

The bill's timeline strictly limits the ability of the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. The way of doing things, as in Bill C-288, is not reasonable and shows disregard for a meaningful public consultation process, which results then require careful consideration by the government.

Yesterday, in front of the legislative committee for Bill C-30, the Minister of the Environment made a strong statement on this government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. He said:

In the coming months, we will announce ambitious...targets...coming into force starting in 2010. For the first time ever, the Federal Government will regulate air pollution for major industry sectors. For the first time ever, we will regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, beginning with the 2011 model year. We will regulate energy efficiency standards and labeling requirements for a broad range of consumer and commercial products. Together, these will address about 80 percent of the energy used in homes and almost 90 percent of the energy used in commercial settings.

The challenge of meeting our Kyoto target is illustrated by the simple fact that by 2004 domestic greenhouse gas emissions had increased 27% under the Liberal government, which is the exact opposite of what should have happened.

We will not spend billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to buy credits. Instead, we will spend Canadian tax dollars here at home to make real reductions in greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Our government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change at the same time in order to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources and, to be most effective, action needs to be integrated.

Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that only address greenhouse gases while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants. For that reason, our government will establish short, medium and long term reduction targets, both for air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

By taking action on greenhouse gases and air pollutants, our government will allow industry to find ways to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness while maximizing the benefits to Canadians. Our plan will achieve concrete, tangible results through mandatory, enforceable regulations with short, medium and long term targets.

To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is threefold. First, this bill has a short term focus. Second, it has a single issue focus on greenhouses gases. Third, massive costs would come with this short term focus.

In our view, it is important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions both of air pollutants and greenhouse gases in the short term, but that also sets the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term. It is even more important that these funds be spent on improving the Canadian economy here.

Countries with targets now under the Kyoto protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions. For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all major emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions.

By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and China and India together will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined.

Effective action cannot be taken, in fact, by a relatively small group of countries alone. Proponents of the Kyoto protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate

. Kyoto is only a first step toward a serious approach to the problem. We have been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance a more transformative long term approach to tackling climate change. Our actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address the matter of climate change.

In conclusion, Canada's clean air act goes far beyond Bill C-288 to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We encourage the Liberals to get on board and help us get it through for the sake of Canadians and our environment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canadians are very concerned about their environment and about climate change.

Accepting the science of climate change and the growing need for action after a decade of Liberal inaction, Canada's new Conservative government is taking real, effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address these concerns.

Unlike the Liberal sponsor, we have carefully considered Bill C-288. Our conclusion is that Bill C-288 is seriously flawed and must be opposed. We need to draw some important distinctions between this flawed Bill C-288 and this government's clean air act.

First, Bill C-288 is far too little, far too late. It is a desperate Liberal attempt to unwisely force us to make their targets and timeline. What did the former environment commissioner say about these Kyoto timelines? She said that even if the Liberals were still in power they would not have made the Kyoto targets and timeline.

Opinion leaders across Canada agree that we cannot make the Kyoto targets and timeline. Even the new leader of the official opposition admits that he cannot make the Kyoto targets and timeline.

I know the sponsor of the bill supported the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and not the current leader at their recent convention. The Liberal deputy leader said that the Liberals did not get it done. Bill C-288 still does not get it done. Bill C-288 is also a recognition of the Liberals' 13 years of inaction on the environment.

Claude Villeneuve, from the University of Quebec, said this about Bill C-288, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998”.

When Mark Jaccard testified before the environment committee he said, “I would say, no, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe”. It is too little, too late.

If the Liberals were serious about climate change and the Kyoto targets they signed us on to, why did they not act when they had a chance? They had 8 years, 10 budgets, 7 surplus budgets, 7 years of solid majority government, 5 years with the current tools under CEPA and they took no action. There is not excuse for Liberal inaction on climate change. The leader of the Liberal Party knows no shame on this issue.

Not only is Bill C-288 too little, too late, it is incomplete. Where is the medium term plan? What about the long term? Where are the costs?

The sponsor of the bill, the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier, said at committee that he did not even care about a plan or the costs to implement Bill C-288. The Liberals do not care about having plans. They do not care about those things. We care about them.

How can they be taken seriously on climate change? How can Bill C-288 be seriously taken as a plan on climate change? Its focus is short term. In fact, there is only one short term timeline on the Liberal horizon now and that is the next election. It seems to be the only thing they care about any more. By contrast, we have one approach, reductions in GHGs and pollution in the short, medium and long term.

Kyoto was only a first step toward a serious approach to the problem. We have always been clear that Canada will work with other countries, including the major nations that are polluting but are not in Kyoto. The Liberals would not work with them. They left them out when they negotiated the agreement to advance a more transformative and long term approach to tackling climate change.

Our action at home is laying a foundation for cooperative international efforts to conquer climate change. Our commitment in the short term is GHG targets that will yield a better outcome than what was proposed by the Liberals in 2005. On air pollutants, we have proposed fixed emission caps at minimum as rigorous as jurisdictions that are leaders in environmental performance. This is a major step that no previous federal Liberal government has taken.

We are looking at the best way for industry to comply with these targets. We will ensure that we have a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost effective way to meet its emissions targets while meeting our environmental and health objectives.

We are also supporting the development of transformative technologies, especially for GHGs, technologies that will be needed to achieve the deep reductions required if we are to prevent irreversible climate change.

Not only is Bill C-288 too little, too late, not only is Bill C-288 not a real plan for climate change, but Bill C-288 has no penalties. How about that? Where is the enforcement? Clearly the Liberals do not believe that the polluter pays for damaging our health and our environment. Without enforcement, Bill C-288 is not much of a bill. It might as well have been a motion, or how about a preamble to a real bill on climate change.

Bill C-288 is therefore useless. I think the Liberals know a lot about being useless, but that is fine. I guess that makes Liberals feel better when they put their heads down on their pillows at night.

In order to protect Canadians' health and our environment, legislation must be strictly enforced or it will not be effective. We know the Liberals were not effective. Stiff enforcement acts as a deterrence to future damage to human health and the environment.

Enforcement means that parties subject to the requirements under environmental laws or regulations will comply with those requirements or pay real consequences.

Enforcement is a pivotal part of achieving this government's goals to clean up our environment and protect the health of Canadians. Enforcement of an act must be fair, predictable and consistent for government, industry, organized labour and individuals.

This government's clean air act, Bill C-30, builds on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, among other things, by strengthening enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with all requirements of our bill; not so with Bill C-288 before us today. This is a neutered bill.

Our clean air act by contrast is a strong bill. Enforcement officers will carry out inspections to verify compliance with the law and direct corrective measures to be taken. Where there is danger to the environment, human life or health, the government would be able to act; not so with Bill C-288.

Under our clean air act, enforcement officers will be able to conduct investigations of suspected transportation violations by controlling the movement of cars, trucks, trains or other modes of transport. Officers can stop them or move them to locations suitable for inspection.

Enforcement officers have the power of peace officers as well. Maximum penalties can include fines of up to $1 million for each day an offence continues, imprisonment of up to three years, or both. That is a bill with real teeth, not like Bill C-288.

How about this? Where an offence continues for more than one day, the person may be convicted for a separate offence for each day the illegal activity lasts.

Canada's clean air act has real muscle. Bill C-288 sadly gets sand kicked in its face. Our Bill C-30 will strengthen this government's ability to establish tradable unit programs for air pollutants and GHGs by proposing amendments to CEPA's current penalty provisions to make them work better with emissions trading systems. There is no such improvement in Bill C-288.

Canada's clean air act also provides all fines for violations be paid into an environmental damages fund, a special account created to assist in managing financial compensation granted to Environment Canada for restoration of damages sustained by the environment. There is no such improvement in Bill C-288.

Where there is danger to the environment, human life or health, we will take action and we will have the tools to act. Bill C-288, sad to say, cannot be enforced and the Liberals know it and they do not care about that. That is a danger where the environment, human life or health is in jeopardy. Bill C-288 is not a plan for climate change; it is a recipe for the type of inaction the Liberals became infamous for.

Bill C-288 is too little, too late, no plan, no muscle, not worth supporting. Canadians deserve better. Canadians are demanding better than Bill C-288. I ask all colleagues in the House to vote against Bill C-288 and put their efforts instead into passing Canada's clean air act.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-288. The summary of the bill reads:

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister—to the extent that it is within its purpose—on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

I took the time to read out the summary for the House so as to be clear for the members present and the public viewing today about just what we have before us for debate. I want Canadians to understand this bill, because in essence it highlights very clearly the failure of the Liberals when they were in government and in particular of their current leader when he had control of the environment file and did not himself proceed with just the actions that are listed in this bill today.

When the Kyoto protocol was signed, I can recall very vividly my personal sense that finally there would be action on this most critical issue. One can imagine that as time wore on it became clear that the Liberal government of the day was only engaging in smoke and mirrors on the issue or, worse, did not grasp the significance to the peoples of Canada and the world that a failure to act--yes, a failure--would have and what would result.

In every sense of the word, the Liberals in control of the environment file failed Canadians by not ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were brought under control and lowered. Now we know the degree of that failure. Greenhouse gas emissions soared by 26% by 2004.

Other countries such as Germany, which was required to lower its emissions by 8%, actually got them down to 17.2% by 2004. As for the United Kingdom, we all have seen the movies about the smokestacks of England and the horrendous record it is supposed to have. It was required to reduce by 8% and got it down by 14%. Russia, which had a zero requirement, came down by 32% by 2004. In contrast, the United States rose by 15.8% by 2004. The worst of the pack was Canada, which was up by 26.6% by 2004.

Day in and day out, while the Liberals went about their self-absorbed lives of entitlement, not only our environment but ordinary Canadians paid a heavy price. Our air and our water got dirtier. Smog days grew more frequent and worse.

Throughout the years since signing on to Kyoto, Canada has lost its opportunity to assume a leadership role on this file. Somewhat like Nero, as the Liberals fiddled our air quality worsened, our rivers were dirtied, and our weather began to change, with clear patterns of increasingly worse storms, with deluges and with winds of unprecedented violence.

The Liberal deathbed conversion symbolized in this bill may well be heartfelt, I will give them that, but the Liberal record on greenhouse gas emissions is what it is. This bill will not change those facts. As late as it is, Bill C-288, also known as the Kyoto protocol implementation act, is worthy of support and will have it from our party when it comes time for a vote in the House.

However, it is deeply troubling that it is the Liberals in opposition putting forward such strong Kyoto language when they could have done it all while they were in government.

Because of the lack of action to date, we now have the forests of western Canada being decimated by the pine beetle because it is now able to survive in our climate whereas it previously could not withstand the cold here. Our winter service ice roads are now unstable and melting much faster than usual, making it difficult to get food and supplies to our isolated communities in the north.

Let us look at the damage being done to our winter resorts, which have faced green grass far into the normal tourist season. The winter sports economy is but one example of the beginning of very serious economic problems that ordinary people are beginning to face today.

I can tell this House emphatically that the NDP has always been on record as demanding that our federal government do more to ensure that it meets and exceeds Kyoto targets.

Notwithstanding this bill, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-377, entitled “a climate change accountability act”, which would serve as an effective framework to achieve science-based greenhouse gas emission controls and reduce targets beyond Kyoto.

This member is proud of the fact that it was our party and our leader who broke the logjam to get something done on climate change and on pollution.

The climate change accountability act means that Canada will start to meet the challenges of climate change today, not in decades.

The core of the NDP's Bill C-377 is based on science-based benchmarks, not arbitrary ones as found in the clean air act.

Bill C-377 has short, medium and long term targets.

Bill C-377 will get the government moving immediately, because within six months of its passage the government must develop and publish a target for 2015, and regulations to meet the bill's targets must be in place no later than December 31, 2007.

Sometimes in this House it feels like we have to drag other parties to the altar, so to speak, with the Liberals' inaction over the many years of their mandate and now the Conservative clean air act, which is euphemistically called the hot air act in environmental circles.

Today, thanks to our Bill C-30, there is an opportunity for real action on climate change. I call upon all parties to stop the posturing, stop the obstruction and get to work with the NDP to get the job done.

People often ask why I ran to represent Hamilton East--Stoney Creek in this auspicious place. I ran for two reasons: the vision and the passion of the leader of the NDP and my anger over the abject failure of the Liberal Party over the last 13-plus years. Five surplus budgets and three majority governments and still too many Canadians go hungry, still too many Canadians sleep in the streets, and Canadians face an uncertain future because of the Dion gap of runaway greenhouse gas emissions.

I could have decided to stand outside of this place and rail against the government. Instead, I came in to work with the NDP caucus to ensure we all get the job done for ordinary Canadians. I call upon this House to work with the Bill C-30 committee, using Bill C-377, Bill C-288 and the best science available to change the clean air act to effective environmental legislation.

I am getting a little too emotional here and I have to pause. This is so critical and so important to our country. We must come together as parliamentarians and get this job done.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question regarding the domestic carbon market. The minister made it very clear that he will not entertain sending billions of dollars outside of Canada. Those dollars are going to be staying here in Canada. The Montreal exchange could be set up right now. There is nothing stopping that, but what we need is a regulatory, mandatory framework and that is Bill C-30. That is part of the notice of intent.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister quoted Professor Boyd from UBC. It is unfortunate that the member was in a bad mood yesterday. He attacked the minister. He attacked the Auditor General at the committee. He must have got up on the wrong side of the bed.

The government is committed to working with all parties, including the opposition. We need to have a real plan. The plan is Bill C-30, not Bill C-288. I encourage the member to start working and stop obstructing.

Opposition Motion— Kyoto Protocol

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Canadians that there is a big issue before us on the environment.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. They want clean water and air, and most of all they want action. They do not want just empty words that they have heard for so very long on the climate file. There is really no doubt about that fact.

The government is taking some concrete action that was already promised during our campaign last fall and in the first part of this year. We have actually followed through on some of those things already. We are moving forward with some pretty concrete and specific results.

The most obvious example of late of course is Bill C-30 which is the clean air act, which is now before a legislative committee of the House. That legislation lays out a very solid and workable plan. It makes a fundamental change in the approach of the federal government with respect to air pollution, and also greenhouse gases, a change which is vital and crucial to the health of Canadians.

We can compare that of course to the record of the previous Liberal government as it stalled on the environment over some 13 years actually. For many of those years I was there and served as a member when the stalling occurred. The Liberals racked up a lot of rhetoric, a lot of verbal diarrhea, as some would say over that time, and stalled due to a lack of realistic goals.

The previous Liberal government stalled because a timid government was unwilling to step up and accept its responsibility in concrete terms for fear of giving offence to others. It stalled as well because of the clear failure to accept that simple truth that Canadians already know. Canadians cannot be healthy without clean air.

The Liberal regime may not have been willing to act, but the Conservative government certainly is and is committed to do that in very practical and concrete ways. The government respects the objectives and principles of the Kyoto protocol. We are committed to making some real progress toward achieving those objectives.

However, we do face a challenge and I think we need to be honest to admit that, a challenge made greater by the inaction of the previous Liberal government as it failed to set up and then to follow up with clear priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reductions.

The path toward a new and a more realistic approach requires an approach that we have started through, in fact, the clean air act. It requires an approach based on targets that will mean immediate and also long term health benefits for all Canadians.

It is important to understand that the government is looking at clean air in a comprehensive way. We believe that we can ensure that Canadians receive health benefits from cleaner air now and we can take actions that will address also the longer term issues of climate change.

I want to comment a bit on the health considerations of our actions because this is where it really gets down to each one of us. The health of Canadians has been the focus of the government since the very beginning. Beyond the legitimate focus of our government, our partners and Canadians on health care, we understand the need to be concerned about the many determinants of an individual's health, such as genetics and behaviour. Air quality is also a big part of that.

For decades scientists have assembled and gathered evidence together on the health effects of air pollution, not just the killer smogs off in London and Los Angeles in the past but right now in our major cities across Canada as well. They know that air pollution causes premature mortality, hospital visits, lung cancer, and cardiac and respiratory illnesses. They know that air pollution results in increased absenteeism from school and work. Outdoor air pollution in Canadian cities also contributes to some 5,900 deaths per year from stroke, cardiac and lung disease. That impact is not evenly distributed throughout our society among Canadians but rather, air pollution has its greatest impact on children, the elderly and also the very frail.

In fact, in Toronto during the summer, smog is a factor in 35% of acute respiratory hospital admissions in children under the age of two. Individuals with diabetes, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and circulatory disease are at greater risk on days when air pollution is high.

Those statistics have more than personal impacts. They have impacts on our health care system and our economy. In fact, in Ontario alone the costs of lost productivity due to air pollution are estimated to be some billion dollars per year.

I think Canadians understand this. In fact, more than half of Canadians believe that air pollution will eventually have a negative impact on their very own health. A full third of Canadians believe that air pollution has already had some kind of an impact upon them.

The Conservative Party believes that these Canadians are right. We believe the scientists are right. The government introduced Bill C-30 to address these concerns. That is why the government is charting a new and dynamic path.

The government introduced Bill C-30 to kick-start effective action that was so lacking until now. On this issue, as on so many others, we know that effective action is possible if there is a will. We know that taking--

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. When we have a serious problem, what do we do? We set mandatory standards. That has never been done. Never has a government dared to do that before us. Never will the Bloc Québécois have the audacity to say it will regulate.

I currently sit on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30. We have heard experts such as Claude Villeneuve say yesterday that, in the current state of affairs and since nothing happened in the past 10 years, we cannot meet our obligations in the very short term.

We have to set mandatory targets and that is what we are trying to do. We are introducing a bill. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to help pass this bill so that we can finally set restrictive targets. However, as long as this bill is blocked, we will not be able to do anything. People need to realize that this government is determined to act in a clear, compelling and concrete manner.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, how my friends amuse me. We are talking about solving the fiscal imbalance in the next budget. It may be better to curb our zeal. If the matter was so urgent, why did our Bloc Québécois colleague vote against having additional meetings for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Why did he vote to send Bill C-288 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Was it an attempt to waste the government's time on the report on Bill C-30 that was to be tabled? Why did he invite a ton of witnesses? Again, was it to delay Bill C-30? My Bloc Québécois friends and colleagues make me laugh when they puff themselves up and turn on the dramatics because when it comes time to take action, they slam on the brakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have today the great pleasure to speak to a motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Québécois which has to do with the Kyoto protocol. The motion proposes:

That, having recognized the principle of complying with the Kyoto targets, it is the opinion of this House that the government should provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

We also took note of the amendment introduced by the NDP, the purpose of which was to indicate clearly that the $328 million is of course a minimum and that the government should also give the appropriate amounts to the other provinces that wish to embark on the fight against climate change.

I would say that the original Bloc motion plus the NDP amendment prove one thing. The first part of the motion refers to the fact that the principle of complying with the Kyoto protocol has been recognized in this House. What does that mean? First, it means that through the House of Commons and parliamentarians, we have taken strong action to send to the government the clear message that we want a credible plan for fighting climate change that incorporates the Kyoto targets.

I will remind you that last May, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion calling on the government to table this credible plan incorporating the Kyoto protocol targets. The majority of members in this House—from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party—voted in favour. The principles of compliance with the Kyoto protocol that are included in the Bloc’s motion today are thus repeated, and we would like the majority of the House to repeat this support many times expressed by parliamentarians, in the Bloc Québécois motion in May, in Bill C-288 tabled by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, and again this week in an opposition motion calling for compliance with the Kyoto protocol.

However, the reality is quite different. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 27% since 1990. So billions of dollars have been invested in Canada to fight climate change, but the results have not come. This means that, to comply with its Kyoto targets, as things now stand the government will have to reduce its emissions not just by 27%, but also by another 6% on top of that.

In my opinion, the results presented by the Conservative government in Nairobi—results that can be attributed to the Liberal efforts of recent years—must drive home to us the importance of changing our approach to combating climate change in Canada.

What is that approach? First of all, it is a voluntary approach which—if absolutely necessary, of course—would establish regulations, as proposed by the Liberal finance minister of the time, in a budget for example. But it was also an approach that would provide for regulations based on emission intensity.

What does that mean? It means that in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions imposed on industry, we would take production into consideration and not set a reduction target based on the total quantity of greenhouse gases produced by these different industrial sectors.

This approach which has been adopted by the federal government, both Liberal and Conservative, is nothing but a gain, a savings and an advantage for the oil companies and the big polluters.

We are calling on the government to base its greenhouse gas reductions and its emission targets for large industrial emitters on the total quantity discharged by the different industrial sectors. But the Conservative government, which has adopted the same policy as the previous government, an approach that is ineffective, inefficient and unfair, is perpetuating an approach that has not yielded the desired results in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions.

We are today proposing to change this approach, to adopt a territorial approach whereby the provinces would be asked to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in binding fashion, obliging them to cut emissions within their territory by 6%, while leaving them free to establish the plans, policies and programs they want.

The reason for doing this is quite simply because the energy policy of Quebec, which generates 95% of its power from hydroelectricity, is not the energy policy of Western Canada, which depends on hydrocarbons, oil sands and fossil fuels. The energy policy of Quebec is not that of Alberta. Neither is it the energy policy of Ontario, which has favoured coal in recent years, and more recently, nuclear power.

Therefore, since there is no common energy policy across Canada and since energy and natural resources are managed by the provinces, we must ensure that the provinces are involved.

Remember what the environment commissioner told us in her report on climate change programs. The provinces must be part of the solution because that is where electricity is produced, distributed and used.

The government must recognize today that we should stay away from a sectorial approach and adopt a territorial approach that will allow us to put in place an effective, efficient and fairer national policy with regard to climate change. Canada's problem in fighting climate change has nothing to do with the programs themselves, as they already exist, but it has to do with the fact that they are not adapted to the provinces' energy reality.

Tuesday, at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we heard from a prominent climate expert who is a professor at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. He told us, and I quote:

One of the reasons for Canada's failure is its desire to have the same approach for all the players, supposedly because it is more equitable, even though the situation is not the same for all the players.

Mr. Villeneuve also said:

It is clear that regional approaches are much more interesting since decisions regarding energy policies are made at the provincial level and natural resources are managed by the provinces.

Canada did commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. But can we adopt a so-called common approach that would be tailored to each province, something similar to what Europe did?

In 1997, Europe committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8%. That same year, Europe went to Kyoto with specific objectives and a territorial approach to meet that 8% target. Under that approach, its sovereign countries—there were 15 at the time—would have different targets where some could increase their emissions and others could reduce them, taking into account various parameters such as the climate, which has a considerable impact on energy consumption. The economic structure has to be taken into account.

Each country's energy policy and wind energy potential must be taken into account in the targets negotiated with these countries.

This is a flexible approach that would let Canada continue to demonstrate to the international community that it is determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its international commitments. Canada could also reach agreements with its provincial partners in order to develop a more effective climate change policy.

The third demand is the carbon exchange. Companies and industrial sectors are just waiting for greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

The government told us that it was going to base its regulation of the industry on emission intensity. In other words, in setting a target for each industrial sector, it was going to take into account production and greenhouse gas emissions. This approach cannot work.

On the one hand, this approach is unfair to industry sectors that have made efforts in the past, such as the industrial sectors in Quebec. Meanwhile, industrial sectors in the rest of Canada have increased their emissions by over 20%, nearly 30% since 1990. The industrial sectors in Quebec have succeeded in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 7%.

Sector-based intensity targets would clearly penalize companies and industrial sectors that have made efforts in the past and can show progress in fighting climate change. Not only is this intensity-based approach to climate change unfair, but it clearly jeopardizes the implementation of a carbon exchange in Canada.

The government has to understand that if it wants to set up a carbon exchange, which we support and would like to see in Montreal—I know that there is some discussion as to whether the exchange will be in Montreal or Toronto—then we must set strict reduction targets. Intensity targets will complicate Canada's implementation of a carbon exchange, a special tool allowed under the Kyoto protocol so that countries can reach their greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

This morning, the minister appeared in committee. I asked him whether he favoured a territorial approach or a carbon exchange. His response was clear. Quebec was asking for too much. That is what the Minister of the Environment said. He made it even more clear how little he understands the establishment of a carbon exchange. This morning he told us that Quebec could not call for a territorial approach as well as a carbon exchange. It is totally illogical.

How can the minister say such things when Europe has indicated it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%? In Europe, the Kyoto protocol targets were divided territorially and the world’s most innovative carbon exchange established. It is so innovative that the Montreal climate exchange signed an agreement with the European carbon exchange, a side agreement to the conference on climate exchange in Montreal.

At the economic forum in Davos on January 25, the Premier of Quebec, it will be remembered, called for such an exchange to be established as quickly as possible.

What is the government waiting for then? The Montreal exchange is waiting for the federal government. All of Quebec is waiting for the Montreal exchange to be established to help improve Canada’s situation generally in the fight against climate change.

The government must commit as soon as possible to formulating regulations and targets for the industrial sector. It must let Quebec achieve the Kyoto protocol targets within the province and establish a carbon exchange.

There is a fourth element: the $328 million we are demanding from the government.

The minister told us in committee this morning that he was consulting, discussing and negotiating with the Government of Quebec for the $328 million. I have been the environment critic for years. I have seen a succession of ministers. I have seen them say no to Quebec over this significant transfer of $328 million. The former Liberal Minister of the Environment, the former Conservative minister and the current minister have all turned a deaf ear to Quebec’s demands, although it has a strategy for climate change.

With Quebeckers ready to commit public funds to meeting 72% of the Kyoto targets in Quebec’s plan of action we are asking Ottawa for some 30% only of the financial effort required to meet Kyoto targets, and time is a-wasting.

It is odd that when we discuss, here in this House, bills such as Bill C-48, which gives tax breaks to the oil industry, things move along more quickly, bills get passed and there is agreement.

I am talking about $250 million granted annually to the oil industry, according to the figures from the finance department. Let me quote some of them. The oil companies will have saved $55 million in 2003-04, $100 million in 2004-05 and $260 million in 2007-08.

Does anyone realize that the $328 million is the total for just two full fiscal years that the oil industry will have benefited from through Bill C-48? For 2007-08 alone, oil companies will save $260 million, while Quebec has been negotiating for years to get $328 million to meet Kyoto protocol targets.

We, on this side of the House, are saying that the policies of the Conservative government and of the Liberal government promote nothing less than a polluter-paid policy rather than a polluter-pay policy. This is an example. While the $328 million would be used to fund a plan to combat climate change in Quebec, the government is saying no, but saying yes to the oil companies. This does not make sense.

The government needs to acknowledge that the Kyoto protocol targets are, for the opposition in this House—including the Bloc Québécois, of course—a non negotiable objective. The government need not expect that we will negotiate on achieving the targets in the Kyoto protocol or its inclusion in Bill C-30. We want the Kyoto protocol targets to be part of Bill C-30. Let that be clear. We feel that a refusal by the government to include them would be nothing short of a slap in the face in the fight against climate change.

Finally, giving $328 million to Quebec has nothing to do with the tax incentives given to the oil industry. It has to do with fighting climate change and having a sustainable transportation policy in Quebec that is in line with Kyoto targets.

In closing, I hope members will consider this amended motion and vote in favour of it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I believe that if a province is proactive, if it is moving forward and if it has an acceptable plan that meets the Kyoto targets, then the country should support that province. For example, Manitoba has a plan. That province wants to move forward and work with the industry. We must work hard to prevent our planet from continuing to be polluted. Considering the health and well-being of our children, the health and well-being of future generations, how could we be opposed to a population that wants to take charge and to fight pollution? We must ensure that we have a planet that is clean, a planet on which we enjoy living.

I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois for supporting the NDP amendment to include the provinces. It is now up to the provinces to propose plans. If some provinces cannot propose plans, it will be up to the federal government to act. It is the responsibility of the Conservatives to take action and clean our planet—or at least take part in that cleaning—to respect the Kyoto protocol and to meet the targets set, so that Canadians from coast to coast will enjoy a clean environment. This is one of our basic responsibilities.

We cannot rely only on what the Liberals have said during their 13 years in office, when pollution increased by 30%.

We cannot trust the Conservatives, who are now in office and who want to achieve the objectives by the year 2050. We must fight pollution now. We must work hard.

A majority of opposition members support the idea of making changes to Bill C-30. We must show Canadians, who are so concerned, that we want to take action.

Earlier, I referred to the Radio-Canada news story and I mentioned how it generated concern among the public. People in our ridings often tell us that, even though temperatures may be mild, they are worried.

We must act now. As leaders in Canada and in this Parliament, it is our responsibility to act.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Québécois motion on air quality, the environment and the Kyoto protocol. I have listened to our Liberal colleague speaking of the green plan and so on. I believe he has neglected to say that their environmental plan has been a failure, and I will give him an example. Moreover, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has pointed out that, even if the reduction measures set out in the Liberal government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is hard to say whether the planned reductions would have been sufficient to allow us to fulfil our obligations. This was in the report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on September 28, 2006.

The Liberals are busy patting themselves on the back and saying that they would have solved the environmental and air quality problems if they had been in power. This raises some questions, particularly since the environment minister at that time is now the leader of the Liberal Party. Now he thinks donning a green scarf is going to change Canada's environment.

I do not want to dwell on the Liberal position for too long. I do not believe they managed during their 13 years in power to demonstrate that they considered the environment important, considering that greenhouse gas emissions increased by 30% over that period. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has even stated that the measures for 2005 could not achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives.

Regrettably, when we look at the new government—as it still wants to be called—one which was at one point totally opposed to the Kyoto protocol, we see it has been forced to set aside the Minister of the Environment in favour of another.

My congratulations to Canadians, to all those who have realized that the environment has become a priority for our country. A person cannot open a newspaper or listen to a news broadcast these days without realizing that the environment is becoming one of our priorities.

It is not a normal situation in our communities all over the country for little children to have asthma, and for children, adults and seniors to be sick because of environmental pollutants. It is our fundamental responsibility, as citizens and as human beings, to preserve our planet for our children, for future generations. How can we not make the environment a priority?

I can see that the Bloc Québécois wants to be the champion of the environment in Quebec, as if it had all the answers. As I recall, just before the election, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace said we were number one in terms of the environment. They did mention the Bloc Québécois, but never said this was the doing of the Bloc alone.

I should remind the House and the people of Canada and Quebec that we all have to work together, because environmental pollution is something that does not affect only Quebec. It is happening worldwide. We must therefore work together and collectively to prevent pollution. As a member of this House, I was very disappointed when the Bloc Québécois voted against a motion put before the House by the NDP to ban the use of pesticides on people's lawns.

I was very disappointed with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, saying that this was a provincial jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that pollutants fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec had good legislation respecting pesticides. We even commended it for that. But in this House, in this Parliament, here in Ottawa, by voting against our motion to ban pesticides, Bloc members have prevented the rest of Canada from enjoying similar legislation. It struck me as unfortunate, especially since they paint themselves as saviours of the environment and of Kyoto. They opposed a motion going to the heart of the issue of health in the regions, as it dealt with the banning of pesticides on grassy areas in municipalities and towns. How could they oppose that?

It is almost as if they can think of only one thing: Quebec, and only Quebec. That is unfortunate. The motion before us is a case in point: it talks only about Quebec. An amendment might be put forward later. This time, one would hope that they will not vote the same way they did on pesticides. Hopefully, they will say that they are prepared to work together with the rest of Canada and agree with this benefiting all the provinces.

Let us talk about some of the amendments proposed by the NDP to Canada’s Clean Air Act. Canadians want us to act immediately to reduce pollution so their families can breathe cleaner air and Canada can do its part in the international effort to combat climate change at a world-wide level.

Re-writing the ineffective and inadequate 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) within a special legislative committee offers an important opportunity for Canada to get back on the road to reducing pollution and to combating climate change.

Once again, the NDP proposed the creation of a special legislative committee on the environment, on air quality, to study the Conservative bill so that we could deal with the problem immediately through this bill. A special committee would not have to follow the same procedures. So, in that sense, we could go faster. The NDP proposed that we could present amendments to the bill within 30 days.

Earlier, I listened to the Liberals telling us that Bill C-30 would do nothing to improve air quality in Canada. Unless I am completely mistaken, the opposition now forms a majority in the House of Commons and also on a special legislative committee. As a result, the opposition could present amendments to improve the bill so that it goes in the right direction.

We wanted to do that within 30 days to ensure that we had a bill before the budget is tabled in the House of Commons, because there could be a vote of non-confidence in the government after the budget is tabled. We wanted to be sure that the bill is through the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

However, the other political parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois decided to delay review of the bill until March 31, or after the budget. This position of the other parties is regrettable. The Conservative party wanted to hear 40 witnesses in committee, and the Liberals wanted more than 40 witnesses. I do not know how many witnesses the Bloc Québécois also wanted to call.

If we do not already know what we need to improve the bill, if in 30 days we could not review the bill and agree on what needs to be done, instead of playing politics, then we are missing the boat. That is my sincere belief.

With a new bill, Parliament can ensure significant and immediate action enabling Canadians to see improvements in the air they breathe throughout their lives, in addition to protecting the planet for their children and their grandchildren.

The NDP is proposing a series of detailed changes to Bill C-30, which again commits Canada to respecting its short-term commitments under the Kyoto protocol and ensures the development of an exhaustive plan for it to meet internationally recognized scientific objectives in the medium and long term.

The NDP will continue to seek comments and other amendments from environmental experts and Canadians both during the period leading up to the work by the special committee and while it is working.

The amendments proposed by the NDP are to impose, by legislative rather than regulatory means, short-, medium- and long-term targets for absolute reductions of greenhouse gases by requiring that Canada: meet the 2008-2012 target under the Kyoto protocol; ensure an 80% reduction, based on scientific research, of 1990 levels by 2050; achieve the interim five-year targets between 2015 and 2050; and impose, by means of legislation rather than declaration of intent, an earlier-than-expected timetable for regulation of the industrial sector. Such regulations should be put in place by 2008.

The NDP also asks that Canada: impose, through legislation rather than regulation, a fixed cap for greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector of at least 45 megatonnes a year; require, by legislation, the establishment of mandatory standards for air contaminants in the year following the adoption of this new law, in addition to a plan for complying with these standards, including mandatory emission standards for large industrial facilities; require, by legislation, an energy efficiency standard for vehicle fuel that comes close to that of leading North American jurisdictions, which will be published by 2008 and which will be in place for production year 2011, so that vehicle manufacturers have sufficient notice concerning the expiry of the voluntary agreement. This would be accompanied by a new authority for the government to establish a fair transition fund for the automobile sector.

The NDP also asks that, by legislation, the government set a carbon cap and establish a carbon-trading system in Canada and that it eliminate key tax incentives for the gas and oil sector, particularly the accelerated depreciation deduction given for tar sands development.

I think this is a very unfortunate situation for Canadians. A few weeks ago, I listened to a program in French on Radio-Canada about the research done in Alberta. Rivers there are polluted and this has posed a threat to an aboriginal community. It seems that the government is prepared to agree to increase oil production in western Canada by five times more than current production. We are told that production today, with current technology, causes an incredible amount of pollution.

We must therefore ask ourselves the following questions. Is the Conservative government serious? Is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is from Alberta, really serious? Will he do what is best for the environment? Will he take the requests of Canadians to heart and respond to them sincerely, with concrete action?

Here is an example of concrete action: in north-eastern New Brunswick, along the Baie-des-Chaleurs, and in the Gaspé near Matane, windmills have been built to generate electricity. That is one way of combating pollution. The area I come from is ideal for that.

People always say that politicians make promises that they never keep. I can promise that there will be plenty of wind for the rest of our days and for future generations. There will always be wind. That is a promise we can keep and windmills need wind.

What sort of investments has the government made so far to fight pollution and to help the environment? Whether we like it or not, we need light, electricity and resources. However, we could be doing more. What is the government doing to encourage so-called green cars, which do not pollute? What is it doing about that? We hear nothing about it and even if they do talk, the talk is not followed by action.

In my area, for example, there is a coal-fired power plant in Belledune. Why would the federal government not invest for the longer term in natural gas in northern New Brunswick? The cuts it made in EI benefits paid in that area amount to $85 million a year. It could invest that in the environment. These are concrete measures that would do good, create good jobs and be better for the environment than coal use.

Since the Bloc Québécois introduced the motion I would like to ask its permission to propose an amendment to promote cooperation in the interest of all Canadians.

I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding the word “minimum” before the word “sum”, and by adding immediately after the words “Kyoto Protocol targets”: “, and that, after negotiations, the Government of Canada should provide appropriate funds to all other Canadian provinces and territories to make the transition towards Kyoto”.

I would like to ask for the support of the Bloc to introduce that amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a wonderful opportunity to remind Canadians that it was not our party that guaranteed wait times within its first term of office and has now backed off publicly. It was not our party that promised not to undermine all those who held income trusts. The Prime Minister of Canada gave three separate speeches when he promised Canadians that he would not wreck their savings. Let us be honest about this issue.

The issue here is about partnership and whether or not the government even has a plan. Just moments ago in the committee the Minister of the Environment had several questions put to him by me and other members of all parties. After $5.6 billion in cuts in the last budget, $5.6 billion in cuts for climate change responses in this country, I asked the minister if he could please reveal to Canadians in dollar terms how much has been spent by the government in its first year of office. The minister was completely incapable of answering the question.

This is deserving of a national response. This is deserving of a plan from a government whose leader for 12 years before becoming Prime Minister was the leader of the anti-climate change movement in the country, who raised funds to undermine the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. This is a matter of record. This is not a matter of embellishment. What does the Prime Minister have to hide? Was he misleading Canadians then, or is he misleading them now? We do not know the answer to that question.

It is important for us now to move forward and find a plan for the country. We had a plan. It was disembowelled by the government. Some $5.6 billion was slashed, so now we are looking to see where the government is taking us.

Apparently we are not going to participate in the international emissions trading system, which is news to Canadian industry, particularly the oil and gas companies that are counting on the mechanism to reduce their greenhouse gases efficiently. We are not going to emulate the U.S. Clean Air Act which actually inspired the Kyoto protocol because it was there whence we derived the whole concept of a domestic emissions trading system.

We do not know where the government is going but we know there is Bill C-30, the so-called clean air act, which has been tossed to a legislative committee. When I asked the Minister of the Environment an hour ago whether he would agree to promise to Canadians that when that work came back to the chamber on March 30 he would move immediately to implement it, he said no.

My point is it is time for a plan from the government. There is no plan. The government is making it up as it goes along. What the Conservatives are really doing are jumping from ice floe to ice floe, handing out cheques across the country and re-gifting Liberal programs.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning to the motion put forward by our colleagues.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to express my views on an issue as critical as the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

First, I would like to thank all the Bloc and NDP members for supporting the motion tabled in the House last week by the leader of the official opposition. Through their votes, the vast majority of hon. members confirmed their support for Kyoto and their commitment to fight climate change.

We know that the government is now all alone in its approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This shows that it is headed in the wrong direction. The motion that enjoyed the support of the three opposition parties recognized that human activities are largely responsible for the disruptions affecting the climate, and demanded that the government respect its Kyoto commitments.

The motion directed the Prime Minister to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use the existing means provided in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to take necessary initiatives. The motion was adopted a week ago and the government is still not acting on it.

The Kyoto protocol is a cooperation tool that unites nations willing to address the international issue that global warming represents. It is not just a set of targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is not just a step forward, it is also, and more importantly, the right path that will lead us to results. The Kyoto protocol is dealing with the issue before it is too late, because the alarm is already sounding.

Last week, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a group established by the United Nations, released a shocking report. It concluded that human activities are almost without a doubt responsible for global warming and are, consequently, also responsible for the major socio-economic disruptions that this warming trend could trigger in the years to come.

Despite the international panel's shocking statements last Friday, the Prime Minister cannot yet answer a question that I and many others have been asking him for over a year now. Where is his plan to fight climate change?

The only conclusion we are left with is that the Conservative government does not have a plan. The Prime Minister is trying to fool Canadians who are now more than ever concerned with the future of our planet. We cannot trust a Prime Minister who was leader of the opposition and called the Kyoto treaty a socialist scheme. He promised to battle its ratification, “whatever the cost”.

We know that if the Prime Minister were serious about climate change, he would have mentioned it in his last fiscal update, just last fall. If climate change were a priority at all for the Conservatives, it would at least have been mentioned perhaps in their Speech from the Throne or perhaps in their so-called list of five priorities during the campaign. It was absent from all those documents, from all those speeches and from all that rhetoric.

The Conservatives' record in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions is just pathetic. The Conservative government axed federal programs that promoted the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The proof? Here it is: $395 million cut from the EnerGuide program for home renovations; $500 million cut from the EnerGuide program for low-income homeowners; and $250 million cut from the partnership fund for climate change projects that the Liberals concluded with the provinces and municipalities.

Almost $600 million was cut from wind power production and renewable power production programs. The Conservatives did away with the One Tonne Challenge. They cut a billion dollars from the Climate Fund to reduce greenhouse gases. They cut $2 billion of general climate-change program funding.

The most recent victim of the Conservatives' cuts to environmental programs is the Commercial Building Incentive Program, which provided a financial incentive for the design and construction of new energy efficient buildings.

This was not a useless program; it produced results. Since its inception, this program supported no less than 541 projects in Canada that improved the energy performance of new buildings. These new buildings perform on average almost 35% better than similar buildings.

This program proved that it helped reduce greenhouse gases; every residential building, for example, built through the program emitted 182 fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. For commercial buildings, the average reduction of greenhouse gases was 291 tonnes a year.

A government that eliminates such a program cannot say that it is taking care of the climate change problem. And similar announcements keep on coming.

Yesterday we learned that the government is shutting down the Northern Climate ExChange in the Yukon, which excels in climate change research in northern Canada and in the world. Since the Conservatives are cutting off their annual funding of $320,000, the researchers and scientists at Northern Climate ExChange have to end their studies.

If we do a quick calculation of all of the cuts, we get over $5.5 billion that has been eliminated from initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases—$5.5 billion in cuts. Is this how the government shows that it is serious about fighting climate change?

If the government is serious about action on climate change, it certainly has not shown it with its widely penned and so-called clean air act.

The Bill C-30 legislative committee has resurrected a bill that was dead on arrival in the House of Commons and only resurrected it with a promise to completely and utterly rewrite it.

Experts agree that there are no significant powers, not a single significant power to regulate in the new Bill C-30, that the government does not already possess under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In short, the bill does nothing. I think we know that if the government were serious, it would have acted rather than punting the whole issue into Parliament.

Just half an hour ago, the Minister of the Environment refused to promise that the amended Bill C-30, once sent back to this chamber on March 30, would be acted on quickly by the government. He refused to guarantee and promise Canadian people that the hard work of the legislative committee would be implemented by the government. What kind of game is this when we are talking about such a serious issue for the future of the country?

Let us turn our attention to a subject that fascinates government members, the Liberal record on the environment. Project green was introduced as the centrepiece of the greenest budget in Canadian history. To paraphrase the Minister of the Environment, who said that? Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada.

With several key platforms for action, six greenhouse gases were added to the list of toxins under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A proposed large final emitter system was published and draft regulations were nearly released before the unexpected 2006 election. We released a proposed set of rules for an offset credit system to award credits to large and small industries, technology companies, municipalities, farmers, foresters and individual Canadians, achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. That system would have also created a market, allowing these individuals, industries and organizations to sell their credits, which is one of the most efficient ways to get the maximum emissions reductions at the lowest cost.

Our climate fund was set to start operations in early 2006, acting as a kind of investment bank. It would have purchased reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from tangible projects. For Canadians, opportunities would have been available in every sector of the economy. Many different groups would have benefited from the fund: forestry companies that engaged in state of the art forest management practices; farmers who adopted low-till practices; property developers who included district heating and renewable energy elements in their plans for their new subdivisions; businesses that developed innovative ways to reduce emissions through recycling and energy efficiency; companies and municipalities that invested in their communities to encourage alternative transportation modes; municipalities that went further and captured landfill gas and used it to generate electricity; or courier companies that retrofitted their fleets.

We have lost a key year, 12 months of silence, 12 months of blame game. In the 12th month, what does the government do? It goes back into our green plan. It cherry-picks three core programs and re-gifts them for Canadians. Not only does it re-gift the programs, but seriously weakens all three.

In other words, at some point Canada's new government will have to deliver a plan. We will have to see a plan. The Canadian people are desirous of a plan.

Another major part of project green was the $250 million partnership fund. This fund was expected to grow to $2 billion to $3 billion as projects were expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 to 85 megatonnes by 2012.

The first project announced under the partnership fund was a three-way federal-provincial-private plan in Prince Edward Island to upgrade the province's electricity transmission system and to allow P.E.I. to take advantage of wind energy. This is exactly the kind of investment we need to leverage industry to fight climate change. It is a program that was stillborn with the Conservative government a year ago.

Our climate change plan was in fact a business strategy for Canada that generated beneficial investments across the economy. Where did that plan go?

We do not only denounce the lack of vision on the part of the government. The Liberal approach is quite different from what the Bloc Québécois is advocating. Today, the Bloc is calling for $328 million to be transferred from Ottawa's coffers, merely a transfer of money. We would prefer a partnership between the two levels of government.

When Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 1997, it joined its efforts in a cooperation agreement entered into by a number of countries to achieve a single goal. Climate change is a global problem that Canada cannot solve on its own, in isolation. We took the lead, we agreed to live up to our responsibilities and we committed ourselves to working to improve the situation.

Because we cannot ignore our allies in the fight against climate change, we must also seize the opportunity to work in close collaboration with each of the provinces, each of the territories, all of the cities and villages and aboriginal communities. We are talking here about a collective effort in which every level of government must do its part. The federal government should extend its hand to them and demonstrate its intention of collaborating. Cooperation is one of the keys to success. That is how we can be sure that our efforts are not in vain and that we are advancing toward our common goal.

Just as for all of the childcare agreements that the government had entered into with the 13 provinces and territories, just as for the Kelowna accord, the first comprehensive federal agreement with all of the major aboriginal and Métis communities, the objective of the Kyoto protocol Partnership Fund was to secure agreements between Ottawa and all of the provincial and territorial governments for fighting climate change.

We had a memorandum of agreement, with Quebec, which involved $328 million and possibly more. Similar agreements had been signed with Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. But after the 2006 election, Quebec found itself alone in its efforts to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives. The federal government made a big mistake when it took away the $328 million we had set aside for Quebec to fight climate change.

In my closing remarks, I am going to ask the government again to table a plan for the people of Canada to honour our obligations under the international treaty called the Kyoto protocol.

As a nation and as a people, we committed to lead the world in a global response to a global problem. The government refuses to accept that although there are over 180 nation-states, there is only one atmosphere and there must be a global response. That is why 168 countries, including Canada, have signed the treaty. The government instead would like us to leave the treaty but will not tell Canadians the truth about it.

To conclude, I would like to move an amendment to the motion by the Bloc Québécois that is before us today.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “the sum of” with the words “a sum of not less than” and by adding after the words “Kyoto Protocol targets” the following: “in accordance with the commitment made to all of the provinces and territories by the Partnership Fund established in Project Green”.

Those are my remarks. On this extraordinarily important time in Canadian history, we support the efforts of the Bloc Québécois; we support the efforts of all provinces and we are desperately looking forward to plan which engages Canadians, provinces, municipalities, towns and villages in what is the challenge of the 21st century: to reduce our greenhouse gases and protect the only atmosphere we have.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has been for the last year. This government has taken action on the environment. We have accomplished more in the last year than the former Liberal government would have dreamed was even possible.

Only weeks ago in British Columbia we announced $30 million for the Great Bear Rain Forest. On the other coast, the government has invested $280 million to clean up the Sydney tar ponds. Why was this not done previously? Because of empty rhetoric and broken promises.

The Conservative government is a government of action. We will work with the province of Quebec. We want to and need to work together to see the passage of Bill C-30, Canada's legislation to clean up the environment in Canada and for the benefit of our globe.

Climate change is a real issue. We have to put down partisan politics. We have to work together for the health of our planet to stop climate change. I encourage the member to stop the rhetoric. Let us work together.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is said, minister, that at the time targets had been set in a haphazard way and that nothing had been done. Let me give you an analogy. Let us assume that it is 10:45 a.m. and that we are here in Ottawa and that I make a commitment to get you to Montreal by 1:30 this afternoon, and yet we continue talking here until 1:15. Because there is so little time, the only way out of the situation is to pay money. When people say that they can reach the Kyoto targets when we are so close to 2008, they would do that by paying money, but that does absolutely nothing for the environment.

So, minister, how will your approach regarding Bill C-30 help make Canadians confident that we will achieve some results, that we will have some realistic targets and that we will stop merely talking without doing anything, as happened in the past?

Second, what is your work plan regarding efforts to offset climate change with our international partners?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, I think they're building about one coal-fired plant a week in China right now.

My second question is this. Maybe part of the problem in the past, in terms of why we haven't had any real work done on the environment in Canada and abroad from Canadians, was the voluntary regime the Liberals were trying to put forward instead. I see the enforcement and penalty provisions that we're putting forward in Bill C-30. In fact, isn't it true that the environmental damages fund, which will be where any funds go from anybody who disobeys the law, is actually going to be used to remediate environmental damage that's been done throughout the country?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't think we can be a world leader unless we take any action abroad. Around the world, it's known that we talk a good game but don't deliver. That's been the record since Kyoto was signed in 1997. If we're going to have any credibility, we have to take meaningful, realistic action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When the discussion happens for the post-Kyoto regime, as has already begun, I think the G-8 plus five is probably a good place to start, because you do have countries like China, India, Brazil, and the United States at the table. I accept the notion that the industrialized world--the rich nations--has to provide leadership. That's important. But at the same time, when we're seeking to close down a number of coal-fired plants here in Canada and they're building such a huge number of them in China, it's certainly counter-productive. But we really don't have the right to complain about other countries until we get our own act together. I think Bill C-30 affords us that opportunity, along with the industrial regulation that will flow from the bill. And I think we can hit two birds with one stone and deal with air quality by making investments here.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes, I do actually plan to split my time with Mr. Paradis.

Very quickly, this is my first question. Obviously, the fastest-growing polluting economies in the world, and also the countries that produce 70% of the greenhouse gases in the world, are not signatories to Kyoto. Canada has always been a leader on the world stage, and I would just like to have a very brief answer on whether you see that happening again in this particular file as a result of Bill C-30 and our initiative toward a cleaner environment. Do you see us being a world leader on the international stage?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her hard work in representing Quebec well.

I would like to begin by emphasizing clearly that the government is committed to taking immediate and concrete action to address the issue of climate change and cleaning up the environment.

As the Prime Minister said in his speech of February 5, just two days ago:

--we have to have a realistic plan, not just empty rhetoric.

Our government supports a concerted global effort to deal with climate change--and such an effort [ to be effective] must include the major emitters, including the United States and China.

But we cannot ask others to act unless we are prepared to start at home, with real action on greenhouse gases and air pollution.

In short, the time for empty rhetoric is over. It is time for real action.

This government has a realistic plan. Our government has launched an ambitious environmental agenda that will have clear benefits for the environment and for the health of all Canadians.

The environment, particularly climate change, is a fundamental, multi-faceted issue that will require collaborative efforts from all levels of government.

We are committed to working with the provinces and territories in order to address shared challenges while ensuring that national and provincial efforts are well coordinated. Environment is a shared jurisdiction where all governments have a responsibility to act and to be accountable to their citizens.

Quebec is a significant player in the environment, as are all the provinces and territories. We recognize that Quebec has a comprehensive climate change plan and we commend the province's efforts. We have a good working relationship on many federal-provincial issues, not only with Quebec but with other provinces as well. The federal government is equally committed to taking action on climate change and I hope our two governments can work together to achieve shared goals and objectives.

As well, in this House, our government has decided to follow a different course of action in regard to funding of environmental programs.

The government has recently committed over $2 billion in a series of ecoenergy measures to promote both renewable energy and energy efficiency. These initiatives will complement current and future provincial and territorial efforts on climate change and support shared goals and objectives on air pollution and greenhouse gases in every region of the country, including Quebec.

In short, this funding will deliver real results. Canadians from coast to coast to coast will benefit as concrete reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollutants are achieved. I am confident that these initiatives, which will complement Quebec's climate change plan, will be well received by all Quebeckers.

We value provincial and territorial expertise in all aspects of environmental management and local considerations and will ensure that this expertise is utilized when moving forward on the environmental agenda.

In fact, many elements of the government's new ecoenergy programs will require joint efforts, including participation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry, and the universities. Public-private partnerships with industry and federal and provincial governments will be forged where there is a shared interest.

In fact, ours is the first federal government to come forward with a comprehensive plan to regulate both greenhouse gases and pollutants in the industrial sector.

This government is committed to achieving real and measurable results that will produce health and environmental benefits for all Canadians. When it comes to the health of Canadians and the environment, we are not simply willing to adopt voluntary approaches, which do not necessarily lead to meaningful improvements.

We will set realistic and concrete mandatory targets for the short, the medium and the long term that will result in cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and a healthier environment.

Our approach is balanced. New regulations will be complemented by a series of new programs that will support national goals and objectives.

The new ecoenergy initiatives are a prime example of our balanced approach, as they will complement the government's regulatory measures under the proposed clean air act, Bill C-30. They will deliver real results while regulations are being developed. They will also drive the technological innovation required to support upcoming regulations.

Provinces and territories are responsible for a great deal of the day to day delivery of the environmental programs. They work directly with local business, industry and municipalities, and they manage and monitor many facets of the environment across the wide expanse of the country.

We recognize that all levels of government are currently taking action to tackle air emissions. As such, we have launched a frank and transparent process of dialogue to ensure continued exchange of information throughout the regulatory development process.

At the beginning of November last year, consultations on the regulatory framework were launched with provinces and territories as well as with industrial sectors, aboriginal groups and non-governmental organizations.

I am pleased to say that to date these consultations have been positive and constructive. Provinces and territories are generally supportive of the federal government's efforts to introduce regulatory measures and to consult on setting the targets and the timelines.

We will continue to work in partnership and will respect shared responsibility among all levels of government. Our ongoing dialogue with the provinces and territories is key to achieving consistent and comprehensive national outcomes.

Our Minister of the Environment has met with several of his provincial and territorial counterparts, including Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks. These meetings have been productive, with a shared view that both orders of government can continue to work together.

In fact, we are pleased to say that provinces and territories recognize that this government is taking immediate action on climate change and is prepared to work in collaboration to address this shared challenge.

The government's policy is clear. We will establish targets that will result in concrete improvements in environmental outcomes. These targets will be realistic and they will be achievable.

The environmental agenda developed by this government ensures a balance between recognizing the increased federal role to act in the national interest while ensuring provincial cooperation on an ongoing basis.

This government values the work of provinces and territories and believes they are critical players in environmental management. We will work with them in a cooperative and productive manner as this environmental agenda is further developed.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my Bloc colleague, I would say that I represent Quebeckers and I am working in Quebec for Quebeckers, but I am also in Canada. I am working for everyone. Quebeckers are not the only ones with problems. Both Quebeckers and Canadians have problems. In that sense, the clean air act, Bill C-30, is a very good bill.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, why do we need the clean air act when we have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

Canadians are concerned about the quality of the air they are breathing, as well as climate change. Harmful atmospheric emissions are continuing to impact on our health, our environment, our economy and even our quality of life. Our government is aware that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canada. So the new government of Canada has taken measures designed to reduce air pollution and climate change in order to protect Canadians’ health and their environment.

The report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has just been released, once again sounds the alarm. Growing levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere may exacerbate climate change, and this may prove to be devastating in many parts of the world.

This government’s long-term integrated regulatory approach to the reduction of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions will be strengthened by the improvements that the bill aims to make to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. By relying on the considerable powers already provided under CEPA, Bill C-30 will ensure a much firmer foundation for concerted action to be taken against smog emissions, acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions produced in many cases by the same industrial and vehicle sources.

Concerted action will make it possible to avoid so-called “pernicious” effects. Sometimes the technologies used to reduce air pollution have unfortunate side effects, which actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. By tackling this problem, our government will maximize the advantages for the population of Canada and Quebec. Our approach will also provide the certainty necessary to industry so that it can make the most of technology and invest the necessary money to reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

The previous government committed itself to meeting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, but the emissions increased by 27% during its mandate. Consequently there was a increase in smog in our cities and an increase in the incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases. That is why our government is taking a dynamic new path.

The clean air act creates new powers to allow for regulation and surveillance of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Allow me to give a few examples of the effects the changes to CEPA will have.

The clean air act will be the legislative basis for a made-to-measure approach to regulate indoor and outdoor air pollutants as well as greenhouse gases. By adopting regulations based on the act, we will be in a position to impose requirements and to take enforcement measures against offenders.

Our clean air regulation initiative comes as a radical change if we consider all the missed opportunities of the past. For the first time, the environment and health ministers will be legally forced to establish national objectives on air quality, to follow closely the progress in meeting those objectives and to produce a progress report every year. This is a very strict obligation that we think will ensure that successive governments make a priority of improving air quality.

With the clean air act, Canadians will be in a position to hold the government accountable for real progress in reducing air pollution.

Bill C-30 will also amend CEPA to enable us to make full use of the emission-trading market so that industry can comply as efficiently as possible with the regulatory standards that are going to be instituted.

The bill will also improve our ability to regulate air emissions from various products.

Along with the provinces and territories, our government promised to require that the renewable fuel usage rate be set at 5% by 2010. This objective is stricter than the American one and comparable to that of our European partners. The amendments to CEPA will allow us to regulate the fuel mix and thereby institute national standards on renewable fuel content in as efficient a way as possible.

Canada's Clean Air Act will also improve the Energy Efficiency Act, enabling us to set solid energy efficiency standards for a broader array of consumer and commercial products, especially household appliances and electrical products.

Finally, Canada's Clean Air Act will amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize the government’s ability to regulate the fuel consumption of new motor vehicles. For the very first time, we will be able to regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles beginning in the 2011 model year.

We already have some legislative power to protect Canadians’ health and the environment from air pollution. That is why we do not expect the amendments to unleash new regulatory measures. The notice of intent we issued last October described a certain number of regulations that will come into force over the next 12 months under the existing legislation.

Canadians will see real reductions thanks to these regulations imposing mandatory requirements. The era of voluntary compliance is over.

In conclusion, Canada's Clean Air Act will be the first comprehensive, integrated effort that Canada has seen to fight air pollution and greenhouse gases. It will give all Canadians cleaner air while also fighting climate change. Our health has suffered long enough and our environment has been degraded enough. Canada's Clean Air Act is absolutely necessary to achieve real progress for our generation and those to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the minister.

I want to talk first about targets. Speaking of the former environment commissioner, she said before the environment committee that the Liberals' Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels was made without analysis and was based more on political considerations, in other words, the desire to one-up the United States in the establishment of a target.

With respect to this government setting short- to medium-term targets, I first want to be assured whether there is any danger of one-upmanship in the setting of those targets, especially as this issue takes centre stage in public opinion.

My second question is about the interim time we're in right now, since the notice of intent to regulate and the discussions around Bill C-30. Has it been or is it being used for analysis of and negotiation on what the short- and medium-term targets should be?

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

My next question has to do with your view, which you've expressed consistently, that we have to work in a non-partisan manner to solve this problem. Will you accept Bill C-30 in whatever form it takes when it comes out of this committee after amendment?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

The provisions in Bill C-30 that follow through with concrete short-term targets in the industrial sector are tremendously important.

About 30 Canadian scientists worked on the international report that was released last weekend. By the way, half of them are federal public servants working in the Canadian government in departments such as mine, Fisheries and Oceans, or Natural Resources.

I had the opportunity to meet with two of them, who are the lead authors, and I asked, what would you do? Their first report was advice to policymakers. I read it and asked them, what would you do? What do you think is called for? They said, two things: one is science and the other is cultural change. As Canadians, we all have to accept different attitudes.

We had very different attitudes when it came to smoking in public or on airplanes 30 or 40 years ago. We also had very different attitudes with respect to drinking and driving. It was socially acceptable. As Canadians, we have to take different attitudes in terms of how we use energy and conduct ourselves.

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

Thank you.

So should Bill C-30 fail, God forbid, the government would not use CEPA to regulate, to put forward what many have suggested?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

It does contain equivalency for regulation, but many provinces don't use regulation. They use licences or they use permits. They will use certificates of approval that cannot be effectively managed without Bill C-30.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'm telling you that they use them. If one province has higher standards than the ones we've been proposing or has equal or equivalency standards, we would not be able to come to an effective provincial equivalency regime without Bill C-30.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think there are significant challenges without Bill C-30. We want the best, most realistic approach. Let me give you an example.

On the provincial equivalency we're talking about NOx and SOx and we're talking about air pollutants. The capacity for us to deliver on provincial equivalency has a huge effect on it. For example, in Ontario—

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

Could we regulate indoor air quality under CEPA if we didn't have Bill C-30?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

We could move forward, but not in nearly as effective a fashion on the greenhouse gas emissions side. It would be incredibly problematic on the clean air side. Without Bill C-30, we would not be able to on the energy efficiency side and we would not be able to on the biofuel side. We would not be able to pursue the plan that we envisage.

I am not going to come here today and make a pitch for Bill C-30 and talk about failure. I believe this Parliament and this committee can accept the challenge and accept their responsibility to move this forward. I really believe that.

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

Welcome, Minister.

I'd like to ask a series of technical questions about the regulatory regime that might accompany Bill C-30. What I want to know is this. If Bill C-30 does not pass, under the notice of intent to regulate, could most of the major elements outlined in the notice of intent to regulate be achieved by the current CEPA legislation?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Excellent.

I know one of your proudest achievements is that you passed the Federal Accountability Act--the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the history of Canada. Now you're cleaning up Canada's environment.

What do you find to be the biggest challenge in your new role as Minister of Environment, especially regarding your mandate from the Prime Minister on Bill C-30?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Excellent.

I was surprised, quite frankly, when I had the first read of Bill C-30 and looked at the multi-functional approach we have. I mean, we have possible legislation for a domestic trading system; tools to accomplish practical reductions, even with indoor air; and air monitoring for the first time, across Canada, which is a fantastic initiative.

What tool in our bag of Bill C-30 tools do you believe to be the most effective for reaching our goal of cleaner air and less greenhouse gas emissions?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That is certainly something that has my attention.

I will be meeting later today with the mayor of Hamilton. I'm told the second hottest spot is the Hamilton Harbour, near the two steel mills. That certainly causes me great concern. It's something that has my active attention.

My big focus has been on Bill C-30, climate change and clean air, because I think Canadians are telling us they want action on that. They don't want to hear talk; they want to see action.

I think we need to demonstrate that this Parliament can get the job done. Given that it's a minority Parliament, everyone is going to get their first choice of public policies. If we work together, we can come up with a realistic, concrete plan that will deliver for Canadians.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming today.

I want to confirm with you, Minister, that indeed Mr. Boyd did give some testimony, and one of his items of testimony was the grading of the Liberal performance over the last 13 years: he gave them a big, fat F. I also want to confirm that he was not aware of how Bill C-30 expands the government's powers, more particularly, that it includes indoor air and other things.

I've asked the clerk to send on to him the deck that gives him that information so he'll be better informed in the future.

Minister, I know we've talked several times, and you know I'm from the oil sands region. I've lived there for 38 years. I know it might be a bit of a surprise to you, but my children live there, they breathe the air, they drink the water, and all my friends and family are there. Even the oil sands workers themselves, their families are there, and we're very concerned about water and air quality across Canada.

In talking to them, which I've been doing for two or three years now, ever since I had this job, the biggest concern they have had is the mixed signals coming from the Liberal government. They've spent billions on scrubbers, they've spent billions on water monitoring and air monitoring, but they have had no clear signal. What they have wanted and what they have told me is they want to know where the government wants them to go in the future. So I applaud you, for the people of Fort McMurray and for the industries there, on your initiatives.

My first question is in relation to cleaning up the legacy of polluted sites that we have across the country. I know that initially one of the first announcements this government came out with was on the Sydney tar ponds cleanup, which is a great initiative, but we have tens of thousands of other sites across Canada like that. I'm wondering, since it does apply to so many Canadians and so many Canadians are worried about it, can you give us some idea if your initiatives are going to be including some segment of cleaning up sites across Canada, like you did more recently this month?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for coming today, Minister.

Minister, we've got a lot of work to do. The reality is that the bill that was put in front of us, Bill C-30, is a dud. In fact, Mr. Boyd, whom you referenced quite extensively at the beginning of your presentation, said that what this bill in fact represented was a series of minor amendments to CEPA, not an action plan for climate change, and that the reality is it did little to nothing to actually advance the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking action on climate change. So what we have is a CEPA-tweaker, not a climate change plan. Now we've got to really build this thing from the ground up.

I want to start with cuts, and specifically cuts that have been made by your government over the last year: $395 million to EnerGuide for house retrofit programs, $500 million for EnerGuide low-income household programs, $250 million to the partnership fund for climate change projects with provinces and municipalities, $593 million for wind power production initiatives and renewable power initiatives, $584 million for environmental programs at Natural Resources Canada, $120 million for the One Tonne Challenge, $1 billion for the climate fund to reduce greenhouse gases, $2 billion of general climate change program funding generally--for a total of $5.6 billion in cuts.

I know you've repackaged a couple of Liberal initiatives and given them a new name and given them reduced targets and not quite as much money, but I'm really asking two questions. One, do you regret now the actions you took in Budget 2006, and, more specifically, given the fact that you said this $5.6 billion has not in fact been cut--it has gone to some phantom place--can you give us a detailing of where that's gone and exactly how you've reinvested that $5.6 billion?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think the framework is a much stronger one. It has greater capacity for equivalency agreements. We have greater tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the energy efficiency standard regulation provisions and the biofuels provisions. It allows us to regulate indoor pollutants.

I think Canadians are telling us to move on the challenge of both climate change and pollution and smog. I think the framework contained in Bill C-30 is a far superior way to go. If the old CEPA was the way to go it would have been used, but it wasn't.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I really appreciated your announcement coast to coast of $30 million for the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia. Coming from British Columbia, I was very excited to hear that announcement, and the announcement of $2 million to help with repairs to Stanley Park.

But from coast to coast, I really appreciated the action you took in dealing with the Sydney tar ponds. It's an issue that's been in need for years, and finally action has been taken. So thank you so much--coast to coast action.

We're here today to talk about Bill C-30 and to see how we can strengthen the issue of healing our environment and dealing with climate change.

How does Bill C-30 strengthen the government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases and pollutants?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't say we've been disingenuous; those are your words not mine. What I do believe is that Canada has fallen behind on all reporting requirements. That's not acceptable to me as Minister of the Environment. There were reports due in January 2006 that were not submitted, and there are ones due this winter. You certainly have my commitment that we will file all requirements as soon as humanly possible.

Frankly, I'd like to see the actions of Bill C-30 and the follow-through on the intent to regulate be part of that. That's important, because they represent the most significant actions Canada will have ever taken.

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

I have one last question.

Would you and the government be prepared to support an amendment to include the Kyoto Protocol objectives in Bill C-30, yes or no?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, minister. You've been strong on rhetoric since you became Environment Minister when it comes to the previous government's record combating climate change.

I have reviewed Bill C-30, the notice of intention and the announcements you made. You seem to want to set intensity-based targets. You are recycling old Liberal programs which didn't work, and which didn't provide for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. You are continuing to favour a sectoral approach in the fight against climate change. That is basically a Liberal policy which turned out to be ineffective, inefficient and inequitable.

Mr. Claude Villeneuve, an eminent climate sciences academic told the committee on Monday that one of the reasons for Canada's failure is this push to treat everybody the same way, on the pretext that it is fairer to have a one-size-fits-all approach even though the players aren't all the same size.

Minister, can you admit that the problem today is that you are copying the Liberals who favoured a sectoral approach which was unsuccessful? Would you be willing to bring forward amendments to Bill C-30 so that provinces, like Quebec, can adopt a provincial strategy in their own provinces, enabling Quebec for example to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6%?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. members, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning in consideration of Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act.

This government has made it clear, we are committed to delivering real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and their environment.

I was in Paris last Friday to hear from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as they released their Fourth Assessment Report.

Mr. Chairman, the science of climate change leaves little room for doubt—it is real, it is linked to human activity, and it compels us to take action. I get it, and so does Canada's government.

We accept the IPCC as an internationally-recognized scientific authority on climate change.

And we will consider the findings of this Fourth Assessment Report very seriously.

Even by Canadian standards, recent weather here in this country has been alarming. I saw first-hand the pounding the west coast has taken over the past two months. Thousands of trees that stood for centuries could not withstand the record winds, snow, and rainfall that battered our coast.

The most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history was less than two years ago, and the two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. No one can say that climate change has caused every blizzard, every hurricane, every flood, and every drought the world has seen in recent years, but trying to disprove the basic science is pointless and diverts us from the real work of finding solutions. Instead, we need to accept what the experts are telling us and move on. It's time to take real action on our environment.

As President of the Treasury Board, I oversaw the development of the Federal Accountability Act and worked with colleagues from all parties of the House of Commons to assure its passage. Such a healthy debate is required once again, and I intend to bring the same spirit of cooperation and determination to Canada's Clean Air Act.

Just as Canadians demanded accountability in government, they are now demanding action on one of the most pressing issues of our time: the state of our environment. We believe we have taken a strong approach to begin fighting climate change, and we are willing to work with all parties to build an even stronger piece of legislation.

Canada's Clean Air Act will set in motion Canada's first comprehensive and integrated approach to tackle both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and, in doing so, will deliver better air quality for Canadians and also tackle climate change.

Canada's Clean Air Act would amend three federal acts: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Energy Efficiency Act, and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

It creates a new clean air component in CEPA that will provide a tailor-made approach to enable integrated regulatory actions for air pollutants and greenhouse gases. For the first time ever, Canada's Clean Air Act will provide new, explicit authority to collect information and regulate products that affect indoor air quality.

The proposed amendments to CEPA will require the Ministers of the Environment and Health to establish national air quality objectives and to report annually on actions taken by all governments in Canada to improve air quality.

Canada's Clean Air Act will also strengthen CEPA by enhancing the government's ability to establish effective regulations to meet our commitment for the blending of fuels, enabling Canada to achieve 5% renewable fuels content in the next three years. That's the equivalent of taking 1.3 million cars off Canadian roads.

The Clean Air Act will strengthen our ability to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces and territories and avoid regulatory duplication, as long as they meet the same environmental objectives.

Canada's Clean Air Act will modernize the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which will improve the government's ability to regulate vehicle fuel efficiency.

Lastly, Canada's Clean Air Act will allow the government to set energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements for a wider range of consumer and commercial products by amending the Energy Efficiency Act.

I believe Bill C-30 is a platform from which the government and Parliament will provide concrete and realistic action to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases, all of which increasingly threaten our health, our quality of life, and indeed our economy.

While this bill is essential to protecting the environment and the health of Canadians, it is important to note that the government is already getting to work to improve our environment. Within months of taking office, our government invested tax credits and new funding to increase public transit ridership, removing the equivalent of greenhouse gases produced by 56,000 cars from Canadian roads every year.

Canada's new government has also invested $2 billion into the ecoENERGY initiative through a series of announcements, including $230 million for clean technology with the ecoENERGY technology initiative; $1.48 billion for renewable energy with the ecoENERGY renewable initiative; and $300 million for smarter energy use by Canadians with the ecoENERGY efficiency initiative.

We have also contributed $2 million to assist in the cleanup and restoration of Vancouver's Stanley Park, and thanks to the efforts of the government, future generations will know the same joy, beauty, and inspiration that this magnificent park has provided Canadians for so many years.

As well, our government has contributed $30 million to help protect the Great Bear Rainforest, the largest temperate rainforest left on earth. This 1.8 million hectare land mass on the northern coast of British Columbia is home to thousands of species, plants, birds, and animals.

In the coming months we will announce ambitious short-term targets for air pollutants and greenhouse gases from industrial sources, with sector-by-sector regulations coming into force starting in 2010. For the first time ever the federal government will regulate air pollution for major industry sectors. And, as the Prime Minister said clearly on Tuesday, for the first time ever we will regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year. We will regulate energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements for a broad range of consumer and commercial products. Together, these will address about 80% of the energy used in homes and almost 90% of the energy used in commercial settings.

The Prime Minister recently announced the creation of a new cabinet committee on the environment and energy security. The committee will pursue practical, results-oriented solutions that will result in real mandatory cuts in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution, and improve the health and well-being of Canadians. Make no mistake, the era of voluntary compliance is over, and this government intends to take action.

Let me be clear that there are some fundamental principles that guide this government. We will not spend taxpayers' dollars to buy international hot air credits just to meet our Kyoto targets. We know it would be easy to buy these credits. But as Professor David Boyd from the University of British Columbia said to this committee just Tuesday, those hot air credits would be a bad investment for Canada, spending billions of dollars abroad for zero environmental benefit. We want to spend this money here at home in Canada. The Conservative government's plan is to get Canada on the right track so that we can make real progress in addressing our greenhouse gas and air emissions for the long term.

The second principle is also clear. The plan must be achievable, affordable, and practical. It must deal with the reality this country faces. Because of previous inaction, Canada is some 35% above its Kyoto target, and there are only two years remaining to start meeting it. Some critics have said we should simply push harder and make it our mission to meet the 2008 to 2012 reduction target. Let me explain what that would mean.

We would have to reduce emissions by some 270 megatons. And what would that mean? Again, as Professor Boyd told this committee, to achieve that kind of target through domestic reductions would require a rate-of-emissions decline unmatched by any modern nation in the history of the world--except those who have suffered economic collapse, such as Russia.

Canadians do not want empty promises on a plan that we cannot achieve, and they do not want our country to face economic collapse. Instead, they want this government and this Parliament to take real action and achieve real reductions in both greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They want a sensible plan, just as in the progress the world has made on CFCs. It was because of the Conservative government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney that Canada was one of the first countries to sign and ratify the Montreal Protocol. Sometime in 2010, CFCs will be completely eliminated from developing countries, as has been the case in Canada for some time now.

This protocol was one of the most successful multilateral international agreements that the environment has ever achieved. It should serve as a reminder to all of us that great things can be accomplished when we have a concrete and realistic plan and put it in place. I look forward to discussing what actions we can work on together to address environmental challenges like clean air and climate change that we need to tackle today.

Let me say in conclusion that Canada's new government has charted a fundamentally new course on the environment, and the Clean Air Act is a big piece of that journey. As hard as it is to believe, the discussion is not about partisan politics or barbs tossed across the floor in the House of Commons during question period. Ultimately, all of us will answer to the people who sent us here, and they are watching. Canadians want this committee to succeed, and I believe they want action. In that spirit, I pledge to work closely with all opposition members to craft the best piece of legislation that's possible. I hope you will join me in this effort.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have quorum.

Good morning everyone. Welcome to the sixth meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

I want to welcome the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment; Mr. John Moffet, acting director general of legislation and regulatory affairs; and, Madame Cécile Cléroux, assistant deputy minister of the Environment Stewardship Branch.

If everyone could assume their places and if the media could clear the room, we'd appreciate it.

Welcome, Minister. Welcome, everyone.

As is the custom, we will give our witness about ten minutes, plus or minus, to make an opening statement with any aids he may need. We'll then open it up to questions in the usual fashion.

Mr. Baird, the floor is yours.

[Mark Nantais]

First of all, I think I would agree with your initial statement. We can regulate fuel quality under CEPA. I don't know if you need the Clean Air Act or Bill C-30 to do that. Obviously, you could use it to regulate our fuel quality. The point, though, is that the technology requires appropriate fuels and fuel quality. That's what we call the total systems approach, and if you don't have the fuel quality there, then you're not going to get and consumers are not going to get the environmental benefit of the technology they're paying for.

It's absolutely critical that you match the technology and the fuel and the fuel quality in the marketplace at the same time. That's what we call a total systems approach. That's what we need in Canada. As Mr. Adams pointed out, we were very alarmed, actually, with the reference in the notice of intent suggesting that in terms of quality, the commercial fuels should be left up to the industry.

The State of California--not on fuel economy, I want to be very clear, but on smog-related emissions--recognized the benefits you get by supporting the technology with appropriate fuel quality. California has and has always had some of the best fuel quality in the world, and that's why they've been able to achieve such significant reductions in terms of smog.

We don't have a national fuel strategy in Canada. We don't have a national fuel regulation in Canada. We have a guideline, and it's a guideline that is pretty much driven by the industry that produces the fuel. We actually pulled out of the Canadian General Standards Board on the basis that every time we made a suggestion to them about improving fuel quality it was deemed, under their ballot processing, to be non-persuasive.

So we believe there's a role, whether it be under CEPA or the Clean Air Act, to look after fuel quality as well as perhaps additives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We'd like to bring it back to the issue of Bill C-30 and stick to that topic, if we could.

Go on, Mr. Bigras.

[David Adams, President, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada]

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and a special thank you to Mr. Watson and Mr. Godfrey for their role in securing my attendance before the committee today.

Our belief is that it's important to hear from our side of the industry as well, because in terms of regulating the automotive industry we are looking at a product compliance issue, not a stationary source issue, as we are in other industries.

By way of background, in 2006 the 13 members of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, who come from Europe, Korea, and Japan, sold over 733,000 new vehicles in Canada, representing 45.5% of Canada's new vehicle market. Additionally, our members sold 61% of all passenger cars in Canada, with fully 50.5% of all sales to consumers.

While our member sales have grown, so has their Canadian investment and employment commitment, with fully 77,000 direct and indirect jobs responsible from our members' involvement in the Canadian economy.

Our members have invested over $6 billion in manufacturing facilities alone. Annual production reached a record of 900,839 new vehicles in 2006, with over 697,000 of those, or 77%, being exported out of the country.

Importantly, a higher percentage of our members' products built in Canada are also sold to Canadians. For instance, 56% of the vehicles that are built at Honda of Canada manufacturing are sold to Canadians. Fully 84% of the vehicles sold in North America by Honda are built in North America by Honda.

On CAC emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, even though the number of vehicles on our roadways will continue to increase, as pointed out by Mr. Nantais earlier, cleaner vehicles will be replacing older vehicles, allowing smog-causing emissions to drop from 9.5% in 2005 down to less than 5% in 2015.

On greenhouse gas emissions, 12.6% of all greenhouse gas emissions arise from the 18.7 million vehicles on the road.

Much of the success enjoyed by the AMC member companies in the marketplace can be attributed to the fact that these companies focus on producing and marketing both affordable and premium fuel-efficient vehicles, incorporating the latest advanced technologies, resulting in reductions in greenhouse gas and smog-causing emissions. Indeed, AIAMC member companies were award winners in eight of ten categories in the EnerGuide Awards for fuel efficiency.

They also continue to research and introduce hybrid technologies, advanced diesel technologies, fuel cell technologies, direct injection technologies for both gas and diesel vehicles, alternative fuel technologies, and the application of lightweight materials, among others, with the goal of reducing the impact of the motor vehicle on the environment.

The proposal under Bill C-30 is to amend and promulgate the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. The members of the AIAMC have a demonstrated commitment to providing consumers with vehicle technologies that have delivered real-world fuel efficiency improvements, with attendant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Our commitment in this regard will continue.

However, some advanced vehicle technologies are more costly to incorporate into vehicles, and incentives to offset these technology premiums should be considered by government, while being as technology neutral in their application as possible.

Regardless of the employment of any of these new technologies in new motor vehicles--the vehicles subject to regulation--as pointed out by Mr. Hargrove and Mr. Nantais, this will address only 1% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, in order to address significant emission reductions from the remaining 99% of emissions from the on-road light-duty fleet, other policy levers or incentives need to be exercised.

I'd like to talk about fuel quality for a moment. The quality of Canadian fuels has been a longstanding concern to the automotive industry. While tailpipe emissions from the vehicle are being regulated to increasingly stringent standards, there is no nationally regulated standard for the quality of fuels. Therefore, while vehicle manufacturers are required by regulation to provide a lifetime emissions control performance, there is no federally regulated fuel quality standard pertaining to the fuel that is burned in these vehicles to support the regulation of the vehicle's hardware. The regulation of fuels will benefit not only the introduction of advanced technologies but will also be a significant contributor to the reduction of emissions from the entire on-road fleet.

The lack of high-quality diesel fuel is inhibiting the introduction of advanced diesel engine technology, which has a potential to lever significant GHG emissions benefits.

The use of alternative lower-carbon-content fuels such as liquid propane gas and compressed natural gas and renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel is an important factor in achieving significant life cycle reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, the AIAMC members are supportive of the government's renewable fuels mandate that would require fuel producers and importers to have an average annual renewable fuel content of at least 5% of the volume of gasoline that they produce or import beginning in 2010, with a 2% renewable content for diesel following 2012.

The notice of intent pertaining to Bill C-30 appears to contemplate a systems approach to the regulation of Canadian fuel, vehicle, and engine air pollutant regulations in alignment with the U.S. standards. Whether in reference to renewable fuels or traditional carbon-based fuels, national federally regulated fuel standards should be an important objective of the proposed Clean Air Act.

In our view, it is inexcusable that the notice of intent with respect to Canada's renewable fuels mandate on December 30, 2006, suggests that fuel quality issues are best left to private industry rather than imposing these specifications through regulation.

In summary, unlike many of the other sectors addressed in the climate change debate, our industry is a consumer-facing one. Emissions from our products are both the function of technology and consumer choice, factored by vehicle kilometres travelled. As a result, to be effective, government policy must address all of the variables. This leads to issues not only of regulating the product but influencing consumer behaviour through fuel prices, vehicle choice and use, and other alternatives.

Canada also cannot ignore the fact that its automotive industry is integrated on a North American basis with respect to both vehicle manufacturing and vehicle sales. With a Canadian sales market of just over 8% of the entire North American market, unique fuel consumption regulations and an integrated production and sales market are problematic.

Discussions with the government to date pertaining to the regulation of the automotive sector have confirmed that the regulatory approach in Canada will be consistent with that of the United States, so as to allow manufacturers to continue to produce and sell vehicles for the integrated North American market.

A fuel economy regulation for Canada that is aligned with that of the United States provides the least disruption in the marketplace and best balances consumers' purchasing requirements pertaining to vehicle utility, vehicle safety, fuel economy, and emissions. Regulation in Canada linked to the U.S. reformed CAFE would have the effect of imposing a more aggressive standard, given the smaller size of the Canadian fleet.

Those are my remarks. Thank you very much.

[John Bennett, Director, Atmosphere and Energy, Sierra Club of Canada, Climate Action Network Canada]

Actually, I'm here on behalf of the Climate Action Network Canada as executive director, so two jobs.

I first want to thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Climate Action Network. We're an organization of over 50 environmental, labour, faith, and aboriginal organizations that was founded in 1989 to call attention to the impact of climate change and to contribute to developing policies, practices, and regulations to reduce greenhouse gases.

I realize today's session is about transportation, and I'll make some specific recommendations regarding the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. However, I'd like to begin by reminding the committee that the Climate Action Network has submitted a list of necessary recommendations for changes to Bill C-30, and we hope you'll consider them as you go forward.

The recent IPCC report makes it clear beyond any doubt that climate change is happening and that human activity is causing it. It's incumbent upon all of us as stewards of the earth to do all in our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible. I also remind the committee that Canada has a legally binding commitment to abide by all the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. We are not free to pick and choose convenient sections and claim we are complying. The target of 6% below 1990 levels is a promise we made, not only to the world of today, but to the world of tomorrow. So Canadians are watching and they're demanding real action. We hope that through this committee we'll see some real action for a change.

Before I move on to cars, I'll just say that Bill C-30 is only part of what needs to be done, and would echo the comments that have been made previously about the need for a comprehensive approach to climate change as well as to transportation. I'll have specific recommendations to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, but it has to be done within the context of a wider program to promote better use of transportation throughout the Canadian economy.

I'd also like to point out that the automotive industry has a long history of opposing every single regulation that's ever been proposed. If we had taken their advice, we would not have seat belts, energy-absorbing bumpers, airbags, or catalytic converters. None of those things were economically possible or warranted, according to the industry as we went through time, and now we're still hearing similar arguments.

The industry has had to be regulated at every turn. Fuel economy regulation came into force in the 1980s, and it's very interesting listening to Mr. Hargrove explain the present state of the automotive industry in North America. I know all of us aren't, but I'm old enough to remember the late 1970s, and Mr. Hargrove's description of the industry was absolutely the same in 1979. At that time the U.S. government was proposing fuel economy standards, and the industry was saying they couldn't do it, it wasn't fair. They didn't want to have a standard that meant they all had to do the same thing. Because of the oil crisis at the time, the U.S. government went forward, and as a result the fuel economy of cars increased over 100% in a decade.

Since 1990 we've had about a 7% improvement in fuel economy, despite huge amounts of money being contributed by the Canadian government and largely by the United States government to help the industry develop fuel efficiency technologies, which have not been put into the vehicles.

You can also find quotes from the early eighties from the president of Chrysler reminding the industry that fuel economy standards probably saved Chrysler. If you remember back in 1979, Chrysler actually went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the U.S. Congress, but the fuel economy standards forced them to redesign their vehicles from large gas guzzlers to the K-car that morphed into the minivan and was the engine of Chrysler's huge resurgence of the last 20 years. So I don't think we need to be so concerned about the present state of the industry when we know that in the past regulation has actually improved things for them, not hurt them.

I'm going to leave with the clerk a section of a report called The Initial Statement of Reasons, published by the California Air Resources Board in August 2004. The section I'm going to submit has a complete list of all the technologies and an examination of the cost factors that led the California government to conclude that the standards it was proposing for 2009 were both economically and technically achievable.

The California Air Resources Board has looked back on its 50-year history of regulating cars, and it has repeatedly proven that its suggestions in terms of the actual costs of complying with its regulations are far closer than the costs suggested by the industry. So I would like to just leave that on the record.

As for some specifics in terms of the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, of course you realize this act was passed in 1981 and has never been proclaimed. The government has suggested in its Bill C-30process to actually proclaim it and bring it into force. Unfortunately, in the act itself it doesn't mention exactly what it does, other than it gives the minister the authority to set a target. We think that this committee should write into the act the initial target and make a few changes. I'll just list them for you.

First, it should replace the notion of classes and provide a combined target for cars and light trucks. It's the fleet that we want to reduce the fuel consumption of, the overall fleet, not individual vehicles in different classes. A class system will lead to gaming, as we've seen in the United States. There, an extra couple of hundred pounds of weight are added to vehicles so that they become out of class, in a different class. We don't want to see that type of gaming. We want a combined target. We want to see a number embedded in the act for the 2011 model year of 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres for a combined fuel economy for each fleet. We want you to create a section in the act that will require from there an annual improvement of 4%, so that from now on the vehicle fleet will constantly be being improved. It will be one of the things the car companies are required to do.

We would also like to see you—and I think Mr. Nantais would approve of this suggestion—write a provision into the act that if the U.S. rules have the equivalent effect, car companies can abide by those rules in Canada.

We would like to see you require the Governor in Council to establish fuel economy standards for medium-duty trucks. One of the fastest-growing areas of emissions in Canada is medium-duty trucks. These are the UPS diesel trucks you see on the streets in town. These are ideal candidates for using hybrid systems because of the stop-and-go use of them. They are running on diesel and there are no regulations governing them. We would also like to see the Governor in Council have the authority to establish fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks. For both classes of trucks, we should also embed a 4% improvement annually henceforth.

This way, we can put this to bed right now and the details can be worked out later, but we'll have a system in which the automotive sector is constantly improving its products and constantly improving its efficiency. That's something that we need to do. The government recognizes that it needs a long-term target going out to 2050. Let's establish a step-down process and not go back to this process every five or ten years and have the same fight over and over again.

I'll be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

[Mark Nantais, President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association]

We are ready to go, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon to the members of the committee.

Let me say that we thank you for this opportunity to address members of this committee, specifically as it relates toBill C-30 and the changes that would be implied under the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which is contained therein.

The direction this legislation could take could have very serious implications for our member companies, their plants, and the products that they produce right here and sell in Canada.

Given the one percent emissions contribution of new vehicles to the total inventory of GHG emissions from all sectors in Canada, we believe an overly narrow focus on regulating fuel economy alone will fail to yield the emission reductions one might anticipate.

A recommendation to you is that if the government regulates fuel economy for the 2011 model year, as was referenced a couple of hours ago by the Prime Minister, those regulations need to also be underpinned by a series of integrated and mutually supportive policy initiatives in order to achieve the significant reductions that one is expecting. The integrated approach is what the automotive industry wants to talk to you about this afternoon.

With respect to Bill C-30, the automotive sector is committed to providing consumers with vehicle technologies that deliver fuel economy improvements and can achieve sustainable reductions in smog and in greenhouse gas emissions. But to achieve the meaningful emission reductions, the sector supports a series of integrated and comprehensive actions that have been proposed in Canada to accelerate greenhouse gas reductions--and I want to emphasize “to accelerate greenhouse gas emission reductions”.

Greenhouse gas emissions related to climate change, primarily carbon dioxide, which is the primary emission when one burns gasoline from automobiles, cannot be filtered or converted by technology alone. It must rather be addressed by reducing our dependency on non-renewable carbon-based fuels like gasoline and by shifting to clean renewable alternate fuels and/or advanced propulsion technologies.

In addition to new vehicle technologies, Canada really requires an integrated strategy for cleaner fuels and fuel diversification through renewable fuels, related tax and infrastructure supports and strategies, coordinated government and commercial vehicle fleet strategies, consumer incentives to support technologies that reduce greenhouse gases, support for the commercialization of new advanced technologies, as well as incentives to help retire Canada's oldest higher-polluting vehicles.

As was the case in the reduction of smog-related emissions, fuels play an extremely critical role. Canada's strategy needs to include fuel quality standards and incentives to diversify Canada's reliance on gasoline and other non-renewable fuels.

For instance, Canada should move beyond current policies to accelerate E10 availability and to support E85 biodiesel and other fuels that can cut individual vehicle greenhouse gas production by more than 50%. Incentives and support for an alternate fuel infrastructure to provide consumers with access to biofuels such as E85, biodiesel, and ultimately, in the longer term, hydrogen are also required.

For example, while flex-fuel E85 vehicles are now widely available, and we have roughly 326,000 of those vehicles now on our roads, at minimal or no cost to Canadians, the fuels that offer the most significant reductions—and I'm talking steep reductions here—are not available.

Government and commercial fleet fueling strategies can significantly accelerate the adoption of lower emission vehicles in fuels. Federal, provincial, and municipal governments should lead by example, which we haven't yet seen, with their fleet purchases. It could be purchases of hybrid vehicles, alternate fuel vehicles, and a whole slate of other fuel-saving greenhouse-reducing types of vehicles. Fuel infrastructure and vehicle incentives should similarly be provided for private fleets as well. Attaining critical levels of these vehicles and volumes will really go a long way toward actually pulling forward some of these technologies sooner than one might be scheduled to do.

Individual consumers should be offered greater incentives to purchase higher-cost low-emission fuel-saving vehicle technologies. Canada should coordinate such incentives across the country and adopt further incentives that are used in countries like Sweden to encourage the purchase of lower-emission alternate fuel vehicles, while ensuring incentive programs promote the widest array of clean technologies.

We've seen these countries use not only regulation, in some circumstances, but integrate a series of supportive policy initiatives, all of which have produced, in the case of Brazil, for example, ethanol fuels for the entire fleet. They accomplished this some time ago.

We are now seeing that in the United States, for instance, they're not only making regulations but supplementing them with renewable fuel strategies. These may include ethanol from grain, but ultimately they will focus on cellulosic production of ethanol, which really has, on a life-cycle basis, one of the lowest greenhouse gas levels of emissions.

Driver behaviour, ranging from vehicle maintenance, tire pressure monitoring, anti-idling, vehicle speed, trip planning, can all produce significantly reduced fuel consumption. Governments should consider the educational challenges in conjunction with the focus on the provision of improved infrastructure to reduce traffic congestion and offer more attractive public transportation.

As you all may know, the auto industry and ourselves--CVMA member companies, and members of the AIAMC, who are also here today--signed a voluntary agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles to the tune of 5.3 million tonnes by 2010. We're the only major sector to do so. We're on track to meet those targets, just as we have met 14 other non-regulated voluntary initiatives with the federal government.

The Prime Minister also said today that the days of voluntary initiatives are over, which sort of implies that they were not successful. I would suggest that's quite to the contrary. A lot of the voluntary agreements that our industry has signed have been very successful, and have achieved the mutual policy objectives of the government as well as the industry.

Other changes are taking place in North America, with the United States introducing what we call reformed CAFE standards. President Bush some two weeks ago made reference to this. If adopted in Canada, these new standards would lock in even more stringent and challenging standards as applied to vehicles sold in Canada.

Bill C-30 proposes new fuel consumption regulations beginning in 2011. The industry will support a harmonized North American approach to fuel economy standards that recognizes the highly integrated nature of the auto industry between Canada and the United States. Again we're talking about alignment with the U.S. reformed CAFE standards. But by adopting those standards, plus an integrated strategy, as I outlined a moment ago, we believe Canada can meet its emission goals post-2010, while ensuring a vibrant auto manufacturing sector and market for Canadian consumers.

Our industry accounts for roughly 140,000 direct jobs, and some 500,000 both direct and indirect jobs. It is very important that we look at something that is feasible and economically appropriate, given the contribution our industry makes to the economy.

Let me talk a little bit about success factors.

Supply-side regulatory approaches focused only on vehicle fuel economy will fail without related comprehensive and focused strategies for fuels, fleets, and consumers. After all, greenhouse gases from vehicles are a function of not just vehicle technology but fleet turnover, quality, type of fuel, driver patterns, and the distances we all travel. Harmonized national standards are essential and have worked for reducing smog emissions from vehicles.

There's also the possibility of cross-border sales, or leakage, as we call it, which could result in consequences to Canada if we do not assume a harmonized regulatory approach. As I mentioned a moment ago, the U.S. reformed CAFE is occurring now and will deliver a significantly more stringent standard, while balancing safety and related issues in a manner that is technically feasible.

Careful, sustained, and technologically feasible solutions are essential to avoid unintended economic consequences for our manufacturing sector, already in constant transition within a global environment. We are already fighting every day for jobs in Canada, to get new mandates, to get new investment for Canada. It's something our industry is constantly doing.

On solutions, the reforms under way to enhance the national U.S. CAFE standards provide significant challenges to our auto industry as they continue to balance technical feasibility, affordability, safety, and jobs. By ensuring ongoing harmonization through a dominant North American standard--that is, reformed CAFE--Canada will lock in an even more stringent standard because of the significantly different vehicle purchase profile in Canada, which leans very strongly toward smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles. In other words, 30% of our fleet, the vehicles that we buy in Canada, are in the compact and sub-compact category.

Canada is also a key location for research and development in engineering and manufacturing of green vehicle technologies, ranging from Quebec's leadership in lightweight vehicle materials to Canadian development and manufacturing of fuel cells, vehicle batteries, and cellulosic ethanol. We're doing those in Canada now, as we speak.

Canada should examine strategies to strengthen and accelerate Canada's role in research and the commercialization of green vehicle technologies. You may have heard today there was the industry committee, an all-party committee, which on a consensus report put forward a number of recommendations, all of which are focused at making our industry more innovative and more competitive. When I say “industry”, I'm not just talking about the auto industry, but all sectors.

While smog-related emissions from new vehicles have been reduced by 99%--and I repeat that, by 99%--there remain over one million 20-year-old or older vehicles on Canadian roads with older technology, which typically produce roughly 37 times more smog-related emissions than today's new ultra-clean vehicles. Canada should offer incentives, we believe, to the drivers of older vehicles to retire their vehicles and consider cleaner alternatives, ranging from the new ultra-clean vehicles to the public transportation alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I've been able to convey to you this afternoon and urge members of this committee to consider what can effectively deliver real emission reductions. My outline of an integrated and comprehensive approach includes new vehicle technologies, yes, because that's our responsibility, but it also requires an integrated strategy for both fuels and fuel diversification, related tax and infrastructure fuels, supports and strategies, coordination of government and commercial fleet purchasing strategies--you can imagine the buying power one could achieve if governments, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, actually coordinated their purchasing strategies.

It's really interesting, as well, that even between departments within the federal government there does not seem to be any coordinated purchasing strategy for more environmentally friendly vehicles, for instance.

We believe that consumer incentives to support technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions have a real role, as does the support for commercialization of new advanced technologies and incentives to help retire, as I mentioned, these oldest highest-polluting vehicles.

From our perspective, we would much rather accelerate progress with a practical integrated plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technology, fuels, and fleets, which all work together in unison, as I've discussed today, rather than to put Ontario's auto industry at risk with an arbitrary west coast fuel economy number that doesn't appear to have any valid technical or economic basis other than a desire to be different and decouple Canada from the integrated sectoral approach we have benefited from so greatly since we actually signed the Auto Pact back in 1965.

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I'll stop there and certainly be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[David Boyd]

That's absolutely right. Some of these new measures could conceivably be included in Bill C-30 through amendments. It's clear that the existing provisions of Bill C-30 are nowhere near what's required to put a comprehensive national plan in place.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

So if we're going to be successful in developing a plan, we'd be best to really look at those new measures, the measures that really aren't in Bill C-30 at all right now.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boyd, I want to confirm what you said, which is essentially that the measures as presented in Bill C-30 as it stands now are either redundant, because of existing legislation under CEPA, or otherwise exist to deal with what it's presenting, or there are minor augmentations.... Really, your suggestion to the committee is that we should be focusing on other measures, other suites, other tools, if you will, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and begin going down the road of meeting our reduction targets. Is that correct?

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Boyd in relation to a comment that we cannot realistically meet our Kyoto targets and that the intensity-based approach is fraudulent. I'm just wondering, with regard to Bill C-30 and air pollution here in Canada, how we formulate policy that will take us to where we all want to go at the end of the day.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us in person and by video conference.

As the chair mentioned, there are eight topics: international aspects, climate change, transportation, target setting, large industry, tools, air pollution, and the IPCC report. Today the topic is climate change. I understand there is overlap and that we will drift off the topics a little bit, but I'd like to try to get us back to the issue of climate change.

I do appreciate the comments and recommendations. We're here to hear from each of the witnesses on how Bill C-30 can be strengthened and improved. I want to thank each of the witnesses for their suggestions already.

On climate change, many have said that it's Kyoto or nothing. Professor Boyd has said that we're not going to be able to meet those targets, short of sending billions of dollars outside of Canada to buy hot air credits. What are the options? Again, we need to do much more than what Canada has done in the past to deal with the issue of climate change.

What are the options for Canada internationally? Who would like to speak to that? Maybe I'll start with Mr. Boyd.

[David Boyd]

I'd give them an F.

But I'd also like to respond to your question to Mr. Erasmus to clarify that everything you pointed out that the government is able to do on indoor air and bio-monitoring, in terms of reporting on pollution to Canadians, already exists under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it stands. You don't need Bill C-30 to do that.

I think you're confusing Kyoto and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Those things are not part of Kyoto. Kyoto deals exclusively with greenhouse gas emissions. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is capable of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, outdoor air pollution, and indoor air pollution.

I just wanted to make that clarification.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first set of questions is to Chief Erasmus.

I'm from northern Alberta and I've been there since 1967, actually travelling up to Yellowknife. I've seen a change in many things in the north since my time there.

You made some comments about Bill C-30 and talked about Kyoto. I'm wondering if you'd change your mind if you heard a couple of things.

First, did you realize that the Clean Air Act, Bill C-30, regulates indoor air, which causes a lot of health problems to Canadians? It actually regulates stoves and fireplaces, which are very important to aboriginal communities in my area, because of course right now there's no way to regulate the quality of air that comes out of those, and that causes a lot of health problems. Most reserves have that kind of heating, at least partially.

Air pollution now includes smog and acid rain—which wasn't included under Kyoto—and not just climate change. Under Bill C-30 there will be a national environmental monitoring system to monitor air we breath wherever we may be, in the north or different areas. That air, of course, changes dramatically with wind patterns from plant sites, and all over Canada from industries. It will not just monitor, but will also research and publish that information for the Canadian public. It also includes the ability to monitor air and human bodies to see what kinds of toxins we've taken in.

Bill C-30 also requires large final emitters to have a pollution prevention plan on greenhouse gases, also on air pollutants and toxic substances, which of course are not included in Kyoto, which has no reference at all to the problems to human health that result from consumption of bad particles in the air. It also allows government to regulate the blending of fuels so we can have more efficient vehicles, and the fuel components, which of course Kyoto does nothing for.

Kyoto does nothing to address clean or healthy air. I think that's my main point, that Bill C-30 does that. It helps Canadians wherever they may be, because we're a vast country.

Indeed, I know you weren't at the testimony yesterday, but you mentioned the short-term targets. We heard yesterday from government officials that indeed the short- and medium-term targets were going to be set in the regulations, and that we're going to be able to address those. The long-term target was dealt with in the Clean Air Act, but we are going to have short- and medium-term targets that are going to be regulated, and regulated efficiently.

I'm wondering if you would change your mind if you understood the impact to your own people and to all Canadians from coast to coast on clean and healthy air.

[Claude Villeneuve]

I can continue in English, very fast.

The year 2050 is a very short period of time when we speak about energy, because if you are installing a facility today, it will still emit greenhouse gases in 2050. As for the cars for which it's a ten-year period, for the electrical facilities it's a fifty-year period. That's not a long period.

Second, the cap has to begin by stabilizing. Stability is the first target we have to have, followed by reductions progressively from year to year.

And the third one is air pollutants. Actually, there is a direct relationship between combustion and air pollutants. Reducing greenhouse gas outputs will reduce the other air pollutants, but take care. One of the factors affecting smog is pollution coming from south of the border. As long as the United States does not reduce its own air pollutants, the Canadian efforts will be less than efficient.

This is one of the main failures of Bill C-30, in my understanding. It does not address the real problem. There are three or four factors affecting smog that are not addressed by Bill C-30, so it will probably be inefficient in that way also.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Good morning. My question is for Mr. Villeneuve.

Your record speaks for itself. I'm pleased to be questioning you this morning, and I thank you for providing us with some clarification.

First of all, from what I understand, Canada has taken no measures since 1997 to achieve the Kyoto objectives. In the present situation, it's as though I was asking you to leave Chicoutimi and come and meet with us on Parliament Hill in the next hour. We have to put this back on the rails.

The public of course reacts when they hear about a restrictive approach and targets set for 2050. Some people tell us that a lot of things can happen between now and 2050. You mentioned some concrete measures that can be taken to achieve more short-term objectives, but I'd like to know how you think we can ensure, and assure people, that we're headed in the right direction. As Mr. Castonguay said, citizens have to change behaviour and take more concrete action in their everyday lives.

You've also talked about a national carbon limit. I'd like you to give us some more details on that subject.

Lastly, time permitting, I'd like us to discuss one aspect of Bill C-30 that we didn't address today, the fight against atmospheric pollutants in order to combat smog. I believe that's unheard of, and I'd like to hear your comments on that subject.

Thank you.

[David Boyd]

I can give you a short answer to that question, Mr. Cullen. The answer would be zero. Bill C-30, as it currently stands, offers no comfort to anyone in Canada or elsewhere that Canada is going to change course and begin taking this challenge seriously.

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

When the government has been asked for their plan for climate change, they've held aloft Bill C-30 as their plan and said, this is the plan. In an international context, what type of credibility would Canada have presenting a plan like Bill C-30 as the initiative that Canada is willing to undertake in the global effort to fight global warming?

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

Thank you, Chair.

To our witnesses, you'll notice the time passes incredibly quickly.

I'll start with Mr. Erasmus.

Consultation has been well described in our courts, as well as the obligation of the Crown to consult with first nations, through numerous cases, such as Sparrow, Delgamuukw, and on down the line. What consultation did the government do with respect to Bill C-30, the bill in front of us today, with the first nations people?

[David Boyd]

I think the fundamental hurdle that has existed to date to adoption of a carbon tax has been the question of political acceptability. Certainly it's a tool that has all of the merits on effectiveness grounds, efficiency grounds, and can be designed to meet equity concerns. But in Canada and the United States in particular there has been a political aversion to the imposition or the creation of new taxes, which all of you are very familiar with based on the more recent experiences with the GST. And I think what's really interesting about this all-party committee on Bill C-30 is that you have an opportunity to make a collective recommendation that recognizes that a carbon tax is what the experts are saying is the best approach to moving forward. That way, no single political party can really be saddled with the public vitriol that may arise through the imposition of a carbon tax.

I also think it's absolutely fundamental to the public acceptance of a carbon tax that it be not a revenue-raising tax but a revenue-neutral tax.

[David Boyd]

I hope all of you have read the “Summary for Policymakers”, published last week by the IPCC, which Mr. Villeneuve has spoken about. It certainly provides a profoundly disturbing overview of our current trajectory.

Mr. Villeneuve has also gone through the basic facts about Canada's performance in attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so I won't repeat what Mr. Villeneuve has said.

In essence, however, the task before us is one of substantial magnitude. Canada's emissions in 1990 were 599 million tonnes. Canada's Kyoto commitment to reduce to 6% below that level by 2012, as Mr. Villeneuve has said, is roughly a 300-million tonne reduction from projected levels. Our greenhouse gas emissions have instead risen by upwards of 27% between 1990 and 2004.

The first major point I want to make to the committee this morning is that we need to recognize that Canada cannot realistically meet our initial Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012.

Under Kyoto, there are basically two ways of meeting our target. Domestic reductions is one; purchasing international credits is the other.

To meet our Kyoto target through domestic reduction in emissions, Canada would need to reduce our emissions by about 7% per year for each of the next five years, reversing a trend of growth of about 2% per year.

To achieve that kind of a target through domestic reductions would require a rate of emissions decline unmatched by any modern nation in the history of the world, except those that have suffered economic collapse, such as Russia and the Ukraine.

The best example we have to emulate is Japan, which in the wake of the OPEC oil crisis became the world's most energy efficient nation. They did not come close to reducing their dependence on fossil fuels by 7% a year.

The second route available to us under Kyoto to fulfil our 1990 commitment of 6% is to purchase large volumes of international credits. While I support the concept of international credits where those Canadian investments would contribute to the development of renewable or zero-emission energy in developing nations, those kinds of credits are simply not available in the short term in anywhere near the volume that Canada would require.

The only credits available at this point in time in large volumes are hot air from countries like Russia and the Ukraine, which have endured economic collapse. Those hot air credits would be a bad investment for Canada, sending billions of dollars abroad for zero environmental benefit.

We need to come to terms with the fact that we will not meet our initial Kyoto target. We have denied, debated, and dithered for too long. But that does not mean turning our back on the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement has provisions for nations that missed their initial targets. Penalties will be applied to reduction targets in subsequent periods.

The Kyoto Protocol needs to be broadened, deepened, and strengthened, and Canada needs to play a constructive role in those international negotiations. But that is a subject for another day.

I want to mention the current government's proposal to use intensity-based targets. Intensity-based targets are inherently a fraudulent approach to climate change. They simply endorse and entrench the status quo, as business is consistently improving the efficiency with which they produce goods and services. The problem with an intensity-based approach is simply that it allows total emissions to continue rising, and total emissions are what we need to keep our eye on.

If you actually consider Canada's record over the past 17 years since 1990, which we all agree is not a good one on climate change, if you look at that through the lens of intensity, then it actually looks pretty good. GDP, which I'll use as a proxy for total economic output, went up 47% in Canada between 1990 and 2004. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, as you know, rose 27% between 1990 and 2004.

It represents a 43% improvement in emissions intensity, which makes it sound like Canada is doing great and makes it look like the Liberal record on climate change is great. It's obviously not the case, and it underscores the importance of moving to absolute emissions targets immediately and not falling into the trap of intensity-based targets.

The real goal in terms of absolute emissions reductions is to achieve reductions of at least in the order of 80% by the middle of this century, by 2050. That goal should be explicitly placed in Bill C-30, and the majority of my comments from now on will address the question of how Bill C-30 can assist Canada in meeting that goal.

The year 2050 may seem like a long way away, but the only way we can achieve a goal of 80% reduction is if we start laying the foundation now with good policies. When I say good policies, I mean policies that meet three basic tests: effectiveness, efficiency, and equity.

There is abundant evidence that the policies employed by the Canadian government to this point, relying largely on voluntary measures and subsidies, fail the effectiveness test. They have not produced significant reductions in emissions, so we must use stronger approaches, including economic disincentives and regulations, which leads me directly to Bill C-30.

Environmental laws like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are like the toolbox, and then regulations, programs, fiscal instruments, etc., are the tools that actually do the work. When I read through Bill C-30, I see precious little in terms of new tools for addressing climate change. I'm left scratching my head about what it actually adds to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and I'm concerned that, for minimal benefits, the Clean Air Act creates substantial risks. As you know, greenhouse gases are already on the list of toxic substances, also known as schedule 1 of CEPA. This gives the Government of Canada fairly broad powers already to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under part 5 of the act.

The proposed clean air provisions, creating a new part 5.1 of CEPA dealing with air pollutants and greenhouse gases, by and large, simply duplicate the existing provisions of part 5. This not only wastes reams of paper, but in my opinion could pose a threat to the constitutional underpinnings of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Most of the changes, therefore, are not only unnecessary but undesirable.

I ask you, as you conduct your review of Bill C-30, to ask yourselves this question: What does this add to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as it already exists? If the answer is nothing, then strike out the offending clauses.

There is one specific amendment that does need to be made to CEPA to add another critical tool to the toolkit, and that is specifically adding to the list of economic instruments authorized under part 11 of CEPA. The amendment I'm recommending is to authorize the federal government to use environmental taxes, specifically a carbon tax. The majority of experts and economists agree that the most effective and efficient means of addressing the market's failure to internalize greenhouse gas emissions is a carbon tax, a tax on the sale of fossil fuels based on their carbon content.

A tax that starts at a modest rate and increases gradually and predictably over time can establish incentives throughout the entire Canadian economy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions with minimal disruption to the economy. A carbon tax offers an opportunity to shift taxes away from activities that are good for society, like labour and investment, and shift those taxes onto activities that pose risks to society, like carbon dioxide emissions and the use of toxic chemicals.

Supporters of a carbon tax to address global warming are plentiful and span the political spectrum. Here are a handful of quick examples: Al Gore; Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board; Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winner and former chief economist at the World Bank; James Rogers, chairman and CEO of Duke Energy; Nicholas Stern, author of the most comprehensive look at the economics of climate change on behalf of the U.K. government. There are some even more surprising proponents of a carbon tax: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a right-wing think tank; and last but not least, the Canadian public. A recent survey from Ipsos Reid shows that a majority of Canadians are favourable to a carbon tax, and, somewhat remarkably, Albertans are more favourable than most Canadians.

Carbon taxes offer numerous advantages. I'll list them quickly here, and I'm happy to answer questions about the details. Carbon taxes are comprehensive. They cover the entire economy. They are widely regarded as the most efficient policy approach. They're transparent. They're administratively simple and they're less likely to cause energy price volatility than a cap and trade system. As well, the revenues generated by a carbon tax could be returned to the public in various ways to ensure the tax is not a new tax but is revenue neutral. Finally, carbon taxes have a proven track record of success in Europe. In the brief that I will submit to you later this week, I'll include some specific recommendations for amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to authorize the use of environmental taxes such as a carbon tax.

The two main objections that are often raised to carbon taxes are their regressive nature, regarding the fact that lower-income households spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. That can be addressed in the way the tax is designed.

The other objection is on grounds of competitiveness. I note that the four top nations in the World Economic Forum's rankings of economic competitiveness this year have carbon taxes, and all of those nations ranked ahead of Canada on the competitiveness scale.

Norway is perhaps the most instructive case from a Canadian perspective, because Norway is a major oil and gas producer. Norway implemented a carbon tax in the early 1990s and has seen its economy grow by roughly the same amount as Canada's, but Norway's greenhouse gas emissions are up only 4%.

Interestingly, the imposition of a carbon tax in Norway contributed to the development of new carbon capture and storage technology, also known as carbon sequestration. Norwegian natural gas producers are capturing carbon dioxide from Wales and the North Sea and re-injecting it into deep saline aquifers at a rate of millions of tonnes annually, saving themselves roughly $150,000 a day in Norwegian carbon taxes.

I'm running out of time, so I want to make several other brief comments. I know that a cap and trade system for large final emitters is under consideration. Although those have been successful in the United States in dealing with acid rain, you need to recognize that the European cap and trade system is a mess, because governments allocated more permits than emissions. So those permits are fast becoming worthless.

One of the world's leading economists in the field of climate policy, Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University, wrote that “cheating will probably be pandemic in an emissions-trading system that involves large sums of money.” That's basically because there are information asymmetries, meaning that industry has knowledge about the availability of technology and the cost of implementing it that government simply does not have access to.

Another vitally important thing that is not really dealt with in Bill C-30 is that Canada needs to invest aggressively in developing low carbon and zero carbon energy technologies.

Concluding on a couple of brief notes, regarding the provisions of Bill C-30 that deal with the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, that law has been on the books for 25 years and should come immediately into force.

You should also know that in 2010, even if Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers comply with the current voluntary agreement, Canadian fuel efficiency will still lag behind Europe, Japan, Australia, California, and China—yes, China.

There's also much room for improvement in the last section of Bill C-30, dealing with the Energy Efficiency Act. I would recommend ensuring that Canadian standards meet or beat the highest levels in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD; that the act be amended to provide for a mandatory review of standards every five years or so; and that there be mandatory elimination of the worst 10% of products in each product class, a precedent that was set with the prohibition of low-efficiency furnaces.

Thank you for your time and attention.

I look forward to your questions, and I would like to speak to you again about air pollution, if that opportunity arises.

[Chief Bill Erasmus, Chief, Regional Office, NWT, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Bill Erasmus. I'm the regional chief for the Northwest Territories for the Assembly of First Nations, and I have the environment portfolio for the AFN.

I also have with me Stuart Wuttke, who is the head of our lands division at the Assembly of First Nations.

As you mentioned earlier, we have provided a copy of our full submission. Unfortunately, it hasn't been translated into French yet.

On behalf of the Assembly of First Nations, I'd like to give our presentation--I hope it's under 10 minutes--and then we'll be quite open to questions.

We'd like to thank the committee for accepting our request to make an intervention on the important subject of Bill C-30. First nations governments collectively are seeing tremendous impacts on the environment and natural resources as a result of air pollution and climate change.

At the outset we'd like to state that first nations people have much to offer Canada. First nations people continue to have a close relationship with the land. We repeatedly offer to share what we know of the environment, with the hope that our knowledge will assist others to improve the quality of life for all.

Canada requires better tools to monitor and prepare for changes to the environment. We believe that first nations can assist in this. In moving forward, it is necessary for governments to recognize first nations ownership of natural resources and wildlife as an integral component of aboriginal title. An important component of this is first nations obligations to protect the environment and fragile ecosystems on which all creatures depend.

On the Clean Air Act, our purpose in being here today, we are pleased to offer this committee our perspectives on it and required amendments. In our view, the government's plan to combat air pollution and global warming do not go far enough in the Clean Air Act.

Air pollution is a major issue for first nations people. There is no denying that the air we breathe is contaminated with harmful substances. The AFN disagrees with the removal of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from schedule 1 of CEPA and the placement of these substances into two new categories. It is our preference that greenhouse gases, pollutants, and other substances harmful to human health be listed on schedule 1 of CEPA.

Bill C-30 should establish the authority to deal with sources of air pollution in one province or territory affecting others, and the act should consolidate under CEPA the regulatory authority over emissions and fuel economy for all types of vehicles and engines, including on-road and off-road cars and trucks, ships, aircraft, and railway locomotives.

On the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming, the Clean Air Act has to be greatly improved. Reducing smog to combat global warming is contrary to scientific research. In its present form, the Clean Air Act abandons Canada's international commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, as it contains no short-term targets and defers any meaningful action until 2050. In its present form, the Clean Air Act will result in increased emissions by the Canadian industrial sector for the next 43 years.

In our view, Bill C-30 should be amended to implement targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Bill C-30 should include a long-term target for reducing overall domestic greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as well as interim targets. Bill C-30 should require the federal government to introduce limits to greenhouse gases and pollution from industry by 2008. Last of all, Bill C-30 should permit the creation of a first nations carbon trading system.

On consultation, we'd now like to move away from universal commentary on Bill C-30 to discuss first nations interest in the legislation.

Canada's “made in Canada” plan was developed without first nations involvement and does not include first nations governments in its commitment to working with all orders of government in Canada to meet clean air commitments.

We recommend that the legislative committee on Bill C-30 establish an adequate consultative process on the Clean Air Act with first nations governments to ensure meaningful first nations involvement in the development of the legislation. In addition, the Clean Air Act should be amended to recognize first nations governments in decision-making fora related to the implementation of the legislation.

The principle of the participation of aboriginal governments in the implementation of CEPA is an important one. Fundamentally, first nations must be included in environmental decision-making. While the Clean Air Act contains provisions for consultation with aboriginal governments and/or peoples, it has been the experience of first nations that such consultation has been poorly executed. Before the Clean Air Act moves any further, the federal government should immediately, thoroughly, and properly consult with first nations governments, as the legislation may affect or have an impact on first nations interests and rights and/or their participation in the future implementation of CEPA.

Impacts to first nations communities. Air pollution and global warming will create a number of challenges for first nations governments and communities. There are transportation issues related to climate change that are unique to first nations, especially to isolated first nations. Changes in the winter season will have an adverse effect on the construction of winter roads that some first nations rely on for the transportation of goods and services. If winter roads are increasingly not an option, alternative methods of transportation, such as transportation by air, will be required.

The AFN recommends that the Clean Air Act legislate the federal government to work with the provinces and territories and each first nation government to establish clean transportation alternatives to first nations communities.

With respect to water, Mr. Chairman, first nations rely on bodies of water for many purposes, such as transportation, drinking water, recreation, harvesting, and agricultural activities. Air pollution, acid rain, and extreme weather events resulting from climate change threaten water quality for many first nations. The AFN recommends that Bill C-30 lead to the establishment of an arm's-length first nations water quality agency. This body would be responsible for independently facilitating and implementing actions to ensure water quality standards are met.

Air pollution and acid rain are major causes of property damage in first nations communities. As the climate changes, first nations homes that are move effective in energy conservation and that provide greater protection against extreme weather events are needed. The Clean Air Act should establish a five-year legislative program aimed at the recognition of first nations governments to advance and develop regulations and standards, along with providing the capacity and other resources to create and generate incentives.

Global warming is having an impact on first nations cultures, traditions, practices, and way of life. We are only beginning to think out possible impacts that threaten our societies. To assist first nations governments in preparing for climate change impacts, AFN recommends that the Clean Air Act establish the creation of a first nations traditional knowledge institution. The purpose and role of the institution would be to provide first nations governments and industry alternative solutions to address cumulative environmental damage as a result of air pollution and climate change.

Finally, first nations will need specific first nations adaptation programs in the future. Unlike other people in Canada, first nations are tied to their communities through treaties, land claims, and prior occupation. The complete relocation of our societies may not be possible.

The Clean Air Act should establish five-year legislative first nations adaptation programs specific to first nations communities. The AFN recommends that government consult with first nations communities and accommodate their needs within the programs.

Conclusion. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that the federal government recognize first nations jurisdictions and authorities. Government cannot continue to work in isolation, as first nations have a lot to offer. Together, we can develop sound environmental practices that are backed up with real accountability measures for the decisions we make.

We strongly encourage the legislative committee to adopt our recommendation to continue working with first nations people to ensure the sustainable development of our natural resources while protecting the environment for future generations to enjoy.

Thank you for this opportunity to present to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Good morning, everybody. We'll call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number four of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

We're having a bit of a challenge with some of the video conferencing at the moment, so we'll go ahead with a couple of other items of business, and we'll get to that in about 10 minutes. We may need to have a small suspension when we're finished our first bit of business. There are a couple of housekeeping items.

For the first speaker, Chief Erasmus, we have a submission from the first nations, but it's not translated yet, so we'll get it to you when it's translated. We haven't received other submissions. When we get them, we'll translate them and get them to you as well.

What I'd like to do for the first bit of business is to go back to the first report, which we believe is now the real version of the first report. You have it in front of you. The clerk will note a couple of things for you.

[John Moffet]

No. The only way we could do it under CEPA would be to regulate the use of each stove. If I own one, the regulation would apply to me; our enforcement officials would have to come and inspect my house and determine that I was using the stove in a way that complied with the law.

When I say Bill C-30 would give us the authority to regulate the product, we're not talking about instructing Vermont Castings to design a stove that looks like this and is made with these materials. What we're talking about is giving the government the ability to say, in the case of wood stoves, that you can't construct, import, or sell a stove that operates at less than x% efficiency. You can do it any way you want—

[John Moffet]

Under CEPA, we could regulate blended fuels. However, we could only impose that obligation either on producers of fuel—i.e. the folks who take the crude out of the ground and refine it and turn it into gasoline and then stick it in a pipeline—or on the people who sell it at the gas stations. Neither of those people is responsible for the blending of fuel. The producers don't actually blend fuel because they put it in a pipeline that in some cases travels thousands of kilometres, and the blended fuel could be contaminated. If it's 5% when it goes in the pipeline, it could be 4% when it comes out, so that's not where it's done, and regulating them would be useless.

The alternative currently would be to regulate every gas station. We could do that, but you'd have to give us a whole lot of money to go and inspect a whole lot of gas stations. What we really want to do is regulate the point at which the fuel is blended.

All I'm saying here is that we don't have that authority under CEPA; Bill C-30 would give us that authority, the authority to target the regulation where it would be most effective.

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

Thank you very much.

One gets the impression from the announcements the government has made over the last few weeks and months that Canada's Clean Air Act was something revolutionary and earth-shattering. Just to echo what my colleagues were saying earlier, we get the impression that what we're seeing are minor amendments or minor improvements to existing legislation.

I'd like to zero in on a couple of issues. In one case you were discussing how we have to look at outcomes and how that should be the focus, and then, almost in the same breath, you were saying that it's important to focus on regulating the design of products.

For example, you were talking about blended gasoline. It seems to me that we have the power to create ethanol mandates for gasoline. So why should we be concerned about blending procedures at an intermediary phase between the production and sale of ethanol?

[Guylaine Roy]

That's right, through Bill C-30.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Through Bill C-30 that will be strengthened.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

On page 29, in regard to the amendment to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, the current regulatory authority has not clearly addressed the use of such measures as formulas to establish fuel consumption standards. Does Bill C-30 go further than what we have now? Could you explain to us what exactly you're bringing forward now that is an improvement on what we already have?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

But you would agree with me that characterizing Bill C-30 or what's in front of us now as an action plan for climate change would be a misstatement, that what it is, in fact, is a series of amendments and changes to augment CEPA or to improve existing legislation.

It may be a rhetorical question.

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

Well, one of the things that really comes through the deck is how great an act CEPA is, and what power it has, and, if Bill C-30 fails, how much we could do to achieve all of the ends that are being touted as the advantages of this new bill. Most of the language, I notice, deals with “improve”, “expand”, but it doesn't deal with the actual authority that exists, the broad authority to do most of what we talked about.

Is that a fair comment, that CEPA currently has the broad authority to do much of what would be part of any action plan on climate change?

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

If there were no Bill C-30, and we only had CEPA, could we establish an emissions trading market?

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

I didn't ask about fuel efficiency, I asked about emissions.

If there were no Bill C-30, could we regulate large final emitters?

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

If there were no Bill C-30, could we regulate motor vehicle and engine emissions?

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

Right.

Could we deal with indoor air quality using CEPA if there were no Bill C-30? Do we have the authority to regulate indoor air quality now?

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

Thank you very much.

I'm glad you've talked about the notice of intent, Mr. Moffet, because my questions go like this: first, if there were no Bill C-30, is there anything, in the notice of intent to regulate, that could not be regulated using CEPA authority now?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank each of you for being here this evening and staying until what is projected to be 9 p.m.

There was a question by one of the members regarding the short-, medium-, and long-term targets, starting with the premise that they weren't in Bill C-30. When the Clean Air Act was announced, along with that was an announcement of the notice of intent.

I'd like to ask somebody a question regarding the short-, medium- and long-term targets, but particularly the short-term ones right now. In the time that we have, I'd like to focus on the short-term targets. I'm also going to be asking about comments that have been made regarding “intensity-based” as opposed to “hard cap”. I'm not sure who can answer that.

Starting off with the short-term targets that are being negotiated now and will be announced shortly, how are those being set? Are they arbitrarily set?

Who can answer that?

[John Moffet]

I think the answer is that Bill C-30 shouldn't have any impact on the timing of the government's action. The timing of the government's action is up to the government and the members of the House of Commons. Regulations could be developed under CEPA and then rolled over under Bill C-30, or if Bill C-30 were passed, regulations could be developed under Bill C-30.

We don't write regulations in a matter of a week or two. Regulations take months and months to write. Work has started already and--

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

That's short.

I'll ask you a question very sincerely. Ultimately, without Bill C-30, are we able to act more quickly and to regulate the major industrial sectors if necessary? Can we achieve the objectives of Bill C-30 more quickly either by regulation or directly through the Canadian Environmental Protection Act? Won't implementing this system under Bill C-30 ultimately delay compliance with Kyoto Protocol commitments rather than bring us closer?

[John Moffet]

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the current CEPA, in section 326 provides the government with the authority to include regulations for tradeable-units systems in regulations it develops for toxic substances. So given that greenhouse gases are currently listed as toxic substances, the government could establish a tradeable-units system in any regulation it develops for those greenhouse gases. What Bill C-30 does is it improves the ability to set up an efficient tradeable-units system.

For example, ideally you would want to be able to impose an automatic penalty for a unit that is being traded under this system so that if a regulated entity was emitting x units over its allotted amount, it would know what the penalty would be. At the moment under CEPA, we can't do that. The bill would allow the minister to develop a regulation that identifies minimum and maximum penalties.

That's a long way of saying that, yes, we could establish an emissions trading regime. Bill C-30 would enable the government to establish a more efficient trading regime.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of all of my remarks will, ultimately, to understand why we need Bill C-30 to combat climate change.

On page 12 of your document, you talk about establishing a federal accountability regime for reducing our pollutants and greenhouse gases, and you tell us that we need Bill C-30 to expand powers and establish national objectives, which incidentally will take three years. This states: "...establish national objectives within three years...".

I therefore ask you whether it is possible to establish an accountability regime for greenhouse gases under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

I suppose that, in recent years, the government has given you a mandate to establish accountability regimes. In the current context, under the present regulatory and legislative frameworks, can we come up with an accountability regime for greenhouse gases?

[John Moffet]

What I had tried to do was explain to you the ways in which Bill C-30 enhances the existing powers in CEPA. Those authorities can be used by the government to address emissions of greenhouse gases. In some cases those authorities expand the government's ability to regulate. For example, as I had described, there would be a capacity to regulate products that create emissions.

So to a certain extent, there is an expanded capacity. By and large what the amendments do is improve the government's ability to regulate in as efficient and effective a manner as possible.

I make those qualifications of effective and efficient regardless of whether the government's objective would be to meet Kyoto or not. With these amendments, the government would still be able to attain whatever objective it had set for itself in a more effective and efficient manner.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Very quickly, then, is there anything in Bill C-30 that corrects or provides for the new government any kind of new power that explicitly is there to meet our Kyoto treaty obligations?

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

I wasn't going to speak specifically to that, but I can.

It's something we'll obviously need, because the time is pressing that the committee agrees to what's happening tomorrow, in essence, without adopting the entire process. I know it's a formality, but it's important.

As a caution on the invitations, I appreciate Mr. Watson's struggle with invitations at the last minute. As committee members and as subcommittee members, we are going to be constantly petitioned by groups—and this is not casting aspersions on the group that approached Mr. Watson—and individuals and Canadians to get involved in the Bill C-30 process. We've all agreed to a deadline for this bill coming back, so it's going to take some discipline from the committee not to accept people new to the list at the last minute or once the subcommittee has made a decision and the committee has accepted it.

So I put that note of caution out for all of us. We'll be hearing it, if we haven't already. There'll be more, it's going to make for a very onerous process, and it will go on forever.

[John Moffet]

I'm getting nasty stares from my colleagues as well.

I'm almost done.

Slide 15 outlines another set of improvements that Bill C-30 would make to CEPA. The act currently provides the Governor in Council with some flexibility to develop regulations that apply different standards to different parts of the country, based on health or environmental concerns. So the objective would be to provide an equivalent national outcome in terms of environmental or health outcomes. In order to do that, you might need to have regionally differentiated regulations, because, for example, you may have more concentration of industry or emissions in one part of Canada than in another.

Bill C-30 would expand that in two ways. First, it would make it clear that regulations that focus on one or more provinces in particular could be developed. So a region could be defined as a province. That would enable the government, for example, to recognize the fact that a province may have already regulated the air emission—whether it's a greenhouse gas or an air pollutant—to a level that is adequate. Therefore federal regulations need not apply in that area.

In addition, the bill would enable the government to write regulations that distinguish among regulatees on the basis of certain characteristics, like the technology that they use, or the age of the facility. We're not saying, in this bill, that the minister must do that; we're not saying that the minister would ever do that. But this would give the government the authority to do that.

For example, we know that other jurisdictions, including the United States, make this sort of differentiation between, for example, new and old facilities, requiring a new facility to be built at a certain level, but recognizing that you'd be imposing inappropriate or unaffordable costs on an old facility if you required the old facility to immediately upgrade its technology.

Slide 16 summarizes the way in which the bill addresses an oversight in the current regulatory authority provided regarding fuels. We can regulate the producers. We can regulate the gas stations. But we can't actually regulate the intermediate place at which fuel blending occurs. If we want to regulate fuel content to ensure that fuel contains, for example, a certain proportion of renewable energy, then the most efficient way to do that would be to enable us to regulate at the point of blending, and we can't do that. Bill C-30 would enable us to do that.

Bill C-30 would also fill in a couple of small issues we've identified that currently inhibit the government's ability to establish an efficient emissions trading regime. CEPA currently enables us to set up emissions trading, but doesn't enable the ministers to do that in the most efficient manner possible; for example, it doesn't enable the minister to specify maximum and minimum penalties that would be applicable. The bill would correct that problem.

The bill would also clarify that the test for equivalency is not a form test. It's not, “Do you have a regulation in place?” but rather, “Do you have a legal regime in place that will ensure the equivalent environmental or health outcome?” The bill is saying that the ministers aren't in the business of overseeing the provincial governments by saying they need to have a legal instrument of a certain kind. The test is not, “What do you have in place?” but rather, “What would be the effect or the outcome on environmental and human health?” If it's equivalent, then that's good enough.

Finally, on the cross-cutting elements I spoke about, the entire enforcement regime, all the public participation authorities and obligations that are imposed on the government, and the ongoing role of the national advisory committee, which provides for provincial, territorial, and aboriginal input into decision-making, all of those features of CEPA would continue to apply to actions taken to address air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Indeed, many of the provisions you see in Bill C-30—if you've actually tried to wade through the bill—simply add air pollutants and GHGs to those cross-cutting provisions. They're not changing those provisions substantively; they're just ensuring that all of those provisions apply to air pollutants and GHGs.

I'll stop there. I appreciate that I've gone overtime; I've covered a lot of ground. We'll be here after the vote to answer to answer any questions you have.

[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.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the remarks and speech given by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. For the first time in 40 years, we had a green Christmas in Moncton. This worries me, because it is clearly one of the effects of climate change. I am sure the hon. member knows this and that he was appalled by the parliamentary secretary's comments when he said he would not adhere to the Kyoto protocol.

I have two questions. First of all, does the member believe that the Kyoto targets should be different for Quebec and why? Second, a work plan is now in place for the committee that is studying Bill C-30 and I know the hon. member supports that plan. Can he explain the Bloc's support of that legislative committee's work plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between Bill C-30 on air quality and the measures announced by the government.

I would like the member to explain to me how the programs he announced—which are nothing more than recycled programs from the previous government—will enable Canada to reach its Kyoto protocol targets.

I have known about the programs and announcements he referred to for years. They were announced years ago by the Liberal government. This government's proposed strategy to fight climate change mimics announcements made by the previous government. I would like the member to explain to us how things that did not work under the Liberals will work under the Conservatives to help us meet our Kyoto protocol objectives.

I would rather see the member adopt a new approach. For example, he mentioned the WPPI program. He reminded us that the government is committing to allocating 1¢ per kilowatt-hour produced by wind energy, an amount similar to what the previous government promised. Why not double that financial incentive to 2¢ per kilowatt-hour produced rather than offer generous financial incentives to the Alberta oil industry? Since 1970, the federal government has invested $70 billion in Canada's oil industry. Instead of doing that, we should take the public funds allocated to the oil industry and improve programs for Canada's renewable energy sector. That is what the government should do to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the member for his question and in fact the participation of the Bloc in the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

The members well know that the plan is to deal with the health of Canadians and the health of the planet.

We well know that the science of climate change is certainly irrefutable. We have a very important issue globally and in Canada to deal with climate change and the health of Canadians. That is what our plan is. It is a plan of action. It is a plan to move from voluntary programs by the previous government which did not work. Ours is a plan of action; it is plan of notice of intent. We appreciate the involvement of the Bloc in the committee.

However, we need to move forward. I trust that in the spirit of cooperation we will strengthen the clean air act to deal with the issue of the health of Canadians and the health of our planet.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, Bill C-30 with the notice of intent to regulate deals with many of the questions that he has asked. The hon. member sits on that committee.

We are looking forward to receiving the cooperation of all members of the opposition to move forward on Bill C-30. It is a good piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the member sits within a party which when in government had 13 years of inaction.

I have asked his party, and in particular the leader of the Liberal Party who has presented today's motion to the House, why there were 13 years of inaction. If the environment is as important as it is and as all Canadians know it is, why did the Liberals not do something for 13 years? Why are they trying to stall and obstruct this government from moving forward on the environment? With Bill C-30 the Liberal members are trying to delay, delay and delay.

We are moving forward in cooperation--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and to participate in this debate.

I begin by thanking the environment minister for the hard work and the great achievements he has made. The government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and our minister, is making headway. It is a shock to the former Liberal government that progress can be made on this file. It is ironic and hypocritical that the Liberals present this motion to us today.

The motion presented by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville calls into question the government's commitment to the environment. That contention is just plain wrong. The government is committed to delivering real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. The government is about action and real change.

Canada's new government has said before that it accepts the science of climate change. We understand that it is real and we know that it is here. That is why we are taking real action to preserve our environment and to protect the health of every Canadian.

Canadians demand leadership from the federal government, and that is precisely what they are getting now.

We understand that to make real progress on the environment, we need real cooperation on all fronts, between all parties and all stakeholders. If the member opposite really cared about the environment the way he says he does, he would be looking to cooperate. Instead, we are mired in the minutiae when we should be pushing the agenda forward, making a real difference for Canadians.

The motion brought forward today says, “the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action” Canadians covet on the environment. I can assure members it simply does not do enough.

The fact is that Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, is a necessary addition to CEPA. It would set in motion Canada's first comprehensive, integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gases. In doing so, it would deliver better air quality for Canadians and it would take substantial aim at the issue of climate change.

Our proposed clean air act would create a new clean air part in CEPA that would provide a tailor-made approach to enable integrated regulatory approaches for the reduction of indoor and outdoor air pollutants as well as reduce greenhouse gases.

The proposed amendments to CEPA will require the ministers of environment and health to establish national air quality standards and to monitor and report annually on the status and effectiveness of the actions taken by all governments in Canada to improve air quality.

Finally, proposed amendments to CEPA will also strengthen the government's ability to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces and their territories. This will prevent regulatory duplication by more clearly allowing for recognition of provincial permitting and licensing regimes for industrial facilities as equivalent, in effect, to federal regulations so long as they meet the same environmental objectives.

The hon. member's motion states, “our government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety”. Had the previous government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline.

The debate is not on the merits of Kyoto; it is on the time required to achieve the objectives. The government must deal with the fact that we have lost 10 years due to Liberal inaction.

When Canada's new government took office a year ago, it quickly became apparent that our Kyoto commitments would be impossible to meet. Because of the previous government's inaction, today Canada stands at 35% above the Kyoto target, with only five years remaining to meet the imposed deadline.

Some critics, including the member opposite, have said that we should simply push harder and make our mission to meet the 2012 reduction targets, no matter what the cost. They are wrong.

Yes, we must act to put Canada on the path to achieving sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but in reality, years of inaction between 1997 and 2006 have left Canada in no position to do so.

Canadians can be certain, however, that this government is committed to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but we intend to do so prudently while promoting sustainable economic growth and prosperity.

Canada's new government knows that Canadians are concerned about poor air quality so we have made it a priority to clean the air that Canadians breathe. By introducing Bill C-30 we have put forward a number of tools that will help Canada address its air quality by reducing greenhouse gas and smog emissions simultaneously.

Soon we will announce aggressive short term targets for industrial greenhouse gas emissions with sector by sector regulations, all coming into effect between 2010 and 2015. This is the first time that Canada has regulated reductions in both air pollution and greenhouse gases. Internationally, we are the first country to regulate all sectors in an integrated and cohesive manner.

Using existing authorities, we will regulate emissions from all major industrial sources: electricity generation, smelters, iron and steel, cement, forest products, chemical production, and oil and gas.

By giving clear direction we are providing industry with the incentive and regulatory certainty it needs to invest in greener technologies and to deliver early reductions in their emissions. While we have been listening to industrial concerns, we have also made it clear that the days for soft rhetoric are over. Making progress on the environment requires hard work and tough decisions.

We realize that the best way to reduce our global emissions is to address the issue here at home. Using taxpayer money to buy credits halfway around the world is not a solution. It is barely even a band-aid. So we have taken a number of steps and we have taken a number of approaches to be a constructive player in the international efforts to address climate change. We know it can be done because we have done it before.

In 1987 the Conservative government was instrumental in pushing for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Twenty years later, with 191 nations now signed on to the treaty, atmospheric CFC concentrations have either levelled off or decreased considerably. The Montreal protocol is widely viewed as an example of exceptional international cooperation. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has even called it perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date.

Our challenge has broadened since then. So too has our commitment.

That is why in addition to the proposed clean air act, we introduced a clean air regulatory agenda which supports effective regulations on both indoor and outdoor pollutants as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Under this agenda, we are providing stronger energy efficiency standards on consumer and commercial products. We have already established new emission standards for on-road motorcycles. We are paving the way for setting mandatory fuel consumption standards on vehicles that Canadians buy. We will also regulate 5% average renewable content in gasoline and 2% average renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil.

To help individual Canadians and communities do their part, we have already taken action by providing a tax credit to those who use public transit and by increasing the funding for public transit infrastructure.

We also announced a number of other initiatives that will help to reduce emissions at home, at work and even in our communities.

In the last two weeks alone, we invested $230 million in the research, development and demonstration of clean energy technologies. We announced more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ecoenergy renewable initiative to boost Canada's renewable energy supplies. We unveiled our plan to invest approximately $300 million over four years to promote smarter energy use and to reduce the amount of harmful emissions that affect the health of Canadians. Without a doubt, action by our government on the environment has been driven by our goal to protect the health of Canadians.

We took action to help ensure that mercury switches are dealt with safely before cars are recycled and scrapped. This alone will prevent the release of as much as 10 tonnes of mercury being admitted into the atmosphere.

It is obvious that Canada's new government is committed to the environment by our action alone. It is clear that we are taking concrete action to address climate change. Quite frankly, by any standard of comparison we are moving quickly with action and not the hollow promises that we saw from the former government.

We have a plan, we intend to stick to it and we will achieve the plan.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously important that we begin to tackle this problem and that voluntary compliance is not enough. We actually have to regulate. Those regulations have to be enforceable.

The Liberal private member's bill on greenhouse gases has no effect. If one does not comply, there is no compliance mechanism. There is no problem or consequence. It is like a speeding ticket with no fine, or one does a crime and there is no time. That is why we think it is important in Bill C-30 that there are compliance mechanisms to force industry to follow the regulations to be presented.

We have said very clearly that the reductions we will propose for the industrial targets will be greater than those promised but never delivered by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power. We have also said that on air pollution issues like SOx, NOx and VOx, particulate matter, indoor air quality, the quality of the air we breathe and the huge effect it has on asthmatic children have to be among the best in any jurisdiction in North America and in fact the world. Those are the two big commitments we are making.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to identify myself with your remarks on the passing of the Hon. Lloyd Francis, the former member of Parliament for Carleton and Ottawa West, a riding I am privileged to represent. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to acknowledge his great service not only to our community but to Canada. Mr. Francis was a great man and was a great adviser to me on a number of key issues over the last year.

I was most fortunate to have met Mr. Francis and to have known him. I want to pass on my party's condolences to his wife and family. I attended the memorial service for Mr. Francis. It was not really a funeral but a celebration of not just one life well lived, but of probably about 12 lives well lived. He was a great man. I want to acknowledge his great contribution.

Let me begin my remarks today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat we are facing.

Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most important, for us right here in Canada.

While we share the disappointment of many Canadians and people from around the world that the former government did not meet its obligations or accept its responsibilities, let me indicate that Canada's new government will take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as we make our air more breathable.

That brings me to my next point. I am glad the Liberal Party brought forward this motion today because it is an opportunity to remind the Liberals of their shameful record of 13 years of inaction on the environment.

To make things worse, the track record of the Leader of the Opposition is very regrettable on environmental issues. People do not have to go far to read about his party's record. Let us look at the quotes from the 2006 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment...found that actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were ad hoc, lacked an overall strategy, and did not have an accountability framework. Environment Canada, in a risk assessment..., found that there was no central ownership of the initiative, leading to non-integrated policies.

That is from Chapter 1, page 10. The report goes on, stating that:

Canada is not on track to meet its obligations to reduce emissions...The [Liberal] government's own 2004 data revealed that our greenhouse gas emissions were almost 27 percent above 1990 levels and were rising, not declining.

The levels were going up, not declining. That statement is from the overview chapter, page 8.

Clearly, this is a sad track record of failure on the environment from the party opposite. To have the Liberal Party now lecture the House on environmental policy is like a Liberal trying to lecture other members on ethics. That party has no credibility.

Then there are the confusing statements from the Leader of the Opposition himself. On September 17 he told the globeandmail.com, “We don't know if the greenhouse gas emissions went up when I was Minister of the Environment...”. Less than three months later he told the Globe and Mail, “Greenhouse gases are going up, that's for sure”. These are not my quotes. These are quotes from the leader of the Liberal Party.

I must say that I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on one point. He told Canadian Press on January 17, about action on the environment, that “...I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

This lack of action on the environment is something I like to call the Dion gap. It is a gap between what we were supposed to be doing to reduce greenhouse gases and where we actually are.

The Liberal Party is a party of power, a party dedicated to staying in power and nothing else. That is why the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the important issue of the environment.

Fortunately, there is a new government in Canada. We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries, not only for greenhouse gas emissions, but also on the important issue of air quality in Canada.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had some problems in the Liberal Party with the efforts that his party made in this area. The Liberals had an opportunity to act. They failed to do so. In the dying hours of a 13 year regime, a regime that had been found guilty of corruption, money laundering and stealing money from taxpayers, so guilty that the Liberals had to return more than a million dollars in cash to the public purse, to say after 13 years that in those final hours they were finally ready to act is simply not credible.

It is very interesting to read the text of the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that regulations through CEPA are the only way to go. The Liberals did not go there in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. They had the chance to act and they did not.

Is that not just like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that does not like transparency or accountability, a party that prefers to work in the shadows? That party would prefer that cabinet, behind closed doors, make these decisions rather than have important legislation on the statute books of this country. That is exactly why we brought forward some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution, Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

What has been the response of the Liberal Party? For a long time, Mr. Dithers, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was running the show over there with the Liberal Party, and now he has been replaced by Mr. Delay, the Leader of the Opposition, with his sidekick, the member for Ottawa South. They have no interest in getting things done for Canadians. In fact, they want long, drawn-out hearings on Bill C-30, months of hearings, in fact. They want to study and have meetings, events and conferences rather than get to work.

While Conservatives voted for getting down to work and a quick session, Liberals voted for time extensions. Why? Perhaps the quote from the Liberal environment critic, the member for Ottawa South, says it best. He asked the committee studying Bill C-30, “What's the rush here?” Let me tell members what the rush is: greenhouse gas emissions are a priority. It is important that we tackle this problem as soon as possible, not as soon as possible plus 10 years.

Canadians sent us here to work together with all parties to get the job done on the environment. Some parties in the House, I think, get it more than others. Others clearly have not got it. The Liberal Party is the party that does not get it.

I think this motion is an attempt to derail the toughest regulation of greenhouse gases in Canadian history, and we are leaving behind the important issue of air quality, especially in regard to indoor pollutants. I think it is important that we do not lose any time and that we get to work on Bill C-30. Commensurate with that study in committee, the Department of the Environment and the federal government are actively working on the numbers and targets and the architecture and design to make this system work.

Tomorrow, some of the world's leading scientists will gather in Paris to outline what will be some very significant additional scientific research, something that will only encourage us to do more, not just around the world but hopefully here in Canada.

I look forward to receiving the contents of that report. From what I have read so far in reports, we hope to learn from world renowned scientists, and regrettably, the news is not good. Global warming and climate change are serious issues. Not only do they face us here at home, but they must bring the entire world community together.

For far too long, Canada has not accepted our responsibility when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This government intends to do something about it. Clearly, the Kyoto protocol is a 15 year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When it was signed in 1997, when the starter's pistol went off in that race, the Liberal Government of Canada began to run in the opposite direction. That is shameful.

As a result, we have a lot of catching up to do. It will not be easy. It will take focus. It will take Canadians working together. It will take members of Parliament from all political parties working together.

But I believe the challenges of global warming and climate change are the challenges of the 21st century and we must respond. We must respond by also addressing clean air. We can do both at the same time. Let us respond without sending $5 billion of taxpayers money to Russia, to China and to India, which will not help the quality of air in Canada at all.

This government will act. The government will deliver real results on the environment for Canadians. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the next generation.

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

Yes. I have two last thoughts, in the time left.

Mr. McGuinty today brought a motion forward. The original intent, it seemed, when the former Liberal government made this commitment, was to have an independent commissioner, one who reported directly and was removed. We'll be making suggestions to bring that right into the review process of Bill C-30, the government's bill. We think this is potentially an effective tool.

I know you can't comment on that, it being policy. My question is this. Looking at some of the comments your organization, the Auditor General's office, made about the employment insurance account—that government is consistently taking too much in—I'll quote:

[To allow] the Account to accumulate a surplus beyond what could reasonably be spent for employment insurance purposes, given the existing benefit structure and allowing.... In our opinion, the government has not observed the intent of the Employment Insurance Act.

Where's the line? Where is the line between commenting on ineffective government spending, or promises made and not kept, and advocating for policy options, which in Ms. Gélinas' last report she commented on, saying on climate change that the government had not taken it seriously enough yet and needed to ramp it up? Where is that line?

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

I won't make a comment about the nuisance.

I think if the clerk talks to the clerk of the Bill C-30 committee, they'll find that the first one you mentioned, 5:30 on Monday evening, won't work. We actually have a meeting booked this Monday evening at 5:30.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that scientific evidence tells us to act as soon as possible. That is our goal.

The committee studying Bill C-30 met on Monday and we saw that the Liberal Party is not comfortable with the idea of working harder and passing Bill C-30 as soon as possible. It wants to analyze and conduct more studies. That is not the best course of action in a file that is so important for Canada.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We'll be meeting on Bill C-30 Thursday morning, if I remember correctly, but not in the afternoon, so that may be an option.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Next week we will begin the CEPA review. Tuesday has been mentioned as a problem day. Therefore, we'll maybe try to look at what we can work out.

I think the clerks can talk about when the meetings on Bill C-30 are, and we'll try not to conflict.

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

First of all, it may be important to remember the initial suggestions that were made. Without it being stated officially, everyone agreed that the government wanted us to consider the bill quickly because it is urgent to act soon. The government even wanted to complete the study of bill C-30 within a mont and a half. The Liberals wanted to do a more in-depth study of the bill, which could have taken another three months, or even four, far longer than what the government proposed.

We need to come to a consensus and adopt a compromise, which would be to study the bill for five weeks and use the two break weeks to digest the testimony we will have heard. If we feel that we need to hear additional witnesses, nothing prevents us from sitting during the break weeks to hear other witnesses and put the finishing touches to our study. These two extra weeks would mean the study would be completed by March 19. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me, and midway between the four months that had been proposed and the government's position, which was a month or a month and a half. Overall, we will have studied the bill for approximately two months.

I would remind the government that we are about to a move to a vote. The government asked the opposition to show some flexibility and some openness. That is what the opposition, the Bloc and the others have done over the last few hours. I hope the government will show some consistency; you wanted to move quickly, and we accepted your arguments, even though we may not necessarily have wanted to. We did so because we believe it is important to accelerate the process and work more intensively.

I hope we will be able to reach a compromise and bring everyone on side, one that will give us the flexibility we need. Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, we will not be able to vote in favour of a motion forcing us to table a report by March 19. It can't just be a difference of two weeks. I don't believe that two weeks' difference should be enough to prevent us from reaching some consensus. Between a three-month difference and two weeks, I think a compromise... We have to be willing to compromise, take this seriously and provide a reasonable timeframe. I think two months is reasonable and acceptable. The government was saying a month and a half a few hours ago, while the Liberals seemed to have a more ambitious plan.

A good compromise has been suggested. The committee should function in this non-partisan way. If we can't compromise now, I really wonder how we will do down the line. Unfortunately, we will have to vote against this motion, and some people will have to explain why the committee failed to come to an agreement on this two-week discrepancy, considering our agenda and the action plan to be considered under bill C-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the comments from Mr. Bigras. I think it's showing he does want to move forward and is listening to the urgency of the situation. So I appreciate the comments. It's trying to find the middle ground, and I support that, but it's not my motion. It would be Mr. Cullen's motion, and it's his decision as to whether or not that would be considered a friendly amendment.

I think we need to be flexible, too. If we have a target of dealing with Bill C-30 in a timely fashion, and not trying to stall, which I suspect could be interpreted as what's happening here.... If this is moved forward quickly, and, still being flexible, we found that we needed to hear from another group of witnesses and we went into the March break week, I would suggest that we seriously consider it.

At this point I understand, Mr. Bigras, that what you're saying is we now lengthen it two weeks and we have the March break, and before we go clause by clause we give ourselves the chance to digest past information and current information, and then move forward aggressively so at the end of March we would be done. What you're proposing extends it approximately one month, but I think it's a compromise position and still deals with things on the issue of Bill C-30 on an urgent basis. I think it's a good compromise.

Those are my comments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the point I'm trying to raise here is that it would be really helpful for us as legislators to see what the plan looks like when its constituent pieces are put together. Because I would dare submit now, given the state of Bill C-30 and what we might possibly do to it, that this Bill C-30 does not make a climate change plan for this country. It's not even close.

So I need to hear more from the government, from the parliamentary secretary, perhaps through the minister in due course when he shows, how this connects and what part of the puzzle we are dealing with so we can know. When witnesses show up here, trust me, they're going to raise these questions. They're going to ask these questions whether we want them to or not. They're going to be asked to comment or they're going to want to comment themselves on how Bill C-30 does or does not connect to the National Energy Board's recent review of energy policy in the country. They're going to ask how it connects, Mr. Chair, to a fourfold or fivefold potential increase in the oil sands, and that's what I'd like to hear more about.

Thank you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Climate change was the top priority for all parliamentarians, I think Mr. Jean also said, as well as for the government. We're getting somewhere. That's very useful; that's very helpful. I'd like to hear more from the government, if it's possible, Mr. Chair, today or in early meetings, as to how the thigh bone connects to the knee bone and the knee bone connects to the leg bone. How, for example, would we deal with one of the amendments put forward by the ENGO community, which is to reduce greenhouse gases by 80%, using 1990 as a baseline, by 2050? That's a very interesting and aggressive target. We're going to want to hear from an awful lot of witnesses on that.

But I need to hear more from the government in terms of how Bill C-30, being the clean air plan, the government's plan, connects to energy policy. How is it going to connect to the government's transport policy plan? How is it going to connect to consumption decreases reannounced last week? We'll agree that perhaps they were jointly founded programs--EnerGuide and a few others, for example--that were reannounced last week. Where does this fit, if we consider that the country has a puzzle-like response, with pieces of the puzzle on the climate change challenge? How does this fit and connect to the other policies of the government?

If we treat this bill in isolation, Mr. Chair--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really pleased to have heard my colleague Mr. Jean a moment ago. It's the clearest statement I've heard in a year about the government's climate change plan.

I just heard two things. I want to make sure, and I'm not being facetious at all, and this is helpful in the context of the journey we're going on. Bill C-30 is the plan--the beginning, the middle, and the end of the plan. You held up a document and said that Bill C-30 is the plan. That's the government's plan on climate change, right? I think I heard that.

Second, I also heard that climate change was now the top priority of the Government of Canada.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would not like us to go too quickly, and I would not like the schedule to be established solely on the basis of an agreement between the NDP and the Conservative Party. It is very important for the schedule to be established by all political parties.

Rather than suggesting days and times, we might perhaps take a look at available time slots, bearing in mind that votes are held on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings. Perhaps we could also take into account the fact that the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development will continue to sit. In my view, there are a number of things we should take into account before deciding on our future business immediately, as it has been suggested we do. That is the first aspect I would like taken into account. I am quite sure that the clerk will tell us what time slots are available.

The second issue is that of witnesses. I would like to thank Mr. Cullen for his remarks. When we begin our study and establish the list of witnesses, we must of course take into account the testimony that has already been given to avoid duplication. We should agree on a principle. The principle we would support is that the committee should work more intensively on the study of Bill C-30—and that is indeed the spirit of the NDP's proposal. However, I would have great difficulty in supporting the motion moved by the NDP and amended by the Conservative Party, a motion that would rush us and compress the schedule, without knowing exactly what that would involve.

I believe that we can strike a balance between moving quickly and conducting an intensive study. I am among those who believe we can work three days a week on this bill, even though I am not convinced that it will suit me in the end. We can go quickly while hearing as many witnesses as possible, but we should be cautious before approving a schedule that might have a number of consequences, because we failed to take certain factors into account.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that we do have a plan. People keep talking about us not having a plan. Here's the plan: it's called Bill C-30, and that was the government's proposal. It's not perfect, and we accept that it's not perfect. It's just like Mr. Cullen's proposed outline, which may not be perfect. That's why we're here, and that's why the government agreed to strike this committee: to hear from all Canadians, through their parliamentarians, and so that we could hear the experience that all people have at this table.

Let's talk about that experience.

Mr. Bigras, we sat together on the environment committee in the 38th Parliament.

Mr. Cullen, we sat together on the environment committee.

Mr. Scarpaleggia, we sat together in the environment committee, and we heard all these witnesses, as did Mr. McGuinty.

Of course, Mr. McGuinty was the chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. I think it was from 1995 to 1999 or something like that, but he certainly has good experience.

Mr. Watson sat with us in the 38th Parliament on the environment committee, and so did Mr. Warawa and I.

We have a huge database and people who have experience with the witnesses we've heard already, but we have to start somewhere. We want to start and we want to accomplish something. That's what this government wants to do. It does want to get results, Mr. Holland. It wants to protect the health of Canadians and clean up the environment, and you've seen that happen through some of the announcements that have been made recently.

What we don't want to do is nothing. We want to get something done, and we need to set a time schedule that may not fit for everybody. This is this government's priority, and we're hoping it is the entire Parliament's priority, to get something done for the health of Canadians. The reality is that we can make this a priority. If we see which people are not interested in pushing it forward and which people are interested in pushing it forward, I'm prepared—and I think you'll find that all government members are prepared—to sit through the March and April breaks so that we can get this done and have a better quality of life for Canadians from one end of this country to the other.

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

The problem with the NDP model is, frankly, its incompleteness.

Our basic position--and I thought it was the position of all the opposition parties and the NGOs initially--was that this was an unnecessary piece of legislation, and that was why we rejected it. We said we actually had a piece of legislation that could do most of this. It's called the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and we can regulate under that. Indeed, ironically, the government can still regulate under that without even introducing the new bill, and plans to. The regulations that will be brought in are under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

When the NDP decided to change tactics and to work with the government, we said all right, we've got to be careful that whatever else we do, we do not weaken the existing legislation, the CEPA legislation, that we at least do no harm.

There are a number of issues that have been identified by the non-governmental organizations very effectively in a submission to us, and it would seem to me that the template that the NGOs have laid out has identified correctly the major concerns that we all felt in the month of October, when we collectively--that is to say the three opposition parties and the NGO community speaking unanimously--had a problem. They now have identified those issues, some of which are not flagged in the work plan. For instance, there is no reference in the work plan to the real difficulty in Bill C-30 regarding provincial equivalency agreements. There is no reference in the work plan to the real challenge of having two sets of lists, the list of toxins under CEPA and a separate list of substances that would be pulled out and identified as pollutants and greenhouse gases. Those are subjects worthy of consideration because they show major flaws in the bill that would weaken the existing CEPA provisions. They need to be dealt with.

Similarly, there is nothing in the NDP template to deal with the challenges of the notice of intent to regulate, which also has been very thoroughly criticized by the non-governmental organizations. We need to see how the notice of intent to regulate will work with the bill, because the real guts of the matter are in the notice of intent to regulate.

All of those things are very well laid out in the NGO submission. I'm not saying that we will endorse every single thing that the NGOs have said in terms of targets or anything else. I will say that I think they have correctly identified the challenges we had with the original draft of the bill, way back when, which all of us agreed on. We would have a fuller discussion of those points--incorporating, by the way, many of the points that are here, but in a fuller fashion--that the NDP has put forward. So I would offer, as an alternative way of dealing with our concerns, the things we all agreed on, which have been very well captured by the January 22 submission of the NGOs, which we could recirculate. You could borrow mine, if that would be helpful.

All I'm saying is we've got to do it seriously. We're not going to take forever on this, but let's organize it in terms of the problems we had with the bill, not in terms of general terminology about international experiences and models. It won't deal with the CEPA preamble. Are we going to make a specific reference to the Kyoto Protocol or not? We all thought we should.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've having a ping-pong game here. We're ping-ponging back from one subject to another, Mr. Chair. I want to come back to the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Bigras.

I think everybody at this committee is seized with the importance of trying to come up with an outcome that makes sense for the country. It is facile and it is dismissive to speak of this committee's work as something that can be hurried. Bill C-2 took months of negotiations. Hundreds of amendments were considered. It was an important piece of legislation that passed through all-party support.

No one is trying to delay this. This is the 21st-century challenge of the hugest proportions. Here is our challenge going forward, as I see it, going back to Mr. Bigras's comments: I don't know how this bill fits into the government's plan. I haven't seen a plan. I am still trying to divine a plan.

I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's famous expression that when you come to a fork in the road, take it. I'm just not sure what fork we're supposed to be taking.

I don't know whether this Bill C-30 is in the context of Kyoto, or not in the context of Kyoto. I don't know how this connects to the government's ongoing discussions, for example, on the expansion of the oil sands, if there are such discussions. I don't know how this Bill C-30 fits with the expansion of nuclear power, if there are such plans. For us to assume that it can be hurried through at this level of complexity and to suggest that it might all have been heard before is not necessarily true. It's not right to speak like this.

Canadians know this is the challenge of the 21st century, and they want to see us come up with a reasonable plan that does not force us to commit economic hara-kiri while at the same time achieving our domestic reductions, Mr. Chairman, and participating internationally as good international citizens. So I'd like to have a generalized discussion, to pick up on what our colleague from the Bloc Québécois has put forward,

a general discussion on themes, and on the direction in which we are going. That will not take more than half an hour. The only answer I have heard the government giving in the past 30 minutes is that it expects to make no changes to the bill. I would like the government to say more about its plan.

This is not a question of partisanship. The point is to hear the government talk about its plan, if there is a plan. This is the government's bill. Where are we going with it?

As my colleague Mr. Godfrey said, if we're going on a high seas fishing expedition and we're going to land any species, I don't think that's the right process.

I'd like to hear from the government on this. How does this fit in? Where is this going? What do you contemplate? When do you intend to regulate? You published a notice of intent to regulate in the fall. I'm sorry, but with all due respect, big deal. Governments do this all the time, at all levels of government.

Where are we going? Where do you see us going? Canadians want to know where we're going. Need I remind you, you're in charge. Where are you taking this nation-state? Are we inside of Kyoto or are we out of Kyoto? These are the kinds of discussions that have to be held before we get into the four corners of this draft statute. Having a discussion about witnesses here or there is not going to help us achieve what we want to achieve until we get a generalized and more clear understanding of what journey we're on here.

To suggest that it's only the opposition parties who are compelling this debate on Bill C-30 is wrong. It's false. It's not true. Everybody in the House of Commons and all parties want to see this move forward productively. So please help me as a single member of Parliament and help all Canadians understand where we're going. I think that's part of what we ought to be doing before we get into other questions, such as should we have five meetings a week? Should we have 40 or 60 witnesses? Has it been said before elsewhere, in some other committee?

With all due respect, even if it's been said somewhere else in another committee, it may not apply to the context of this bill. That's our job as parliamentarians. As a lawyer I wouldn't do that. Those of us with legal training wouldn't do that. It is against the code of ethics.

So this is my plea: can I please hear something from the government in terms of where this journey is supposed to take us? Where do we contemplate being? Are we working towards budget deadlines? If we are, then say so, for the love of God. Tell the Canadian people where we're going. If you're not able to tell us where we're going, perhaps we should run it back up the flagpole, hear from the minister or the Prime Minister, and find out what the authority of this committee is purported to be.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Bigras mentioned that we have a duty to hear from witnesses. I agree, but we can also look at that in a very effective way. To bring clarity, I would suggest that one of those first witnesses could be the minister himself, and then people from the department. We can ask them why Bill C-30 was drafted the way it was. That would get us off to a fairly quick start.

The minister has made it clear that he's available when the committee would like him to come, and he's looking forward to coming here at an early opportunity. So we could start with the minister; it could be this week. As I said previously, I'm willing to work as hard and as long as is necessary to see this not in a prolonged process but in a very effective and speedy process. Canadians are asking for a quick resolution to this. There's an urgency on this file. Many of us around this table have shared the urgency of dealing with the environmental file.

I hope Mr. Bigras is not suggesting a long and protracted process, but a very effective and efficient and quick process.

A question to you, through the chair, Mr. Bigras: would you like to have a quick or a long process?

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

The government made a proposal. The spirit in which we want to work in this committee consists in finding a balance between the urgent need to take action, while ensuring that we have every means at our disposal to combat climate change, and the transparency and openness that we need to hear as many witnesses as possible. This is what I meant regarding the approach that we should choose.

As far as we are concerned, we agree that we must use every means at our disposal. This must be done within a limited period of time, and not in the medium term. We must act quickly, but even if we have all the testimony from the Standing Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Natural Resources, our task consists in hearing a series of witnesses regarding Bill C-30. In my opinion, this is the balance that we must seek to establish between the urgency of acting in the face of climate change on the one hand, and transparency on the other hand. Our selection of witnesses and our choice of dates for the meetings should be based on these principles.

We did not have an opportunity to debate this bill in the House of Commons. Therefore, we must make sure that we can get the work done in this committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The government believes Bill C-30 is a very good piece of legislation. Bill C-2 went to a legislative committee, and Bill C-30 has now been sent to a legislative committee. We are open to input on how to make it better. Many of the opposition members have clearly said they would like to have an opportunity to make Bill C-30 better and that's why it's at committee.

We began the meeting with comments that many have already been down this path and have received information from witnesses. Therefore, Mr. Cullen presented a motion to have previous witness testimony and discussion included at this committee. I think that was a good choice. I don't think we need to spend hours, weeks, or months going over new testimony when we've already heard relevant testimony.

What I'm looking forward to is working together with other members of the committee and hearing their recommendations on how we can move forward. I'm hoping we can move this forward quickly. I'm hoping we meet as often as necessary so that we can have this dealt with and maybe do clause-by-clause within a few weeks.

As I've said from the outset, this is not here for a rewrite, it's here to be strengthened. We look forward to input from select witnesses and also members of the committee. If we need to make it stronger, then we're open to that.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with, let me say that I welcome this motion. I think that it is an excellent idea.

Mr. Cullen told us that its purpose is to allow us to obtain more information. We should then be able to make better decisions by taking into account the work done by the Standing Committee on the Environment. On the other hand, I want to be clear about the intent of the motion. In fact, we were told that we should avoid doing work that has already been done.

I want Mr. Cullen to assure us that this will not prevent certain witnesses who already appeared before other committees regarding the Kyoto Protocol from appearing before this committee and presenting briefs on Bill C-30. If we are sure of this, we will support our colleague's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

We have a quorum. I'd like to call to order meeting number two of the special legislative committee on Bill C-30.

My military mind likes to start things on time, so I appreciate everybody being here. I hope we can continue to do that. We have a lot of work ahead of us, so it's important that we start on time and get to it.

I'd just ask the media to clear the room.

I want to welcome everybody back. I hope everybody had a good break at Christmas--and the word “break” is in italics, because everybody worked pretty hard over Christmas. I know I did; I'm sure you all did too. I hope everybody's ready to work hard, because Canadians are watching us and they're wanting to see some progress on what's an important issue for all of us.

I'd like to put out a plea to everybody on all sides that this is not question period. I know it's naive to say let's park the partisan politics, but let's do that as much as we can and work in a spirit of cooperation, because this is obviously an important issue for all Canadians and all parties in the House.

We want to go back to the House with a good quality product in a good timeframe--that will be up to members of the committee--so we can take back to the House and ultimately the Canadian people something that will make a difference for Canada, for the world, for our children and our grandchildren. It will probably always be a work in progress, but the key word is “progress”, and that's what we're here to initiate.

I'm looking forward to the task in a spirit of cooperation. I'm sure everybody here is as well, and we'll press on with the agenda.

Mr. Cullen.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, last October, our government was the first in Canadian history to say that it would deal with industry. This is very important.

It was very clear in October that this government would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and air quality. Last week, the Prime Minister said that this announcement would be made in the coming weeks or months. Bill C-30 is a very important part of this.

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

I assume it would be standard operating practice, but I assume it would also be useful for the clerk to distribute to everybody the original package that announced what has now become Bill C-30, particularly the notice of intent to regulate. I assume that is going to happen. I got a copy of the bill, but I don't know if I got the....

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

I understand the parliamentary secretary's arguments, but one must bear in mind the very reason we are here today. If we are sitting around this table today, it is because the government believes that the opposition can help improve Bill C-30. Our contribution is directly proportional to the opportunities given to the members of the official opposition to ask the witnesses questions. In order to acknowledge the commitment of each political party here, and to make a constructive contribution to this process, we must adopt the format that I have suggested, which will allow for the members of the opposition to fully participate.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My arguments on this motion will also underscore and clarify the Bloc's commitment, here on this committee. As we are a legislative committee, I believe that it is our duty to delve into the substance of the matter. C-30 deals with important issues that we must discuss and debate. It is my hope that this committee will focus on the real issues, and allow another entity, such as a steering committee, to deal with planning and organization. This legislative committee has too much work to do on Bill C-30, to be able to tend to matters that can very well be looked after by a steering committee.

It is entirely up to the committee to decide whether or not it wishes its discussions on planning, organization and details held in public, within a committee of the whole. Nonetheless, I believe that we can be much more effective if we refer these technical discussions to a steering committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Bienvenue. My name is Laurie Hawn. I think everybody knows me, and I think everybody at the table knows everybody else. Welcome to the first meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30.

I'll just read you the letter I received from the Speaker. It says:Dear Mr. Hawn:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, I am pleased to confirm your appointment as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

Yours truly,

Peter Milliken, M.P.

So that's what we're here for, and I thank you all for coming today. I know most of the rest of our colleagues have departed, but it's important that we get on with this important business and that we have an organizational meeting—which this one is—to set the standard routine motions and to chart our way for what's going to go on in the new year.

I will be ably assisted by our legislative clerk, Joann Garbig, and our committee clerk, Chad Mariage. We'll also have an array of experts and assistants on the legislative side or whatever other legal side, whatever we need, as we proceed forward.

As for why we're here, if you allow me a couple of minutes, we in this room, the 13 of us, directly represent about 1.5 million Canadians. On behalf of them and on behalf of the other 30.5 million Canadians, we're here, in my view, to stay focused on an aim to present to the House, at the end of this and in a timely manner, an act that will effectively and realistically promote the future of Canadians' and our environment. It's going to be an emotional issue.

There are going to be strong views on all sides of the issue. My job obviously is not to participate in the sharing of those views, but to try to keep the views focused and to try to keep the process moving ahead. I would urge everybody—and I know we will—to remain respectful of differing opinions; to give everybody a good hearing to debate aggressively and sincerely; and at the end of the day, to come to an agreement that will move the yardsticks forward for all Canadians. It may not be a perfect solution for anybody on any particular side, but if we can move the yardsticks ahead in a realistic and positive manner for everybody, then I think we'll have done our job.

A couple of pieces of information are going to be available to you, for anybody who needs a refresher. One is on amending bills at committee and report stages. The other is on the conduct of legislative committees. There are some differences between legislative committees and standing committees. You can refresh yourselves on those at your leisure.

The first order of business would be the routine motions. We'll just start on them by going from top to bottom.

The first routine motion would be on a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I'm looking for somebody to move that motion.

Mr. Cullen, if you can move it, we can then move to discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party continue to struggle against the idea that they are little more than laggards when it comes to the environment. Whenever they make this claim, one of their senior ministers makes a public statement to remove any lingering doubts.

First, the Prime Minister suggested that it was difficult to predict next week's weather, so how could he possibly believe global warming was a threat to Canadians. Now the Minister of Public Safety was “begging for Big Al Gore's glacial melt when the mercury hit -24”.

The same minister went on to prove his utter misunderstanding of the pine beetle crisis and the impact that global warming had on it. I wonder if the same minister also still believes there is not enough evidence to prove that smoking actually causes cancer.

We are at the beginning of a legislative committee that will rewrite Bill C-30 and create what could be the most important environmental legislation in years. The NDP will fight hard to create hard targets and real timelines to ensure we change the course that Canada is on.

My fear is the Conservative members may have a lot of catching up to do. I strongly urge them to do much study over the Christmas holidays.

[Gordon Lloyd]

Bill C-30 has a very simple amendment to section 10. It basically says that instead of a province having to have the same regulation as the federal government, it has to do something that has the same effect. So certificates of approval or permitting that provinces use could be then recognized, which would make the provision much more effective. There's also an amendment that adjusts the timelines of how long an equivalency agreement would last.

That's a very simple amendment. There are two other even simpler amendments that I pointed to about reporting and dealing with flexibility in provincial regimes and recognizing those and being able to treat provinces differently, depending on, say, whether they're meeting Canada-wide standards. That's probably, in total, about one page of the vast amendments that are in Bill C-30. I think this committee could pick those three amendments out.

I remember when the minister was before this committee, Mr. Godfrey asked her if there were any areas specifically in CEPA that needed strengthening that she could point out and then you as a committee would work on them. I think those are the three elements in Bill C-30 that fit that description, that would be really good to have this committee work on in terms of their being good things for the environment and not have them caught up in what I think is going to become the political football in the discussion of Bill C-30. So I hope that answers the question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to share my time with Mr. Lussier.

My question is concerned mainly with the equivalency provisions in section 10 of CEPA and is aimed chiefly at Mr. Lloyd, in light of his brief, and at Mr. Teeter.

What you’re actually proposing to us this morning is to amend CEPA so as to integrate the provisions of Bill C-30. Without going into an exhaustive comparative analysis, I’d like you to tell us what the implications would be of amending section 10 of CEPA by integrating the principles of Bill C-30. What improvements would your proposal bring about?

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on 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).