Bill C-377 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that
Canada meets its global climate change obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change by committing to a long-term
target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions
to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by
the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the
period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed measures to meet the
targets and submit a report to Parliament.
It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do have selective amnesia in this place. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for referencing that, because we lose sight of our history in this place.

The member for Carleton has been an MP for 19 very long years. I know the Conservatives have spent millions of dollars on burnishing up his image, but he has a long history in this House of Commons. If we do some digging, there are a lot of comments, a lot of questions and a lot of speeches from the member for Carleton that will give truth to who he really is.

However, it gets better, because the Conservatives have stood in this place accusing Liberals of bullying senators and imposing their will, when the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that still has 15 senators at caucus every Wednesday. Fifteen Conservative senators join their MP counterparts for every Wednesday meeting, and they get their marching orders from the member for Carleton on how to play games in the Senate. This has been the case for several Parliaments and we have seen it in the past.

Conservative senators have taken their marching orders from former prime minister Harper and have done the very thing that Conservatives are mad about today with Bill C-234. Senators took their marching orders from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and used their procedural shenanigans in the red chamber to block multiple bills on multiple occasions that were passed by the democratic House. Again, it is rank hypocrisy from the Conservatives.

I will outline a few notable examples.

Our former beloved leader Jack Layton, several Parliaments ago, had a bill that was passed by the House called the climate change accountability act. My God, how things would be different now if we had actually paid attention back then and passed that law. However, right now in 2023, we are dealing with the consequences of years of inaction from both Liberal and Conservative governments. That bill was held up. It died in the Senate because of procedural shenanigans instigated by Conservative senators.

We have also had other cases. Former NDP member of Parliament Paul Dewar, who represented Ottawa Centre, introduced Bill C-393. It was a bill to permit the shipment and provision of generic drugs to Africa, a worthy cause, but it died in the Senate because of Conservative senator procedural shenanigans.

Then of course, in the 42nd Parliament, there was the bill that brought us to where we are today. It was the bill introduced to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, Bill C-262. It was ahead of its time, ahead of where the puck was going, and it directly led to the government introducing its own legislation in the subsequent Parliament to make sure Canada's federal laws were in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill, which was duly passed by the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, was held up because of procedural shenanigans and games by Conservative senators at the request of their leader.

This is the amazing thing about the Senate. We cannot do that here in the House. With the rules there, one senator can throw in a wrench and jam up the entire works for days on end, and this tactic is used again and again. Conservative senators, under orders from their leader, have been doing precisely the same thing that Conservatives are mad about today when it comes to their own legislation.

These are the things we have to highlight. They are incredibly important because we have short memories in this place.

I am coming down to my final three minutes, and I very much look forward to the questions that will come. However, it does us well to understand that, first of all, Bill C-234 would not have passed in this place if it were not for all opposition parties working together to pass it because they saw merit in the bill. That is number one. Number two, we fundamentally agree with the principle that the Senate, as an unelected body, needs to respect the will of the House. The only party that has been consistent on that position through several parliaments is the NDP. We are the only party that comes out squeaky clean in a debate about the Senate, and all members would do well to acknowledge that fact.

Consistent with our third reading vote on Bill C-234, we will be voting in favour of today's motion, because that is consistent with the approach we have always taken. Had there been motions on our own private members' bills from several previous parliaments, we would have done the same thing. It is important to remind senators that we are the ones who have to face the electorate. We are the ones conveying the wishes of the people of Canada. Every seat in this place represents a distinct geographic area of Canada. We are the ones bringing the voice of the people here, and senators need to be reminded of that fact.

I will end by again highlighting the hypocrisy. I like serving with many of my Conservative colleagues, but as a party, we cannot take any moral lessons from them on the Senate given their history with appointing failed candidates, with party bagmen and with the instructions they give to their 15 caucus members who are members of the Senate. With the entire history they have of blocking bills, Canadians who are listening to today's debate need to understand that the last place we would ever go for a moral lesson on the problems with the Senate is the Conservative Party of Canada. I just want to make that very clear.

I will end my remarks there. I thank everyone for taking the time to listen, and I look forward to any questions or comments.

Motions in amendment

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-12, such an important piece of legislation we are considering this evening. It is a bill that would create a framework for real climate accountability in Canada at long last.

We are debating this closure motion because we are running out of time in this place to deal with a bill that concerns the climate crisis, incidentally an issue on which we are also very much running out of time on. The springtime temperatures above the Arctic circle broke records last month, rising to over 30 degrees.

As we debate this bill, the American west is experiencing an unprecedented heat wave and mega draught, and NASA has just alarmingly reported that the earth is now trapping twice as much heat as it did in 2005. Across the globe, the climate emergency is already having serious impacts on human health and our economies, and it is time we take serious measures to at long last make a difference on this issue.

The purpose of accountability legislation is to keep our country on track toward its major emissions milestones, most notably those for 2030 and 2050. This is a tall order because, as a country, we have been dismal in living up to our climate commitments. In fact, we have not met any of the targets we have set as a country, and we have the shameful distinction of being the only G8 country whose emissions have risen since the Paris Agreement was signed.

It is unfortunate that the Liberal government, in crafting this bill, did not look around the world to the gold standards of climate accountability. We have heard a lot about the U.K. example in debate on this bill. Of course the U.K. example uses something called carbon budgets, and in that country it has led to the U.K. meeting and exceeding every single aspirational carbon budget it has set.

Instead, the minister took a different tact with this bill, and he never really clearly explained why that is, but as a result we have this bill in front of us.

A carbon budget is much easier to understand after all because it mirrors our financial budgeting framework. There would be a certain amount of emissions that, as a country, we could emit in a certain amount of time, and if we were to emit more than that, we go into deficit. It is something that is transparent and easy for citizens to understand. I still do not understand, even at this late date in debate, why the minister chose not to use that structure for this bill in front of us.

The Liberals introduced the bill they did, and we had some choices. We could obviously reject it outright and know it is going to be at least a year, if not two years, before we have another shot at a climate accountability bill, or we could work as hard as possible to strengthen the bill and make the most of this opportunity. That is the option we chose. That is because during the election we heard from thousands of Canadians who called on us to collaborate across party lines with other parties to ensure Canada had some semblance of climate accountability coming out of this Parliament.

In a minority Parliament, that is just not an opportunity. I believe it is a responsibility, and one we in the NDP took to heart. We brought our ideas to the government and we pushed hard for changes that would strengthen Bill C-12. Of all the changes we pushed for, the most significant one, as we heard so much about this evening, was the setting of an interim emissions objective between now and 2030.

The scientists tell us that this is the most important decade if we are going to turn around catastrophic climate change. So many of the witnesses we heard at committee told us that we needed accountability before 2030, and that, given the government's track record over past decades, it was not enough to simply say to trust us and wait until the end of the decade.

We are very pleased we were able to leverage a commitment to a 2026 objective for emissions. While it is procedurally different than the other major milestones in the legislation, we believe it plays the basic role of providing transparency and accountability and showing to Canadians whether or not, as a country, we are on track to meet that critical 2030 milestone.

There were other changes we pushed for as well, and we heard about those this evening. We wanted the bill to lay out the specific requirements of the emissions reduction plans. We wanted the advisory body to have certain expertise on it, so that Canadians could trust that the advice the minister was getting was adequate. The third thing I would mention is that we wanted indigenous knowledge, which we know is so important to have reflected in our legislation. We wanted that to be defined and built into the bill in a much more substantive way.

The minister agreed with many of our proposals. There were other proposals he pushed back on. That, after all, is how negotiation works, but let us be clear that this bill in front of us is much stronger today than it was when it was first drafted. With the passing of the Bloc Québécois amendment calling for a five-year legislative review, Bill C-12 now includes amendments from the government and two of the three opposition parties. It is not the bill we would have written, but it is a bill we can accept.

Canada's major environmental organizations agree Bill C-12 should pass, and six of these groups wrote us a letter back on June 7. They said that we cannot afford another decade of ad hoc, incoherent Canadian climate action. Climate legislation is essential to help drive the necessary changes and Bill C-12, as amended, provides a foundation we can build on to ensure Canada develops the robust accountability framework we need.

We have heard in previous speeches that the Bloc and the Conservatives are frustrated with the process, and that is fair enough. If the Liberals had given Bill C-12 greater priority in this parliamentary session, introduced it earlier and given it more hours of debate, we could have seen a more exhaustive, deliberative process. Why this did not occur is a fair question for the government.

As for the Conservatives, it is difficult to know how to take their amendments. They voted against pretty much every aspect of this bill. At second reading, they voted against the very principle of the bill, and the amendments they put forward at committee did not seem to me intended to strengthen the bill, but rather to blunt its impact.

Regardless, we now have a bill in front of us that is both less than perfect and much better than it was. The essence of this bill is transparency. Its value lies in the idea that a concerned and informed electorate, if properly and regularly updated, will not tolerate a government that refuses to take the actions necessary to drive down emissions. It would achieve this by requiring frequent reports, empowering an advisory body, requiring the minister to rationalize her or his decisions when it comes to deviations from the advice that body provides, and requiring ever more ambitious targets.

This bill cannot likely withstand a climate-recalcitrant, insincere government nor one that explicitly rejects our climate reality. By the same token, there is nothing in this bill that would hinder a truly progressive NDP government from tackling the climate emergency with the urgency that it deserves.

We have a choice, and I wanted to end in this way. Fifteen years years ago, our former leader, the late Jack Layton, put forward Canada’s first climate accountability framework with Bill C-377. I found the speech that Jack gave in this place at second reading, and I would like to read a passage from it in conclusion. Jack said:

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....

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.

Amen, Jack. Let us get moving at long last.

Climate Emergency Action Act

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today in support of the member for Winnipeg Centre and her bill, Bill C-232, which would guarantee all Canadians the right to a clean, safe, healthy environment and would provide for a climate emergency action framework, a tool for accountability for those most impacted by climate change.

This is a critical framework for all transformative climate action policies, including a green new deal, and it would ensure we uphold our responsibilities toward future generations. The bill explicitly outlines the critical importance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to Canada's climate response, and would require the government to consult meaningfully with indigenous peoples and communities and civil society.

The NDP has a long history of calling for accountability on the climate crisis, leading the way with Jack Layton's climate change accountability act in 2006. Jack's bill passed in the House, but was killed by the unelected Senate.

We have also been long calling for the full implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for upholding the right to free, prior and informed consent for indigenous peoples. In particular, I want to recognize the work of former MP Romeo Saganash in bringing forward legislation on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the House of Commons, as well as the work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. It is because of their work and the work of indigenous and grassroots organizers from coast to coast to coast that we saw an important step forward this week with the tabling of a government bill on the declaration.

New Democrats have also long called for the right to a healthy environment to be enshrined in law, and the bill continues and builds on that critical work to uphold human rights.

The climate emergency poses a serious threat to our environment, to our economy and to our health and safety, and Canadians are tired of governments committing to targets and then missing them again and again. We are running out of time. We are not on track to meet our international climate obligations. We need an action plan that honours our international climate commitments and obligations. We need an action plan that addresses the urgency of the climate crisis, and we need to ground that plan and that action in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Liberals have acknowledged the climate emergency, but their current plan in no way will achieve our international commitments. The Prime Minister claims to be a climate leader, but he keeps handing out billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies. He declared a climate emergency and then, the very next day, approved and bought a pipeline.

The government recently introduced Bill C-12, the Canadian net-zero accountability act. The Liberals' bill is a step in the right direction, but it would not adequately ensure that we are doing everything we can to address the climate crisis. They promised five-year milestone targets but then left out 2025, so there is no real accountability measure for the next 10 years even though we know the next decade is the most critical. The accountability mechanisms in the Liberals' bill, including the advisory committee, are weak and they rely on the environment commissioner, whose office is already underfunded.

It is important that any legislation on accountability is paired with significant investments in a just and sustainable recovery plan that will support workers, families and communities with training and good jobs, creating a more affordable life while tackling the climate crisis.

There is no climate accountability without climate action. Despite some nice words about a green recovery, the Prime Minister has just rehashed his inadequate climate plan from last year's campaign, while many countries like Germany and France are releasing bold plans to kick-start a sustainable economy and a sustainable recovery. Even President-elect Joe Biden announced a $2-trillion economic stimulus plan, heavily focused on climate-related investments.

Far from being a climate leader, Canada is being left behind. We need a just transition to a low-carbon economy that brings workers along. We need to stop handing out billions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies and, instead, invest in a sustainable economy that will create good, family-sustaining jobs across the country.

There are a ton of gaps in the government's bill, Bill C-12. One critical gap is that it mentions the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but the bill is not actually grounded in a framework of upholding these rights and also in upholding the right to a healthy environment.

The impacts of the climate crisis are already being felt in Canada, particularly in the Arctic and along the coast, and are disproportionately impacting indigenous nations, rural communities, marginalized and racialized communities. We know that extreme weather events are continuing to worsen and are creating conditions where the occurrence of intense wildfires, flooding, droughts and heat waves are increasing both in frequency and in intensity. Indigenous and northern communities, farmers and food producers and others have been sounding the alarm about the impacts of climate change on our ecosystems.

The climate emergency is threatening our food security. It is threatening indigenous peoples across Canada, and they often are the most impacted.

Indigenous peoples are among the most impacted by the climate emergency, including disrupting traditional ways of life and food security, especially in the north, which we know is warming at a much faster rate. This has driven up the cost for imported food alternatives, leaving individuals with only being able to afford unhealthy food options, which contributes to greater food security and negative impacts on health, which can have a vicious cycle effect. The climate emergency has significantly impacted the traditional territories of indigenous peoples and, in turn, has impacted their livelihoods.

The national inquiry has also noted an increased rate of violence against indigenous women and girls by workers who are being housed in extractive industry work camps. The severity of this crisis was confirmed in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls with a need to act within the calls for justice.

Risks to indigenous nations increase with the severity of the global climate emergency and indigenous people have experienced the impacts of the climate crisis for generations and are most often the ones on the front lines, fighting for the protection of lands and resources. Indigenous science and knowledge provides a complex understanding about how to address the climate crisis and it is critical for developing a climate emergency action framework.

Canada's nation-to-nation relationship with indigenous peoples must be respected under the framework, among others, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Liberals say that they support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but they have failed to engage meaningfully in consultation with indigenous peoples and accommodate the concerns raised across Canada, including failing to obtain free, prior and informed consent.

Reconciliation and environmental justice must go hand in hand or, as my colleague said in her speech, there is no reconciliation without justice. There is now a widespread consensus that human rights norms apply to environmental issues, including the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. The lack of a legal right to a healthy environment has a direct impact on indigenous and racialized communities in Canada and people from coast to coast to coast. More than 150 countries in the world have recognized that particular human right and it is time for Canada to step up to follow their lead.

The NDP is calling on the government to live up to our international obligations, including the United Nations convention on climate change, the Paris agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to recognize the right to a healthy environment as a human right.

The New Democrats want to move forward with a green new deal that supports the human rights of all people, while investing in a just and sustainable recovery that brings workers along. Bill C-232 would provide a clear path forward by calling on the Government of Canada to take all measures necessary to address the climate emergency. For the first time, the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment would be enshrined in law. The government would be accountable for implementing a climate action emergency framework that would respect human rights and this framework would save lives, mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency on public health and the natural environment.

This would be an important and transformative step to uphold fundamental human rights and protect a healthy environment for future generations.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for splitting his time with me. I also want to acknowledge the passionate work he has done in terms of ensuring that Canada takes a leadership role in protecting the environment.

As the member noted, we will supporting the Bloc opposition day motion and, in part, it is because it reflects work that the NDP has already proposed. The NDP has long been out there speaking to the need to take on action around climate change and to protect the environment. We recognize the significance of the crisis that is facing us.

Bill C-377 was originally introduced by the member for Toronto—Danforth. In his appearance before the committee, he talked about the fact that we need to deal with climate change. It is a fundamental issue. How fundamental? The United Nations Secretary General has called climate change the biggest challenge to humanity in the 21st century. The Global Environment Outlook by the United Nations environmental program stated:

Biophysical and social systems can reach tipping points, beyond which there are abrupt, accelerating or potentially irreversible changes.

We must do our share to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return.

That was the underpinnings of Bill C-377, which was adopted by Parliament on June 4, 2008, so clearly there was debate and the hearing of witnesses. The bill talked about long term targets to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 level by 2050 and medium term targets to bring emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.

We have heard in the House that the NDP simply does not have an action plan. That is absolutely untrue. Our fighting climate change program contains a lengthy list, so I will not go over every detail, but it does talk about implementing a $3 billion green collar jobs plan, including a fund for training; establishing an industry innovation plan to help businesses reduce their energy use; investments in renewable energy solutions; reduce pollution through an early adopters program that encourages the purchase of commercial and electric hybrid vehicles; investing in environmental solutions and incentives to encourage individual Canadians and small businesses to make better choices for their environment through a better building, retrofit and energy efficiency initiative; investing in stable annual transit funding, and it goes on and on.

I would encourage members who have not read our fighting climate change action plan to read it because there are those kinds of concrete actions in it.

The member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has covered some of the details and some of the other potential links with the economy. Sadly, however, we have some serious inaction by the Conservative government. As the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North pointed out, the Minister of the Environment said that they would wait for 192 other countries to put in place regulations before Canada would develop its regulations.

Canada should be a leader, particularly since we are the second highest emitter per capita in the world. We should be out there demonstrating leadership in this field, not waiting for 192 other countries to come onside.

In Canada, fortunately, we have communities and members of Parliament who are actually taking action, not waiting for the government to step up to the plate. I want to turn to a couple of communities on Vancouver Island. In Victoria this past week, about 1,000 people showed up to say that they wanted the government to demonstrate global leadership on climate change. We also know that greater Victoria is the national leader in green commuting. Its bike commuting rate is nearly triple the second place city and the walking rate is tops among census metropolitan areas.

Victoria also has a an excellent member of Parliament who is also taking some initiative. The member for Victoria has introduced Bill C-466 to make employee benefits for transit car pooling and bike commuting tax free. That would go a long way toward encouraging the kinds of behaviour that we know can have an effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

We also know that the member for Victoria has called for a national transit plan. Canada is the only G8 country without one. We also need to increase the municipal share of the gas tax. I am well aware that the City of Victoria and the member have called for global leadership at Copenhagen.

As well, there is an organization in Victoria called the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, which is certainly an organization that is taking concrete, meaningful action. It has a program called the SolarBC Solar Hot Water Acceleration Project, which has put solar systems in 50 homes in 17 B.C. communities. It also has a climate change showdown program, delivering an interactive climate change education program to 5,000 grade 5 and grade 6 students and challenging their parents to reduce emissions. These are grassroots community initiatives that can have some influence on the kinds of behaviour that we see as important to position Canada as a global leader.

As well, I know the member for Victoria has also taken a leadership role right here in the House, by initiating a series of talks to bring parliamentarians together to find common ground on climate change. These are important educational initiatives to help parliamentarians understand the seriousness of the problem.

I want to turn to my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan for a couple of minutes, because in my riding we have many local initiatives. I just want to focus on a couple. One is the Cowichan Green Community, part of whose mandate is the promotion of energy efficiency, healthy housing and environmental sustainability in the Cowichan Valley. It does that through a whole series of initiatives. It has a food security initiative for community gardens, for growing one's own food, fruit gleaning and buying local. It has healthy, efficient housing initiatives, which build sciences geared specifically to the valley's temperate climate. It has a water conservation and water quality initiative; sustainable gardening and landscaping around organics and native plants; natural based household products; rural air quality; and alternative transportation.

Just a couple of things it has undertaken to help support local responsibility for greenhouse gas initiatives include a buy local push to prompt local grocers to support local farmers; a car share co-op; help to start a garden; support for the Duncan Seedy Saturdays, including seed sharing and preserving heritage seeds; and food security concepts, where they have initiated a local food security program.

It does not stop at Cowichan. The little town of Cowichan Bay is part of the slow food initiative, which links local restaurants and farmers.

We have a biodiesel co-op and local restaurants providing vegetable oil to it. We are finding that a lot of our local people are signing up to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by using local biodiesel.

We have the Nanaimo food link program, which has a field-to-table program and is looking at food policy and food security systems. Again, it is trying to link up and protect local farmers, and encouraging and purchasing local food.

We also have programs supporting the cultural and traditional indigenous foods project. In this particular project, we are seeing organizations work with first nations all over Vancouver Island to support the traditional local diets that were far healthier. It is also making links back to local growers and local suppliers, including our wild salmon suppliers.

We can see that local communities are stepping up to the plate. Local communities recognize that in the absence of leadership, we need the municipalities, the provincial governments and the federal government to come to the table.

In its recent report, the “World Energy Outlook”, the International Energy Agency warned that each year of delay in addressing climate change will cost $500 billion globally. This is the kind of legacy we are leaving behind for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I would argue that it is time for us to come together as a House and work across party lines to take on this very serious challenge and demonstrate that Canada can be a leader in fighting climate change, both in this country and internationally.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Did you have an opportunity to read Bill C-377, which was basically the precursor to this bill from a previous Parliament? Do either of you remember ever reading Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Watson brings up a very good point, though, that his letter dated April 20, 2009, requested a costing of Bill C-311, because the author of Bill C-377 and Bill C-311--the Pembina Institute and Mr. Layton, both said it should be costed. And under that logic, that was his request.

To hear back from the budget officer saying he couldn't afford to do it and yet now can afford to do a costing at the request of a Liberal member of Parliament raises a number of serious questions, and we need to look into this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have a question on the IPCC's fourth assessment report targets. We've heard a lot in discussion, both on Bill C-311 and Bill C-377, its prior incarnation in the debate. Particularly the New Democrats will call them scientific targets. Greenhouse gases know no political boundaries. Science has been able to quantify the aggregate problem. It's global in nature. But in proportioning the targets, a choice was made to divide target responsibilities between developed and developing countries using something called, I think, an equity interpretation.

First, to the panel, are you familiar with what an equity interpretation is? Secondly, is that a standard scientific judgment, or is that a values or policy judgment?

I'll start with Mr. Zwiers.

Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague from the Bloc and I have a question for him.

He has listened to the same testimony that I have been listening to at committee. We have heard that Bill C-377, now Bill C-311, is no longer relevant. It actually is a bad bill that opposition members are trying to divide and make into two bad bills. It sets targets that were before the global economic recession, targets that would be harmful to the Canadian economy. That is why the NDP leader said that it should be costed. It has not been costed yet and yet we have the Bloc members supporting these random targets that are no longer relevant.

We have also heard from testimony today from science the importance of having a harmonized, continental approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is not possible to do it in isolation. He should well know that because climate change is not a Canada issue. it is a global issue.

Why would the member want to do something in isolation from what the rest of the world is doing? Why does he have a history of not supporting good environmental programs? Why has he voted against carbon capture and storage in this House? Why has he voted against renewable fuels?

Why do those members just talk the talk but never walk the walk?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is inexplicable. It seems to me he is mixing apples and oranges. I do not know to which other bill he is referring.

The reality is that the committee has had this bill for six months. As he himself pointed out, there was an almost identical bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-377, which also had extensive examination by the committee.

If he had issues or concerns around economic questions, he and his government had more than ample time. Good heavens, the Conservatives have claimed from day one that this is something they care about, so why have they themselves not done their economic analysis? They should not pin it on this bill. This bill has been the only one to come forward that has set a course that Canadians want in terms of climate change.

Again, the excuses and rationales are incredibly lame because they do not deal with the question as to why the committee chose to delay this bill. We should deal with the substantive part of this bill, get it before committee, hear the witnesses and deal with the arguments. That is what we are here to do. We should ensure it comes back for a proper debate and vote in the House. That is what we are here to do. Let us get on with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was the member's own leader who, in a previous Parliament, introduced Bill C-377 which is virtually the same bill. He recommended that the bill be costed.

We know that there would be a substantial cost to the Canadian economy if Bill C-311 were to go ahead. It was the same thing for Bill C-377 and her leader suggested that it be costed. The fact is it was that member who said to “abandon this bill. Get rid of this bill. It is no good from beginning to end. So I think that is a message that we need to consider very carefully. Unfortunately we could not offer what the costs were going to be. Do we have any idea what the costs would be? Has anyone tried to figure this out? I feel that the committee needs to do this before we blindly go ahead and adopt this very radical approach on something that we have no evidence that it is even going to work”.

It was that member who said that. It was not on this bill. It was on a bill that she disagreed with, but the principle is the same. Why would she not want to have a fulsome debate, find out what the cost would be, what her carbon tax bill would mean to the economy of Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It shall read:

That, in order to ensure a timely and efficient review of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, the Committee agrees to accept information, testimony, and materials considered during hearings conducted by the Committee in the 2nd Session, 39th Parliament on Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as supporting documentation for review of Bill C-311.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have to say that I'm completely befuddled by Mr. McGuinty's comments. His motion must have been raised when I was at the international climate change conferences, so I wasn't actually aware of it. His motion appears to support the very motion I've raised to expedite the review of Bill C-311. In other words, in my absence the committee agreed to move to it.

That's expediting it, in lieu of the fact that the review of this bill has been continuously deferred by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. We have swayed from the traditional practice of all committees, which is that review of legislation and estimates is given first. This bill is being given short shrift and has been put at the bottom of the pile. Instead of completing a review by now, we are only going to start it in September. I remind the committee that we have to report back to Parliament by October 22.

We are also reviewing Bill C-311. We're not reviewing whatever the Liberal new climate change plan might be. We're not reviewing “Turning the Corner”. We are reviewing a bill that has been tabled before this committee by Parliament. So I think it's incumbent upon us.... Certainly everybody can have full rights and propose whatever witnesses they want to bring in. I am simply again, as I have continuously done in this committee, trying to suggest an efficient review.

I have already agreed, at the request of Mr. Warawa, to take out the clause-by-clause. That may have been my mistake as a new member. I know he was suggesting that we preclude amendments. I'm not even excluding that there be additional witnesses. I'm simply suggesting that my motion, on review of past testimony, certainly helped inform me who would be additional witnesses. There's a lot of pressure by outside forces, by members of my own party, about all kinds of witnesses who should be brought forward.

I am trying to balance the interests of this committee, because I feel responsible for proceeding with all the matters that are before us--and there are a number of other matters. The committee can choose to vote against it. I would accept a friendly amendment to take out the clause-by-clause. I'm in no way excluding that there be additional witnesses. I will certainly be objecting, as a member of the steering committee, to an endless list of topics, witnesses, and so forth, that do not directly speak to Bill C-311.

I would like to thank Mr. Bigras for his comments. There is something new in Bill C-311 that was not in Bill C-377: there are actually less than three months until Copenhagen. In fact, the negotiation position of this country is being made right now, not six months from now.

We were asked by Parliament to seriously review this bill. It puts forward targets to be considered to take to Copenhagen. So I think it's incumbent on us to move forward. If we only have that number of meetings we will have to seriously decide, as a steering committee and as a committee, how to constrain that review. That's all there is to it. This is simply my suggestion on how we constrain that review.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, then the first half of this motion--that the deliberations on Bill C-377 be taken into consideration and that we have that testimony--may be appropriate. I myself have it, but there are some new members on the committee, and I think it'd be helpful for them to have previous testimony as a resource.

In regard to the last two sentences talking about immediately proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration, we've just heard from Ms. Duncan that she's not opposed to hearing from further witnesses. Well, that's exactly what would happen if you move to clause-by-clause: you would restrict hearing from any further witnesses. That's inconsistent.

We've also heard from Mr. Hyer that he's open to having amendments to his bill, to having this committee do work on his bill and make possible amendments. That takes time. That needs consideration.

To immediately move to clause-by-clause would restrict witnesses and it would restrict consideration of amendments to this bill and healthy dialogue, so I'm opposed to the motion. If the last two lines were taken out in the form of a friendly amendment, I think you might find consensus around the table.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, has there already been a motion or an understanding that previous testimony from Bill C-377 will be incorporated into the consideration of Bill C-311?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

In response to that, Ms. Duncan, and to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-311 immediately when Parliament resumes, I'm open to accepting all the previous Bill C-377 testimony, but the world situation has changed so much that we have some serious issues we need to look at in and around Bill C-311. We have to hear what Canada's position is, what the world's position is, what's coming out of the negotiations that are happening now with the G17, and these sorts of issues. We need to know where the BRIC countries are and what kinds of targets....

There are things we need to talk about around Bill C-311 that will prevent us from getting immediately into clause-by-clause consideration with any ability to get somewhere.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

I'll try to be brief.

First of all, Mr. McGuinty, thank you for voting for Bill C-377 last time.

When I was doing my homework, I found one of your comments from last time. You said, “I think it's important for Canadians to understand we're debating a bill that is going to shift targets, a bill that is going to guide Parliament based on science,” which is basically what you said again just now.

My simple answer to you is no, I do think those are important issues, and I think they're very important issues bearing on how we achieve these targets.

So do we need to cooperate with the G20, the G17, the G8, and any other G-combination that we care to come up with? Absolutely. We live in a finite world. Is that going to be tough? Yes. Is it up to the opposition to do that negotiation? No, we don't get to do that.

So just to reiterate, to set science-based targets, which you agree with, I think will set the stage in a strong way for Canada to do what we haven't always done, which is to actually show leadership, rather than just follow the lead of the U.S., Japan, or any other country.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hyer, for being here.

As you've mentioned, Bill C-311 is virtually identical to Bill C-377. There are some minor changes in definition. You've called it the “Copenhagen bill”. Mr. Layton, your leader, called it his “impossible dream.” The testimony we heard was that it was a poorly written bill, and it was uncosted. Mr. Layton recommended that it be costed, as did Mr. Bramley. More recently, Ms. Libby Davies said bills like this should be costed.

The world has change since Bill C-377 was introduced and dealt with about a year and a half ago. I'm sure you're very aware of some of those major changes.

We have a global recession and it's a very difficult time economically for a number of countries. Canada entered last; we'll be the first to come out. Canada is one of the strongest economies in the world, but we're also being affected dramatically by the global recession.

We also have a new President in the United States, who has made the environment a priority. Things have changed now in that we have a clean energy dialogue ongoing with President Obama's administration. That's progressing in a very positive way. That wasn't present before. Both Canada and the United States agree that all of the major emitters have to be part of a global solution as we head toward Copenhagen.

Bill C-311, as you said, is virtually identical to Bill C-377. What changes would you be willing to make today to Bill C-311 to make sure that you get consensus around this table?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think it's well known to you that since you tabled this bill in April, I have been seeking to have it expedited and reviewed and to be given the due attention it deserves. I am going to be seeking that testimony presented on Bill C-377 be tabled so that we don't have to repeat the exercise and can in fact comply with what the public are demanding.

I'd like to share some of that testimony with you and get your opinion on whether or not you think it is still appropriate to your bill one year later. For example, Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute testified regarding Bill C-377:

To wrap up, this is not a political bill, in my view. It's a bill that's about basing policy on science and ensuring that Canada does not transfer our responsibilities to other countries. I see no reason why it should not be supported by all parties.

Mr. Ian Rutherford, executive director of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, said:

This bill would seem to be a step in the right direction.

....it's not just our current performance that is bad. In terms of accumulated per capita contribution to the present burden...Canada ranks just behind the U.S.A., the U.K., and Germany....

He then said:

Very briefly, there are costs to both action and inaction, and I don't think it's very easy to estimate them.

I would just look around the world and, as someone has already mentioned, look at those countries that have done the best job of de-carbonizing their economy, making it less energy intensive and less carbon intensive, countries like Norway, Denmark, and Germany. They've hardly been impoverished. They're doing very well.

I think we should be trying to take a leaf from their book, instead of always moaning and groaning about the cost of things that are proposed. Many of these things will pay for themselves; certainly energy efficiency pays for itself.

Professor John Stone, adjunct professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Carleton University, spoke of the IPPC's targets, which reflect what you've put in your bill. Professor Stone said that he had appeared before the committee in one form or another four times in the last 12 months and was encouraged by the words he'd heard from the government of their intentions to tackle the issue. But he wanted to see the legislation and regulations, and the caps put on industries. He also said he believed that Bill C-377, the precursor to the current bill, was a useful contribution.

Dr. Andrew Weaver of the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, and Dr. David Sauchyn of the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative.... Dr. Weaver, by the way, supported the bill and spoke in favour—

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

To be honest, Mr. Chair, it's probably going to be more like 12 minutes.

Thanks for inviting me here today. I'm sure you all know that I am Bruce Hyer. I'm a biologist, I'm a terrestrial ecologist, I'm a forester, I'm a businessperson with three companies, and I'm a conservationist. We're all here for the same reason, and that is to foster a better Canada and a fairer and more sustainable planet.

I tabled Bill C-311, the Copenhagen bill, in the House in early February. It received the support of a majority of members in the House of Commons, not just once but three times, because as you know, it's the same bill as was passed by this committee and the House last year, when it was called Bill C-377. Because it's the only legislation currently being considered that tackles climate change by setting firm targets to reduce our greenhouse gas pollutants, many believe it's the most important legislation we are tasked with passing in this session.

Bill C-377 passed three readings, but then the 2008 election was called. That meant another year was lost when we could have been taking action.

Developments in the past year make it even more urgent that we take immediate steps to deal with the greenhouse gas emissions. In March of this year, IPCC scientists in Copenhagen, in the lead-up to the global climate change talks there this December, declared that the targets we have in Bill C-311 are the minimum we can do to prevent dangerous climate change.

This bill is meant to stop such global average temperatures from rising more than 2° Celsius in order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. To achieve this, the bill targets an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, versus the IPCC recommendations of 80% to 95% reductions by 2050.

But we can't get there without a plan, so the bill mandates some interim target plans at five-year intervals, leading up to 2050. To have a hope of success and survival, we have to get started immediately. The environment minister will have to present a plan within six months of the adoption of this bill.

This bill will set firm targets to reduce Canadian emissions. It will set clear objectives to meet on fixed dates. It will help safeguard future generations from the dangerous effects of climate change. And it will make Canada credible again in the eyes of the world.

Last month, in a joint statement called “The Copenhagen Call”, global business leaders at the World Business Summit on Climate Change called on political leaders to limit the global average temperature increase to a maximum of 2° Celsius and asked for firm emissions reduction targets for 2020 and 2050.

They also noted that “a predictable framework for companies to plan and invest” would “provide a stimulus for renewed prosperity and a more secure climate system.” They stated, “Economic recovery and urgent action to tackle climate change are complementary--boosting the economy and jobs through investment in the new infrastructure needed to reduce emissions.”

I know that in the past we have worked in a cooperative way with others on this legislation. We have supported the good ideas of other parties, and amendments proposed by both the Liberals and the Bloc are already incorporated into this bill. I hope to continue to use a constructive and non-partisan approach to see this bill through again. I hope we can work together to ensure it's done quickly when the House resumes in the autumn.

There is no time to waste. Dangerous climate change is not some distant prospect that won't affect us in our lifetimes. It is already happening.

In Canada, the Maritimes have experienced more intense storms. There are more frequent and extreme floods. The prairies are drying, and that means our farmers will have their crops and their livelihoods threatened. Spreading pine beetle infestations have devastated our western forests and provided fuel for more intense and frequent fires.

Northern Canada has seen dramatic changes. The summer of 2007 was the summer that the Arctic melted. Sea ice was 22% less than ever recorded previously. This was 30 years ahead of predictions, redefining the phrase “glacial pace”. Polar bears and traditional Inuit culture are threatened now and might both be headed for extinction. Last year, Pangnirtung on Baffin Island was nearly swept away by a wall of melt water. Melting permafrost has destroyed many homes and forestry locations.

We are in danger of helping to create our own humanitarian crisis in this country, but melting permafrost also holds another danger. It holds frozen a great deal of dead plant and animal matter, all carbon rich, in frozen stasis where bacteria cannot work on it. When it melts, billions of tonnes of carbon will be released by bacteria into the atmosphere, creating a global greenhouse feedback loop.

But it's even worse for the least advantaged elsewhere. Developing countries bear the brunt of the climate change burden. They suffer 99% of all deaths from weather-related disasters now, and more than 90% of global economic losses--all this when the 50 least-developed countries contribute less than 1% to global carbon emissions. This is a looming international humanitarian disaster.

What's happening to the 12,000 people of the island nation of Tuvalu is an indication of what will happen to coastal peoples everywhere. People have lived on those islands for over 2,000 years, but they must abandon their country soon and forever because it will soon cease to exist. Citizens of the Maldives and Kiribati know that their countries will soon disappear beneath the rising seas as well. These people are among the first of the environmental refugees, but many will be following.

The Red Cross now says there are millions more environmental refugees than people displaced by wars, and their ranks are likely to double within 20 years, as seas inundate fertile farming deltas and desertification dries up entire nations. This will be the greatest humanitarian disaster of our time.

The human impact report on climate change is a document that was launched by Kofi Annan at the Global Humanitarian Forum in London last month. It reports that every year dangerous climate change effects already kill 300,000 people and cause at least $125 billion U.S. in economic losses. Global losses from extreme weather have increased tenfold. Insurance companies in Canada and abroad are facing fiscal and management crises. Just over the past five years, the annual global cost of weather-related disasters has gone as high as $230 billion.

I am not here to argue the evidence, which now seems unequivocal. This committee heard from many experts on this bill last year, including experts on the science behind it. It was considered in this committee for 15 meetings and has already been agreed to. I am asking you to move to pass Bill C-311 quickly, because there are compelling scientific and moral reasons to do so. Science can give us the facts, but people don't usually act on science alone. Most of us do what we think is ethical, and we take responsibility seriously. We do what we think is right whenever we can. You can't find the answers to a moral question in an ice core.

Canada can take action on climate change right now. We have the room to make deep reductions, the technological know-how, and the economic capacity to get it done. All we need is the leadership. I'm very confident that despite our late start we can achieve these targets and, in the process, provide the world with green solutions and green jobs if we start soon. But more than that, we have the capacity to do something about climate change effects that cause untold human suffering. If doing nothing is wrong, particularly when one is well placed to help, then we are doing something wrong by delaying action, especially given our capacity to do the right thing.

Canada has fallen far in our reputation on the environment. We used to be a leader. We have descended from being the nation that helped tackle acid rain and ozone-depleting CFCs a generation ago to being the second worst country on the climate change performance index this year. Only Saudi Arabia performs worse. We get fossil of the year awards at international conferences. We now rank in the top 10 of world emitters, but we have only 0.5% of the world's population.

Most Canadians know this and they're not happy. Polls consistently show that a clear majority of people we represent want action and solid targets like those in this bill. But there are also important business reasons for moving right away.

Speaking at the World Business Summit on Climate Change this May, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called climate change “the defining challenge of our time”. He told the world's business leaders that if we tackle climate change early and effectively, we could look forward to “sustained growth and prosperity”. If we don't, “we face catastrophic damage to people, to the planet--and to the global marketplace”.

He's right. Taking action now makes good business sense, because we know that the cost of delaying will be much more in the future.

Jim Rogers is the CEO of Duke Energy in the United States. His company has one of the largest carbon footprints in North America. He has called for the same targets as are in this bill. In fact, he's expanding his business while implementing these same targets in his own company. He said that “the probability that we'll get good solutions to climate change--solutions that benefit both the planet and industry--is higher if we face the problem now”, and if you're constantly trying to define the problem or dispute it, “it gets increasingly difficult and costly to develop a good solution”.

Former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern has become even more concerned about our collective economic future since his famous Stern Review. He recently noted that climate change effects are occurring faster than predicted, and he re-emphasized that strong early action on climate change far outweighs the costs. He has clearly stated that the economic costs of inaction will be far greater than the more modest costs of achieving targeted reductions.

The climate crisis is also an economic opportunity. C.D. Howe represented my riding years ago. During World War II, he transformed the Canadian economy from Depression to one making armaments and ammunition in months. It resulted in the greatest economic expansion in the history of Canada.

It seems to me that we again face a crisis worthy of the most promising stimulus for our limping economy. It has to be done right here at home. No one is going to put your house on a boat to China to get insulated. Solar panels mean guys with hammers on our roofs. Carbon sequestration means implementing it right here.

It also makes sense from a competitiveness standpoint. Setting out a path to spark green solutions now is more profitable than spending more later to try to catch up with our foreign competitors. Most of them are already pulling ahead of us. We cannot lose any more time.

We certainly can't lose more time if we're to have credibility when we go to Copenhagen for global climate change treaty negotiations this December. Some have said that we should wait even more than we have already, until Copenhagen is actually signed. Others have said we shouldn't do anything until China, and India, and other developing countries adopt similar targets. Still others say we can't do anything until the U.S. does.

None of this is leadership. We have already waited too long. We don't need Washington to write our climate change targets for us. If we don't step up and adopt our own firm targets, how can we have any credibility to ask other developing countries to do the same?

This act will help to re-establish our credibility at the bargaining tables and, just as important, increase the chances of persuading major developing countries to take on commitments too.

We only have six months left before Copenhagen. We must work across party lines, in a non-partisan way, to pass this bill through Parliament in time.

I look forward to working with you individually and collectively to make sure this important bill gets passed as quickly as possible.

Thank you very much.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, or as it is known, the climate change accountability act.

This is issue is very important to me as a Nova Scotian, as a Canadian and as a citizen of the world. A desire to see meaningful action on climate change is one of the reasons I decided to run for election, and it is one of the reasons I decided to run for the New Democratic Party, the party that first raised this issue in the House over 20 years ago.

That spirited advocacy on behalf of our planet continues today with the bill. I am pleased to see the bill returning to the House, after the endurance test that it faced in the last Parliament.

In my work with the Halifax Ecology Action Centre, we watched from a distance as Conservative filibustering at committee kept the first version, Bill C-377, in limbo, from December 11, 2007 to April 28, 2008. When that bill finally passed, I joined with thousands of other Canadians to celebrate in this world first, a victory for climate change and for Canada.

Bill C-311 would mandate the government to live up to Canada's obligations under international climate change agreements. These agreements are not merely suggestions, and governments are expected to have policies in place to bring them into compliance.

While the failures of governments for the last 15 years to deal with climate change are well documented, it must not be used as an excuse to do the minimum when faced with a crisis of this magnitude.

At this point in our nation's history, we are past the debate about whether climate change is real. We are past the debate about what causes it. We are nearly past the point of debate about how we should address it. There is consensus among the world's leading scientists, environmentalists and ordinary Canadians. We know we need targets for reducing greenhouse gases. We know those targets need to be science based and enforced by binding caps. We also know these measures need to be organized through a national emission trading regime.

The government has failed to act on each of these areas, but I am happy to say the bill would provide some real direction on climate change policy in Canada. The reduction targets in the bill are specified for the short, medium and long term, but with built in flexibility to adjust over time. Most important, as others have pointed out during the course of this debate, the bill would introduce legal certainty, as well as government accountability, something we have heard the government aspire to on so many occasions.

With targets set into law, Canada can finally make progress on an international obligation and our already germinating green economy can flourish and bloom.

Our country is filled with great minds who have already been tackling the climate change issue with innovative solutions, many of which I have had the opportunity to see first-hand in Nova Scotia. Industry recognizes that it must adapt or it will vanish, and it is taking steps to get where it should be. All it lacks is a partner in the federal government and some certainty that emission regulations will be predictable and stable.

The climate change accountability act does just that. It sets out these regulations in five year increments until 2050. It is legislation that is the first of its kind in our country and it deserves the support of the House.

Opposition to the bill from the government side has unfortunately relied on that tired argument that we can choose either the environment or the economy, but not both. Previous governments have been trying that one for quite some time and the result is a world that is even closer to catastrophic climate change and an economy that are both in shambles.

Now is the time when we should be taking stock of where we have been and where we want to go. Our twin crises, economic and environmental, can both be addressed with smart public policy that measures sustainability and prosperity with the same yardstick.

Therefore, why the same rhetoric about the economic cost of a bill that would finally take on climate change? There is really no excuse. The economic costs are significantly greater if we do not act now. For every moment that we waste, the greater cost will pass on to our children and our neighbours' children.

It calls to mind a novelty mug that my partner was given as a gift. It has this map of the world on it. When hot water is added, the shorelines change based on rising sea levels, thanks to a warming earth. Suddenly, Brazil is gone. It is bye-bye Bangladesh and so long Indonesia. By the time my tea is cold enough to drink, Nova Scotia has all but disappeared. This mug can get a chuckle out of our guests, but the sad fact is it is an accurate description of what we can expect to happen if emissions are allowed to grow unchecked. It is not a joke. We are only a few years away from a projected 2° temperature rise, after which we may be too late to halt some of the worst effects of the crisis.

In a column in the Halifax ChronicleHerald, Professor Sheila Zurbrigg describes the realities in much more compelling terms. I will quote from her article. She says:

The ultimate irony is that those least responsible for global warming will bear by far the most catastrophic consequences. Most [greenhouse gas] emissions (over 80 per cent) added to the atmosphere are ours, not theirs, and continue to come from the rich industrialized countries.

Yet the gravest outcomes the IPCC scientists warn about are to a considerable extent preventable. The necessary technology and energy-efficiency methods already exist that would allow us to make major GHG reductions right away. But only if we act immediately, intelligently, and together.

Professor Zurbrigg is a medical historian whose area of expertise is the history of famines. The last time she and I spoke, we talked about climate change. She looked me in the eye with such fear in her eyes. She said that a 2° increase would mean widespread, devastating famines unlike we had ever seen in the course of human history. She told me that we needed to act now or we would be unable the world's citizens.

Another signal that the time is right for this bill is the change of administration in the United States. The new President was elected, in part, because of his dramatically different vision for environmental policy. This shift represents a unique opportunity for Canada to act in concert with our largest trading partner.

I acknowledge my hon. colleague from Wetaskiwin who earlier commented about our partnership with the United States. Let us go further. While some states and provinces have gone forward with emission trading markets between themselves, Canada as a country has not acted to promote this sector. It is just one of the ways the bill could help steer our country in the right direction.

We must, as parliamentarians, as Canadians and as global citizens, support the bill. We need to be visionary, bold and innovative and we must act now before it is too late.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by summarizing the key elements of Bill C-311, then I will outline the reasons why the government opposes the bill.

Bill C-311 is clearly both bad law and bad policy. Its implementation would have significant negative implications on the Canadian economy, impose unrealistic and impractical timelines, and may in fact be unconstitutional.

Bill C-311 would create an obligation on the Government of Canada to ensure Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 25% below the 1990 level by 2020 and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.

The bill would also oblige the Minister of the Environment to establish an emissions target plan for every five year period from 2015 to 2045, and to put in place regulations and other actions to ensure that these targets are achieved.

The bill calls on the government to have regulations in place as early as December of this year designed to meet the 2015 target. Members of the House who are familiar with the regulatory process know the problems associated with that unrealistic timeframe.

Quite simply, this is completely unrealistic and shows that the NDP is more interested in political grandstanding than in finding real solutions to deal with the fight against climate change.

Unlike the party opposite, our government has been clear on the need to strike a balance between environmental and economic progress. Our approach to addressing climate change will achieve that balance.

We are committed to stopping the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and then dramatically reducing them. We established a national target of an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, relative to 2006 levels, by 2020. By 2050 Canada's emissions will be 60% to 70% below 2006 levels. The government has also established a target that by 2020, 90% of our electricity will come from non-emitting sources. These are the toughest targets in Canadian history and some of the toughest targets in the world.

At the same time we are helping Canadians reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through programs such as the ecoEnergy for renewable power program, the trust fund for clean air and climate change, and supporting investment into research, development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large scale projects like carbon capture and storage. In fact, we are one of the world leaders on that technology.

Bill C-311 on the other hand does not endeavour to strike such a balance. When an identical bill, Bill C-377, was introduced in the last Parliament by the leader of the NDP, he admitted that he had made no attempt to calculate how much economic damage his bill would do to the Canadian economy. In fact, he called his bill the impossible dream.

Further, the massive costs would also have to be borne at a time when Canada's economy is under severe pressure as a result of the global economic downturn. Bill C-311 would impose a massive new burden on industries that are already facing very difficult and serious times.

It is clear that the NDP do not believe it is necessary to consider changing course slightly, despite the economic realities that we face. The NDP has learned nothing from its power in Ontario under the leadership of the member for Toronto Centre where the NDP policies led to record high levels of debt and unemployment.

Our assessment of Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation act, an act with requirements that are quite similar to those in Bill C-311, suggest that an attempt to meet our Kyoto targets within the 2008 to 2012 period would result in a drop in GDP of 4%.

Given that the proposed 2020 target under Bill C-311 is significantly deeper than under the Kyoto protocol, of 25% below 1990 levels as opposed to the 6% below 1990 levels under the Kyoto protocol, the conclusion of massive, negative economic impacts reached under the KPIA analysis would also apply to Bill C-311.

Bill C-311 creates an economic uncertainty by suggesting that Canada should maintain a domestic policy and an international policy negotiating position based on the UNFCCC ultimate objectives immediately after royal assent of the bill.

There is uncertainty around the UNFCCC's ultimate objectives and the bill does not define what a responsible Canadian contribution is or indicate how it can be determined.

Bill C-311 compounds this uncertainty by asking Canada to take a radically different approach to climate change than our most important economic partner.

Do the sponsors of the bill really believe we can turn our back on the possibility of a coherent, co-operative North American climate change strategy in partnership with the President Obama administration? I think not.

The government must be able to fully represent Canada's economic interests and unique circumstances in international negotiations, including with the administration of President Obama.

I would now like to bring to the attention of the House the serious concerns we have over the constitutional aspects of the bill. Last year in discussion on Bill C-377, the predecessor of Bill C-311, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard testimony by respected lawyers as to their concern over the constitutionality of clauses that remain in Bill C-311. The primary concern remains whether the bill's authorities are soundly based on the peace, order and good government head of power.

Joseph Castrilli, counsel for Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

Peace, order, and good government would appear to be less likely to find favour with the Supreme Court as a basis for upholding the constitutionality of the regulatory limits authority of Bill C-377 under any circumstances because of the potential for major impact on provincial jurisdiction to act in a host of areas.

That remains in Bill C-311.

Mr. Castrilli went on to say that the bill was also unlikely to be upheld under the federal government's authority over criminal law because the law was not specific about the characteristics of the regimes contemplated or the actual substances to be addressed leaving this detail to the regulations.

Amendments of the bill were passed in the House of Commons to specify which substances the bill would consider, but there is much doubt as to whether these amendments were sufficient to address Mr. Castrilli's concerns, particularly against jurisdiction of the provinces.

Peter Hogg, professor emeritus and former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School of York University stated in his testimony that the bill would not be upheld under the federal government's peace order and good government authority or its jurisdiction under criminal law.

With respect to peace, order and government, Professor Hogg expressed concern over the lack of direction provided by the bill to the Governor-in-Council with respect to its regulation making power. Professor Hogg indicated the regulation making authority of the bill, as first introduced, was so broad as to potentially reach into every area of Canadian economic and social life.

I would like to reiterate the Government of Canada's opposition to Bill C-311.

We are working diligently to promote domestic, continental and international action to ensure lasting greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Our approach is a balanced approach, an approach that will see Canada's greenhouse gases decline, while protecting our economy and the standard of living of the Canadian people. Our plan includes billions of dollars for technology, technology like carbon capture and storage, working with the United States, and the world is counting on us to work together. We are doing that through the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and our Prime Minister.

Therefore, I encourage the member to remove the bill or vote against his own bill because the bill will take us in a direction that would be bad for Canada, it would be bad for Canadian jobs and it would be bad for the environment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Speaking to the non-motion of Mr. Bigras, between now and the break in June we have approximately 22 meetings. In those 22 meetings we're going to be dealing with the species at risk review--the legislative requirement. We're going to be dealing with the main estimates and inviting the minister to attend. We're likely going to be dealing with environmental enforcement. We're likely going to be dealing with Bill C-377, a private member's bill that has been reintroduced--the impossible dream of Mr. Layton--and re-titled Bill C-311. Carbon capture and storage is a huge part of the government's plan. We should be reviewing that. And there are a number of other recommendations from committee members: biodiversity, CEPA enforcement....

It's a lot of work that this committee is going to undertake in a very short period of time. We have to be very careful with the 22 meetings we have. That's why it's important that the steering committee provide some guidance. We'll be doing that on Monday.

Specifically to the non-motion from Mr. Bigras, I think at this time we should plan on one meeting and not two. The norm is one meeting. If we deem, as a committee, that we should have additional meetings, we could make that decision. But at this time I think we should be considering one meeting.

Motions in Amendment

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in what appears to be the final round of debate on Bill C-474, the National Sustainable Development Act.

This bill was introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley West. I want to add my best wishes to him as he leaves this place and goes on to new challenges. It is great that he is able to leave the House of Commons on this note, where there is all party agreement to support this important piece of legislation. It is a good way to end his career in the House of Commons.

I want to make it clear that New Democrats support this legislation. We supported the decision only minutes ago to ensure that the bill gets to the Senate after the finish of the debate today. It is very important to move this bill forward.

When we talk about sustainable development, I cannot hear that term without thinking of a friend and colleague, a former member of the B.C. legislative assembly, the former member for Burnaby-Willingdon and the former B.C. environment minister, Joan Sawicki.

Joan Sawicki is someone who has a clear vision of sustainable development for Canada. She has worked tirelessly and continually to educate Canadians and political leaders on the importance of inventing the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection in all we do as governments and as a society. I want to thank Joan Sawicki for raising my consciousness on this issue and for helping get this kind of commitment on the political agenda here in Canada.

I also want to note that the bill before us today is very similar to Bill C-437, which was tabled by my NDP colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster back on May 1, 2007. It seems that one way or another this legislation was going to be before the House. That shows the importance of it and the dedication from all corners of the House to see this dealt with.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster acted quickly on the suggestions of the Suzuki Foundation when they were originally put forward. He also engaged a process of community consultation with the people of Burnaby and New Westminster before tabling his version of the bill. I know that he had looked forward to the opportunity to have that legislation discussed in the House, but as I said, we are pleased that the member for Don Valley West, who had a higher priority on the private members' list, was able to get it before the House and through the process and before us today.

At the time that my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster tabled his legislation, which is very similar to this bill, he noted that Canada was 28th of 30 countries in terms of environmental performance and that we were the eighth largest producer of carbon dioxide. That was a record that needed to be addressed. This legislation will go some way to dealing with some of those issues.

The legislation before us was developed by the Suzuki Foundation as part of its report, “Sustainability within a Generation”. In that report it noted that the countries that are ranked highest in the OECD in terms of progress on environmental issues have sustainable development strategies in place. Canada was one of the countries that did not have such a strategy in place, along with Belgium, Spain and the United States.

Canada has committed to such a strategy at many international forums, including the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the 1997 Earth Summit+5 in New York, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. Finally, we are debating legislation that would ensure that this issue remains planted firmly on the agenda of our government here in Canada.

Sadly, over the years, Canada missed the mark on some of the key best practices with regard to sustainable development, best practices such as comprehensive goals and targets. Canada was often criticized for having fragmented goals across many sectors. On the other hand, Sweden had 16 legislated environmental quality objectives and 71 measurable targets with short, medium and long term timelines. It is a very different way of looking at the idea of comprehensive goals and targets.

Another key best practice is progressive monitoring and reporting. Canada has some monitoring, but it is not linked to targets specifically. There is no benchmarking of Canada's performance relative to that of other countries. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, monitors 68 environmental indicators and assesses them against quantifiable goals.

Another best practice was environmental governance and leadership. Before the legislation came forward, Canada had no single integrated strategy and no overall government leadership and coordination on the environment.

Other countries, like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom all have central agencies and high level prime minister's office and cabinet committees that coordinate environmental development and implementation of environmental policy.

It is clear that there was lots of room for improvement, lots of room for Canada to catch up with countries to which we often look for ideas, for commitments and to whose standards we hold ourselves, so this legislation is very important in that regard.

In this corner of the House, New Democrats believe that a sustainable development strategy is a complex of important measures. It is like a three-legged stool that needs a number of measures to be successful.

We believe that a cap and trade system is very important to a sustainable development strategy. We believe that institutional changes to implement cap and trade and to promote and enforce the culture of sustainable development in government is also a key component

We also believe that selective green fiscal measures that would cover specific measures is also very important. That is why we are pleased that today we are dealing with one aspect of that which is a crucial piece of an overall sustainable development strategy and will lead us in the right direction.

It is very clear that we must integrate a commitment to sustainable development into all the work of government. It is hard to believe that anyone who reflects on the current situation of our planet would deny the importance of taking this step. I am glad that there is unanimity here in the House on this issue.

My colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster put it this way when he tabled his version of this bill. He said:

It is time that sustainable development be a front-running issue for every ministry and become a part of our political culture.

We believe Bill C-474 would do just that.

We also believe that Bill C-474 complements, in a very positive way, Bill C-377, the Climate Change Accountability Act put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth and the leader of the New Democratic Party.

That bill provides scientifically based medium and long term targets for Canada to avoid dangerous levels of climate change. It identifies specifically the necessary steps to avoid the 2° threshold for catastrophic climate change. The destination of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 and regular benchmarks are identified in the bill of the member for Toronto—Danforth, which has passed the House and hopefully will be considered by the Senate in short order.

This bill, we believe, complements that well because it provides a legal framework for preparing and implementing a national sustainable development strategy that aims at integrating through institutional changes, through comprehensive sustainability goals and measurable targets to achieve sustainable development here in Canada.

We believe this is a very important measure to be taking to complement other measures already taken by the House and passed here in this place.

This is a very important achievement of Parliament. I again thank the member for Don Valley West and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who have shown great leadership in taking the work of the Suzuki Foundation and ensuring it reached the floor of the House of Commons.

It is important to note that all parties have ensured the passage of this legislation today. Taking this step toward establishing in law a national sustainable development strategy for Canada is crucial and important and is work that we can all be proud of here today.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[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 third time and passed.

[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 concurred in.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know it is highly unusual, but I think if you were to seek it, and with the approval of the sponsor of this legislation, you might find unanimous consent from the members in the chamber to apply the results of the vote just taken to the next three amendments and the concurrence motion on Bill C-377.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 3, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-377 under private members' business.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultations between all the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following two motions concerning upcoming votes. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the deferred recorded divisions on second reading of Bill C-393, on report stage amendments, concurrence and third reading of Bill C-377, and on second reading of Bill C-490, currently scheduled to be held immediately before the time provided for private members' business on June 4, be held instead at 3 p.m. on June 4.

Motions in Amendment

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member as she spoke about what she claimed was propaganda. I have not heard as much propaganda in as short an amount of time as I have heard from her.

Let me tell members about propaganda. She says the government, by stealth, is bringing in Bill C-50. But just before that she said that we were advertising in newspapers some of the changes we want to bring in. How could we be acting by stealth and advertising in newspapers? I guess that is NDP propaganda.

Also, this member and her party voted against every single budget this government has brought in: budgets that have helped seniors; budgets that have helped homeless people; and budgets that are helping veterans today. She and her party voted against low income Canadians. More than 600,000 low income Canadians have been taken off the federal government tax rolls. Yet, she and her party claim to be for the working class.

Yesterday, we were discussing her leader's bill. I believe it is Bill C-377. People working in the auto industry and people trying to earn a livelihood who work in the auto parts industry in my riding, including the CAW, are fearful of that bill.

We heard from witnesses from that industry at the environment committee who said that bill that her leader is trying to bring in is going to kill their industry, an industry that is already in trouble in our province. It is one of the hugest income generators in our province.

How can she say some of the things she is saying when in some parts of her statements she is arguing against herself? There are words for that, but they are unparliamentary. I would like her to respond.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In three minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-377, standing in the name of the leader of the New Democratic Party. This is a bill that we fought tooth and nail at committee, every step of the way because it is a bad bill for Canada.

It is a very bad bill. We already heard from previous members of our party about how it was not costed. What are the costs? We had a chance to probe that at committee, to ask witnesses. We asked an economist what the cost of it would be. Even in his spotty analysis he predicted there would be dire consequences for certain sectors, among them the auto industry.

What was the proposed solution from the New Democrats? Billions of dollars for some sort of transition fund to create a job, hopefully somewhere down the road. However, they were prepared to put the auto industry out of business right now, moves that Buzz Hargrove himself even said would be suicidal for the economy. It would mean that every car in Canada, except the Impala, could not be produced here. What does that mean for communities like Oshawa, Windsor, Oakville and on and on down the list? That means they are out of jobs; the industry is done here.

The reality is that the NDP members do not care. They can stand in the House and say that they are there for the working family, but they are prepared to put a bill forward that even the economists say is going to pose a real problem for jobs that exist today. There is no plan for the future.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to the debate on Bill C-377 at report stage .

The Conservative Party members on the environment committee, which studied the bill, have some serious concerns about the legality and constitutional status of this bill. I know that the Conservative members were, and are, extremely concerned regarding the lack of any economic analysis or costing of the bill, its constitutional validity and the manner in which the bill was reported back to the House. Bill C-377 is an irresponsible piece of legislation.

What the NDP is proposing would require a 40% reduction in greenhouse emissions from where we are today. Much like the Liberals' hidden carbon tax plan, this simply is not possible without causing massive job losses and huge price increases in electricity, heat and gasoline. The costs that this bill would impose on Canadian families and businesses could be quite considerable. Yet, when he testified at the committee about the bill, the leader of the NDP actually admitted that he had not bothered to find out how much the bill would cost Canadian families in increased gas and energy prices.

One would think for a member who stands in this House almost every day and rails on and on about gas prices, he would have taken the time to step back and get a fair costing of what he was proposing.

Costs alone should not be the only reason to defeat this bill. Earlier, I believe that one of my colleagues addressed comments made by the respected constitutional scholar Peter Hogg at the environment committee in early February. I know he made reference to his comments that this bill would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court. What he did not mention was another comment made by Mr. Hogg. He said, “the constitutional issues are all that I am concerned with, and they are, in my view, enough to defeat the legislation”. Wise words from a wise man. I believe that Mr. Hogg's comments should be heeded by all members of this House.

Unfortunately, all the NDP members care about is passing feel good pieces of legislation that will not accomplish what they want them to accomplish.

It is not just the cost and the constitutionality of the bill that are in question, but it is also the issue of regulatory targets. I think we all agree in this House that regulatory targets like those being proposed in Bill C-377 should be evaluated carefully and logically. For example, we all know that the previous Liberal government set arbitrary targets on greenhouse gas emissions at Kyoto under pressure from former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and then stood back and did nothing for 10 long years.

That brings me to a comment made by a witness at the environment committee earlier this spring.

Andre Turmel from the Canadian Bar Association appeared as a witness. One of the things that he said which I found most interesting is that targets “should be linked to and coherent with targets set out in existing international law.... The targets in Bill C-377 are not”. That is a very interesting comment. The targets in Bill C-377 are incoherent with those set out in international law.

Either the NDP research bureau did not bother doing any homework or the NDP leader is more interested in scoring political points than fighting climate change. In either case, this is not responsible behaviour.

In conclusion, the question that this House is facing today with this bill is: Should we set climate change objectives that we know from the very beginning make little or no sense; objectives that would be impossible to meet without considerably disrupting the Canadian economy? Or should we set realistic and achievable targets that would strengthen Canada's long term competitiveness; targets that would still represent significant and positive progress in the fight to reduce harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions?

I know that the Conservative members agree with the latter position. That is why we cannot support this bill. Quite frankly, this bill is comparable to a foot on the throat of the automotive industry. Thousands of jobs in my area, in the area surrounding the Durham region, Northumberland and Peterborough, are reliant upon a healthy and vibrant automotive industry, yet we have seen some job losses. We have seen two shifts laid off at the General Motors truck plant.

This legislation will just add to the problems of the automotive industry, an automotive industry that the NDP claims to support and yet at that committee, I am told that the automotive industry said that this will be tantamount to almost obliterating automotive plants and parts assembly plants across the province and the country. That is unacceptable. That is why we will not support the bill.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-377, which ensures that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing climate change. This bill is even more important because it does not put a partisan spin on this issue, an issue that is probably the greatest challenge of the 21st century. Canadians expect us to be above partisan games.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was very honoured that you asked me to replace you for a few minutes. I had the opportunity, while sitting in the green chair, to look at things from a different perspective. I spent a few minutes thinking about how important it would be for the government to show true leadership on this issue that is so important for the future.

I recently attended a conference in Victoria.

The conference, called “Gaining Ground”, was held in Victoria during the break week. There were people gathered from all over B.C. and indeed from all over Canada and even from the United States. There were students, scientists, economists, and business people.

The students, the young people, said, “Do not mortgage our future”. The economists were saying, “Do not treat environmental impacts as externalities, as we have been doing and as we continue to do”.

Business leaders are far ahead of where we are at the moment. There were builders there who talked about the incredible impact that we could have by simply having some leadership at the level of changing the rules around construction in Canada and beginning to build green buildings, green homes, the kinds of green economy jobs that we could be creating, but that has not happened yet.

This bill would allow us to work together to build consensus. This bill is really science-based and I would like to go back to that. However, I want to talk a little about the consensus that I think the New Democrats have tried to build on during this Parliament, given how strongly we feel about this issue and how important we believe it is.

There was the Liberal Bill C-288, the Kyoto bill, and we agreed to work with the Liberals to bring that bill through committee to the House and to pass it. It was the same thing with Bill C-30, the Conservatives' climate change bill, which in its initial stages would have done very little to mitigate climate changes, but we proposed that all parties bring their best ideas and work together in consensus at committee.

We did that and there were some great ideas that came from all parties and this bill remains at third reading. The government has refused to bring it to the House for a vote and that simply goes against what Canadians expect of us. They want real change.

As everyone tries to understand the shifts that are required to achieve a more sustainable future, they are discouraged by the lack of action by successive governments. We know that biophysical and social changes can reach a tipping point, beyond which there is potentially irreparable change.

My colleague from Western Arctic spoke about his visit recently to Greenland and observed with scientists the way glaciers are receding. I had the fortunate experience to do the same thing on the other coast. I had the opportunity to visit Prince William Sound and the glacier called Nellie Juan. The people who were with us, who had been living in that area for some 30 years, showed us the way the ice was receding. There were beginnings of growth of vegetation where the ice had stood for centuries.

That is our children's future and our grandchildren's future that we are looking at. This is why I take this issue so seriously, as I think do all Canadians. The reason this bill is so exciting is it sets firmly into law the responsibility Canada must assume to prevent the tipping point that I mentioned.

Setting targets into law is key. Before I ran for election I remember having a conversation with the former minister of the environment. He was discouraged by the lack of action and the lack of commitment of his own government to move forward on climate change after accepting the Kyoto agreement.

I got the impression that the reason he felt there was a lack of commitment was that the discussions always occurred behind closed does in cabinet and there was no formal legislation requiring government to take action. It was always discussions behind closed doors and power plays that prevented any real decisions to take action. This piece of legislation would change that process.

Scientists tell us there is a consensus that an increase of 2° in the world's surface temperature from pre-industrial levels would constitute dangerous climate change and trigger global scale impacts and feedback loops from which it is difficult to imagine coming back.

Dr. Andrew Weaver, a leading scientist, Nobel prize winner, a professor at the University of Victoria, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, spoke to the committee. Here is what he said:

What I can say is that any stabilization of greenhouse gases at any level requires global emissions to go to zero.

I had to reread that because it is difficult to imagine how we can get there. Dr. Weaver is one of the leading world experts and certainly is a well-respected Canadian scientist. He said:

There is no other option. To stabilize the level of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere at any concentration that is relevant to human existence on the planet, we must go to zero emissions.

Hence the importance of this bill, because it will set into law the targets and the timelines that science tells us we must meet if we want to stop irreversible damage: medium targets of 25% below 1990 levels and long term targets of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Conservatives have set a new starting date and we know from all the comments we have heard that their targets simply do not get the job done as they would like to tell us they do. Science tells us that if we follow the government's plan we are going to--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The member is absolutely right: it was a shame on Canada internationally.

Our government believes in being honest with Canadians as well as our international partners. That is why we introduced the “Turning the Corner” plan, an environmental action plan that not only is realistic and achievable but will maintain Canada's economic competitiveness. We need greenhouse gas targets that are technically achievable and at an acceptable cost. That is what is found in the government's turning the corner action plan. Unlike Bill C-377, which was not costed, our plan was costed.

Before setting any targets, we need to know the economic impacts. As I mentioned, Bill C-377 has not been costed by the NDP despite repeated calls for that analysis to be undertaken. What is the NDP trying to hide from Canadians?

Does the NDP not believe that Canadians have the right to know what the bill, if adopted, would mean to the Canadian economy? Do Canadians not have the right to know what sectors of the economy will be impacted by the legislation and how badly they will be impacted?

Does the NDP not believe that Canadians have the right to know whose jobs will be lost as a result of the bill? Yes, Canadians do have that right. Do Canadians not have a right to know the price of gasoline if Bill C-377 were to go forward? As we have heard, we are looking at another $1.50 a litre on top of what Canadians are paying now.

I want to read for members what the former commissioner of the environment said in critiquing the former Liberal government:

We expected that the federal Liberal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998...we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the [former Liberal] government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

That is exactly what the NDP is attempting to do here.

Every witness group that was heard at the environment committee, including the leader of the NDP, said the bill should be costed, yet the NDP is moving forward without it being costed, I believe because they are ashamed of the costs for jobs and to heat our homes and the cost of energy. When we include that with what the Liberals are proposing with their carbon tax, we can imagine what would happen to the cost of energy in Canada. I would like to contrast the NDP plan and its approach with that taken by the government.

In setting our greenhouse gas targets, the Government of Canada is not only looking at targets but it is looking at the best way to achieve them. The government is taking into account what impact those targets would have on all sectors of the economy, for every sector will be expected to do its part in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Any discussion about Bill C-377 has to be taken in relation to the so-called plan issued yesterday on carbon pricing by the leader of the NDP. Actually, it was nothing more than another one of those empty NDP media events.

I have to ask my friends in the NDP: Where have they been for the last two years?

Instead of talking about putting a price on carbon, our government has already shown leadership on the environment and delivered a balanced solution to tackle climate change with our “Turning the Corner” environmental plan, which includes, for the first time in Canadian history, a price on carbon.

As members know, our “Turning the Corner” plan to cut Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by an absolute 20% by 2020 will see the market set a price on carbon starting at around $25 a tonne and rising to $65 a tonne. That plan can be seen online.

In addition, our government's plan has brought certainty to the carbon market, and that is important. The Montreal Exchange has said that our March “Turning the Corner” announcement has given it the green light to start trading as early as tomorrow, May 30.

The NDP leader actually bragged yesterday that the NDP raised the issue of climate change back in 1983, yet greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed since then. I guess he has actually been celebrating 25 years of NDP failure on the environment. The fact is if we look at the track record of the NDP, it has been an absolute failure on the environment. Those members have done absolutely nothing. Ultimately, that is the problem with the NDP. Those members can talk all they want, but the fact is they have never actually done anything to protect the environment.

The fact is while the opposition parties squabble and try to make themselves look the greenest, the Prime Minister is showing real leadership this week on the world stage by meeting with international leaders from across Europe and around the world. The Prime Minister is demonstrating that Canada is taking real action in the fight against climate change, both here at home and abroad. We received an award yesterday from the United Nations on our accomplishments on biodiversity. That is the kind of leadership that Canadians can count on with this government to deliver every day.

I could go on and on about other issues, such as the fact that the opposition tried to completely rewrite Bill C-377. As I said at the beginning, it could not even be completed and had to be sent back here unamended completely.

There are serious legal issues over Bill C-377 that should be of concern to Canadians. Peter Hogg, a respected constitutional scholar, told the committee that:

Such regulations could reach into every area of Canadian economic (and even social) life...Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime—and should be a matter of grave political concern--

He went on to say:

If Parliament were to enact the Bill, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Another structural deficiency in the bill is the proposed penalties and fines. Bill C-377 includes only a very rudimentary set of offences and penalties, neither complemented by a statutory enforcement regime. That is why this government is proceeding instead with mandatory regulations under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which contains a strong penalty regime for polluters. Unlike the opposition, this party and this government will not play partisan politics with the environment.

We will continue to oppose Bill C-377 and continue to move forward with the implementation of our “Turning the Corner” action plan, an environmental plan that will finally result in a clear reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution for the benefit of Canadians and the international community, both for this generation and for coming generations. We care about the environment. We are getting the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-377, the NDP's so-called climate change bill. It is actually a very poorly written bill and is the first bill I have seen in years that did not make it through committee.

During the report stage of Bill C-377, we were reminded of the 13 long, dark years of Liberal neglect on the environment, a time when emissions continued to rise every year and the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the environment. Those were dark years.

We also heard again and again about the NDP's dismal record on the environment, and how they say they care about the environment through carefully crafted media announcements, yet regularly vote against cleaning up and protecting the environment. The fact is that the NDP has been an absolute failure when it comes to the environment.

The previous Liberal government, with much fanfare, committed Canada to a formal target under the Kyoto protocol, but as we later discovered through comments from the former Liberal environment ministers and a senior Liberal adviser, the previous Liberal government had no plan and no intention of ever achieving the ambitious targets set out by the Kyoto protocol agreement.

The end result was 33% above the commitment that Canada made under the previous Liberal government.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to Bill C-377, a bill that would help Canada and would make Canada assume its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change gas emissions.

Over the last day and a half, I had the opportunity to travel to Greenland on the issue of northern sovereignty. While I was there with the Minister of Natural Resources, I had the opportunity to travel to the Greenland ice cap, which is an amazing place. It is a huge expanse of ice that has been in place for hundreds of thousands of years. There is an enormous volume of moisture tied up in the ice cap, but it is quite clearly under severe strain right now.

The scientists we met with on the ice cap talked to us about the conditions they are seeing within this massive and seemingly eternal landscape of ice that is thousands of metres thick and is covering a whole continent. However, right now it is moving. The movement within the ice is accelerating.

The rate of loss of the ice cap is accelerating as well. It accelerated over the past decade to a point where it had between 250 and 300 cubic kilometres of ice loss each year. Last season, it achieved 500 cubic kilometres of ice loss. That is a massive increase.

Any discussion of northern sovereignty, of course, links to climate change. We had the opportunity to hear presentations on climate change from very respected climatologists in large research institutions. They said that the situation right now with the Arctic ice is likely to mean that if we have another warm summer this year, they will be able to sail a boat across the North Pole, from Norway through to Russia.

That is an extraordinary statement. It may not come to pass. We may have a cooler summer. However, the direction that our climate is taking is extremely disturbing. We must recognize that. As Canadians, we have a tremendous responsibility to lead ourselves and the rest of the world toward solutions, toward mitigation as well as reducing our impact.

This bill sets out the kinds of goals that are required to achieve what the scientists have said is a sufficient reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the world by 2050. Setting out the goals for Canada to achieve those things is extremely important. It is part of what we have to do here.

I am dedicated to this. I will dedicate the rest of my life to working to achieve the kinds of things we have to do in Canada to preserve our life and the chance for our children and grandchildren to continue to prosper. That is certainly a worthwhile goal and I have total faith that this country can do that. It can move ahead in a fashion that can achieve our goals in this way. I do not see why we cannot.

I had an opportunity to talk to the Danes. I like the Danes. The Danish minister of energy said to me last year that if we want to accomplish something on climate change and energy, we need to build a non-political consensus within our Parliament of the directions we have to take. That is so important.

The relentless sniping over climate change that we have seen in this last two years really does not accomplish all that much. However, we did accomplish one thing on climate change already. When we sent the clean air act to a special committee, we got a majority in Parliament to agree on the directions we should take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We got a majority in Parliament to agree to the mechanisms that we should use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What I heard from the members of the other party who did not quite agree with us at the time is that they were pretty well on side with most of those mechanisms anyhow. We said in the clean air act that we wanted to put a cap on emissions, put a price on carbon, and create a massive retrofit program for this country so the first step we would take would be to reduce people's use of energy. We would see rapid and substantial decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. We would have a mechanism to fund this and these things would come to pass.

We did that work. The bill is sitting there, waiting to come back to Parliament, waiting to spring into life and to provide that direction to this country. We have done that work and we need to see that kind of plan in place.

Sometimes we find that other parties change in regard to that. They start to talk about other ideas like they are picking fruit from a tree. Here is a different fruit, they say, let us try that one. What really is required is a consensus on action. We worked on that for a long time.

I would say to the Liberal Party members that they should remember what they worked on in this Parliament. They should remember the effort they put into this, the good ideas they put forward and that we supported, and the good ideas that they have accepted from us. When they move forward with anything on this issue, they should remember that.

We need consensus and we need to build from consensus in the government and in this country to accomplish these rather difficult paths that we have ahead of us. However, if we accomplish them, we will do a major and wonderful thing for the world, for our own society and for our children and grandchildren.

Bill C-377 is setting out the goals. It is giving us a framework with which to analyze the goals and make sure that we are on track. It is a planning document of the first order. It is an opportunity to layer in the mechanisms, to understand how they work and to ensure they are meeting the targets as we move along.

Why would we not have a process like this, a process that will take the politics out of it and will mean that we can move ahead very carefully?

I appreciate your gesture, Mr. Speaker. As always in the House, the work that the Speakers do to keep us on track is great. I also appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that you shared that green chair with one of my colleagues, who I am sure will always relish the memory of that opportunity.

To get back to the subject at hand, how can we continue to work on this together? We can continue by passing this legislation. The bill is a planning document. It allows us all to agree on the process that we will follow. It is a document that gives us the flexibility to look at how we are making decisions and to ensure that those decisions are moving us in the right direction. By its nature, it is a non-partisan document.

If we all support this, we can move ahead. We can make a difference in this country. We can make this Parliament sing a different tune. We can say, “Here is the reality of what we are dealing with in this world and in this country, so let us make it work together”. Let us make a better place for all of us. Let us put aside the politics on this particular issue for a second, a day, a week, a month, a year, and let us move ahead with this for the good of Canadians.

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-377, which relates to climate change. As you know, my party, the Bloc Québécois, has been one of the strongest proponents of the Kyoto protocol since it was signed in 1997. It is the only party that has consistently called on the federal government to come up with a plan that meets the climate change targets.

I come from a region of wide open spaces, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, where the environmental problems of air pollution are less visible than smog is in a densely populated city. However, I wanted to take part in this debate, because environmental problems are not always visible in our everyday lives, even though they have serious consequences.

The specific consequences of global warming are becoming increasingly tangible, and we must take urgent action before we reach the point of no return. Every day brings more information about the serious long-term risks and the implications for future generations. People in my riding, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, and throughout Quebec and Canada are concerned about the effects of global warming.

The long-term implications are so obvious that paragraph 5(a) of the bill sets out a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level 80% below the 1990 level. This reduction of greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity in Quebec and Canada would have to be made by 2050. By 2020, one quarter of emissions would have to be literally eliminated.

These targets, which were included in Bill C-377 in accordance with the opinion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, finally give weight to Canada's commitment. The government, which in recent years has unfortunately abandoned its role as an environmental leader, will be able to restore its image.

This bill also proposes that a report be made to the House of Commons on progress in the fight against climate change. Bill C-377 provides for five-year interim plans and annual reports. These requirements, set out in clauses 6 and 10, create accountability for targets and results. Moreover, they provide a way of clearly informing the public about developments.

That is the way to make a serious plan for public policy implementation. Neither the previous government nor the current one had these elements in place to bring in concrete actions in response to the commitments made. When we sign a protocol, we must honour our word.

The government must learn from its mistakes in failing to adhere to phase I of the Kyoto protocol. The two target-oriented measures make this bill a credible plan. The Bloc Québécois has supported the member for Toronto—Danforth's initiative since first reading. Now, following debates in committee and the resulting proposed amendments, we support Bill C-377.

It goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois played a positive, active role in the committee in order to improve certain provisions in the bill. The main issues were the measurements and the application of the plan. I shall explain.

The concept of equity is integral to the Kyoto protocol: equity between developing and industrialized countries, as well as equity between Quebec and the other provinces.

In the past, Quebeckers invested in hydroelectric resources and the results of that are clear: lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Here is an example that speaks volumes: my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, is a major aluminum producer. Aluminum is a primary metal, and the industry is an economic engine that has undergone restructuring several times in the past 20 years. Companies have invested a lot in research and development. They doubled their aluminum production between 1990 and 2005: 1.3 million tonnes in 1990 and twice that in 2005. One might think that emissions doubled as well. But they did not. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 500,000 tonnes. As a result, in 2006, emissions were 15% lower.

Aluminum producers in Quebec did not stop there. In June 2007, together with the Government of Quebec, they committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 150,000 tonnes between 2008 and 2011.

The Bloc Québécois has consistently asked that a territorial approach be included in any plan to address global warming. This has been an important objective for the Bloc Québécois and it is now included the amendments proposed in clause 7:

—each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Thus, every effort will be based on specific targets with the objective of:

—limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province the commitment made under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6—

In short, each province will be able to enforce measures appropriate to its industries. We believe that all the amendments fit perfectly into the spirit of Bill C-377 while also taking the international context into account. It will be possible to adjust targets, based on future negotiations carried out in the context of the United Nations convention on climate change.

The Bloc Québécois' position has always been clear: rather than continuing its efforts to undermine the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government must take immediate political action—and this is the only responsible action—and adopt a plan with specific targets.

Quebec is already on board with the Kyoto protocol and has implemented measures. The Quebec government's plan has been commended repeatedly around the globe. Of course, there is still room for improvement, but Quebeckers should not have to pay the price for the Conservative government's ideologies.

In closing, I would remind the House that this issue goes beyond partisan politics. It is of great concern to the citizens of my riding and my region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, and is bringing them together. It is gathering support from people of all ages, since it will be at the very heart of the lives of future generations.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-377 in principle and it will be our pleasure to support it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. It is bill brought forward by the leader of the NDP, as a private member's bill. I congratulate the leader for his work and thank him for his continuing contribution to the debate about carbon pricing.

I especially want to thank him for keeping an open mind. I know he came out strongly against the notion of a carbon tax shift at first, but yesterday he came some way back in recognizing that a carbon tax shift would be considered an invaluable tool as we took on the challenge of bringing greenhouse gas emissions back down our country.

Why is a bill like this even necessary? We looked at some questions just last night in the committee of the whole that were directly related to this issue.

I asked the Minister of Finance directly, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale, about the effects of energy prices on the forthcoming government cap and trade plan, its regulatory plan due for October. The minister appeared confused by the question, as he did for that matter for much of the evening. He could not give us an indication that he even knew he had a cap and trade plan. He did not know it would cost Canadians more at the pumps, more for natural gas, more for home heating and more every time they made a purchase, but this is indisputable.

Let me quote directly from the government's “Turning the Corner” plan. At page 14 of the so-called detailed report of the government, which let me assure Canadians is no detail, it says, “Our modelling suggests that Canadians can expect to bear real costs” under the government's plan. It goes on to say, “these costs will be most evident in the form of higher energy prices, particularly with respect to electricity and natural gas”. I am not saying that. That is the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance and the government in their plan.

Here is the real irony. Today we had the Prime Minister in London flogging his plan in Europe. Last night the finance minister could not even answer basic questions about the design of the cap and trade system, for which he is responsible, about the economic analysis that underpins the price of carbon, for which he is responsible. Yet the Prime Minister is out vaunting to the world, in Europe, in London, Rome and Paris, that he has a plan that will take Canada so far in the future. It is quite remarkable. The minister could not even tell us the price of carbon today, much less what he anticipates it to be in the fall.

How can we have 2008-09 budget estimates and projections if the minister does not know what the price of carbon will be and what the distributive effects will be on energy prices in the Canadian economy? The minister could not answer that question. He was not asked once, not twice but four times by two separate members of Parliament.

We have the minister so busy pursuing the politics of fear, racing down around carbon pricing, that he has not bothered to do even his own homework about the plan for which he is responsible for delivering in six short months from now. He even had more difficulty explaining his ecotrust scheme. This is really rich. It is $1.5 billion put into a trust with no strings, no conditions, no verification and no accountability at all.

When we were in government, there was the partnership fund. Under ecotrust, there is no agreement with the provinces. There is no verification. I asked if he could tell how he expected the $1.5 billion to reduce a single tonne of greenhouse gases. Not only was he flustered, he did not even know what I was talking about. He is administering the $1.5 billion fund, not his colleague, the Minister of the Environment. It is really unbelievable that we are trying to reconcile all of this and the Minister of Finance simply does not know what he is doing.

Let us turn back to the provisions of Bill C-377 and the amendments.

Motion No. 1 is simple. It identifies the GHGs we are talking about, as listed in the list of toxins under CEPA. Listing these greenhouse gases was a Liberal government achievement in the last Parliament. Other amendments deal with the roles of the round table on the environment economy and the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I continue to manifest grave concern about the government's unilateral decision to change the reporting structure of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy out of the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's office and seriously weakening its reach and impact by putting it under the Minister of the Environment, particularly the current Minister of the Environment, but certainly the Department of the Environment.

I hesitate to support the mandate that is being called for by the leader of the NDP in his bill because the round table has been so seriously weakened. How did the Conservatives do this? They did it by subterfuge. They did it with the stroke of a pen. They cut the legs out from underneath the agency. The government does not even understand what Brian Mulroney understood when he set up the agency to report directly to his office.

It is about PMO control. It speaks volumes about the fact that the Conservatives really want to control the Ministry of the Environment. They want to weaken what happens with civil society actors who come together in a place like the national round table. What really happens is that the advice gets buried and marginalized.

It is very interesting, because last night we also asked the Minister of Finance to explain to us just what is happening with the cap and trade system that he is talking about and how, for example, it might connect with other trading systems. Wow. That was really quite remarkable, because the government has no idea how its own cap and trade system will affect energy prices. It has prepared nothing in this fiscal year for the distributive economic effects, increases in costs for home heating fuel, natural gas, oil, and increases in gas prices at the pump. Let the Conservatives stand and deny it.

On the one hand the Minister of the Environment says, “We are in favour of pricing carbon”. On the other hand the Minister of Finance says, “I do not know what you are talking about. I cannot even tell you what the price of carbon will be. I have no idea what the price of carbon is today in the marketplace”.

It is unbelievable that we are four months away from the Conservatives' so-called cap and trade plan, but it is worse again, because they do not know how it will connect with the emerging provincial regimes. Whether they are carbon taxes in B.C. or whether they are trading systems in Quebec, they do not know. This is worse, because they do not even know how their national cap and trade program will connect to the international cap and trade program coming from Europe and elsewhere for those countries that were still signatories to Kyoto, Canada having abandoned it.

Yet again, there is no evidence from the government that it knows what it is doing on cap and trade when it comes to an emerging potential American system under a president McCain, or a president Obama, or a president Clinton.

It is really quite remarkable that the Conservatives do not know what they are doing; the left hand, the right hand. The irony cannot be lost on Canadians as the Prime Minister is over in London giving a grandiose speech about his climate change vision for Canada, and the plan, which nine independent groups in Canada, including such left leaning institutions as the C. D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, CIBC World Markets and others have looked at and said, “It is not believable. There is no analysis. They will never achieve the greenhouse gas cuts they claim they will achieve”.

How can they, when the Minister of Finance does not even know what the price of carbon will be in four months when he is going to set up the economics of a trading regime for this country? It is unbelievable for Canadians when they see that kind of incompetence, in fact, negligence. The minister was scrambling, looking for documents, turning to the deputy minister and the ADMs, who apparently knew even less. Yet we are four months away from the government claiming it is announcing a major regulatory system.

Worse, the politics of fear compels the government to try to deliberately mislead Canadians about the fact that when it brings out its plan, it will have a massive impact on energy costs: “Do not tell the people this. No, do not tip your hat. We are the tax fighters”, the Conservatives say, “We are the tax cutters”.

There is no surprise there again, because we now have in government the arrival of the Harris quintuplets: the prospective chief of staff to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of the Environment, and now the House leader; the five man wrecking crew who just about ruined the province of Ontario, leaving it with a $28 billion increase in provincial debt and a $5.6 billion deficit.

Canadians should be very concerned indeed about the fact that the government does not have a climate change plan.

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-377, there will be five minutes left for the hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed more bafflegab from the NDP. Canadians know that the NDP will never form government in Canada so it can continue to make promise after promise without ever having to deliver on those promises. It can also afford to bash Albertans and the jobs it generates for this country because it does not hold any seats there and it never will.

This climate change accountability act is a bill that is so poorly drafted that nothing less than a total rewrite could salvage it. However, a total rewrite of Bill C-377 is not what Canadians are asking for and it is not the solution to addressing the challenges of climate change.

Canadians and the international community want to see this government take action, not Liberal rhetoric, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, action that was sorely missing during 13 long years of Liberal indifference toward the environment.

Our government recognizes that the time for endless studies and argument is over, which is why our government introduced its turning the corner action plan in April 2007. That plan will see absolute greenhouse gas emission reductions of 20% by the year 2020 for the first time ever in Canada.

Our targets are among the toughest in the world, and what is remarkable is that we are the only country to tackle greenhouse gases and air pollutants together. I will explain why that is important.

Air pollution has the most immediate short term impact on the health of Canadians. My daughter suffers from asthma and around June and July of every year, when the pollens come up, she suffers from asthma. Those events in her life are sometimes quite a struggle. Millions of Canadians suffer from pollution related diseases. Our government is not only tackling greenhouse gas emissions, we are also addressing the issue of air pollution and that is why it is important to connect those two.

Under the capable leadership of our Prime Minister, we have put our money where our mouth is. Since October 2006, our government has invested almost $9 billion in programs and initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution that will not only benefit the environment but improve the health of all Canadians.

We are putting in place a regulatory framework with mandatory and enforceable targets that will ensure reductions in greenhouse emissions in the industrial sector. For the first time ever in Canada, we actually have targets that will be regulated.

This will be the first time a Canadian federal government has ever taken such action. Previous Liberal governments had the opportunity to take that action. They talked a big game but when it came to actually delivering they failed Canadians miserably.

The bill states that its purpose is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Without a doubt, our Conservative government agrees that Canada needs to take further action to tackle this complex challenge and we are committed to doing just that, however, this bill would not help us to achieve those objectives.

The major issue is that this bill has targets that are unachievable and unrealistic. In fact, if the Liberals were honest they would accept that because for nine years, since the Kyoto accord was signed, they had an opportunity to implement targets that were enforceable and mandatory. Did they get it done? No. It was an abject failure of leadership on the part of the previous Liberal government.

I know I will have a few more minutes to speak later on this but this is about being responsible and addressing the environment in Canada. We as a Conservative government are getting it done. Shame on the Liberals.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

What an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to speak about Bill C-377. We know from the Interpretation Act and case law that a piece of legislation includes its title, which also helps to explain its objective and scope. When we read the title, we immediately know what topic the legislation covers. In this case we have the Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

I think that is the best place to begin because I listened to what has been said, as did my Bloc Québécois colleague, whom I would like to warmly thank for his comments on this important bill. I, too, was stunned to hear the litany of foolish remarks that came from the Conservative bench. It proves the extent to which the Conservatives are experts in the art of disinformation, as well as showing that they know absolutely nothing about climate change and its impact on future generations.

I took careful note of the words of the Conservative from Cambridge who spoke a bit earlier. He had the temerity to evoke future impacts of Bill C-377 while failing to realize the paradox of his words. The bill in question seeks to alleviate the consequences of Conservative and Liberal inaction on future generations. Future impact is the subject that we are dealing with.

However, we should never underestimate the extent to which the Conservatives are capable of focusing in on issues and explaining them in a way that will play to their base.

Here are some of the words that he spoke before. This bill would destroy the economy and put at risk the well-being of Canadians. We can hear him explaining to Canadians that they will be shivering in the dark if ever we played the role that we must play on the international stage in matters of climate change. Then they always pull the same rabbit out of their hat. They point, correctly, to the Liberal inaction over 13 years. On that, they will get no quarrel from us.

However, the incompetence of the Liberal Party of Canada does not, in any way, justify the Conservatives sending the bill to future generations for their continued indolence, inaction and mismanagement on the economy, on the environment and now on climate change. The real reason the Conservatives will do nothing on climate change is that they have put all their economic eggs in one basket: the tar sands.

Talk about destabilizing the economy for future generations. The result of that has been a soaring Canadian dollar. In turn, that has made it increasingly difficult, in particular, for our manufacturing and forestry sectors just in Ontario. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in Quebec since the Conservatives came to power.

Since the Conservatives came to power, 116,000 well-paying jobs have been lost in the manufacturing industry. The very party that boasts of not meddling in the economy, yet is giving the oil sands sector a free ride by not requiring compliance with the Kyoto protocol, which Canada signed, is destabilizing the rest of the balanced economy we have built in Canada since the second world war. The very people who claim they do not want or like the government to play a role in the economy are doing just that.

Unlike other countries—Norway is an excellent example—that set aside a portion of the wealth that comes from a non-renewable resource such as oil, or the oil sands in our case—Norway has set aside over $300 billion for future generations—the imbeciles in the Conservative government are sticking future generations with the bill. Not only are they not setting aside any money for the future, but they are adding insult to injury by standing up in the House today and saying, “Look, there is no point in this. You are going to destroy the economy if you ask us to make good on our international commitments to fight climate change.” That is what is so scandalous about the Conservatives' position.

The Conservatives are great moralizers. Our generation has a moral duty to future generations, but the Conservatives do not care. They are unmoved. To them, what counts is their political base. They are short-sighted. If we look again at countries that are models in this area, such as Germany and Denmark, they have seized the opportunity presented by the need for economic change to build a structure that is creating jobs in the economy of the future, the green economy, which recognizes that we have a duty when it comes to the environment because it is simply not sustainable to go on as we have been doing. But this is not a big deal for the Conservatives. What counts is their own short-term gains. What they are saying is calculated to put people off and scare them at the same time. Here again, they are taking a page from the Americans' book. What better way to prevent people from asking the right questions than to tell them they should be afraid.

The remarks of the member for Cambridge are unworthy of a member who claims to be thinking of future generations. Claiming that respecting the environment, respecting the Kyoto protocol and respecting our international obligations will destroy the economy is pure folly. It shows the extent to which the Conservatives are misleading the public. Our duty is to have a credible, structured, positive dialogue and to hold out hope for the future. Bill C-377 gives that hope.

Building a balanced, mixed economy, which they are destroying, was an enormous challenge for a country of our size, but we managed to do it. Over the course of just a few years, not only have the Conservatives destroyed the environment but they are tearing apart this balanced economy, which has been built with great effort and determination since World War II. They are putting all their eggs in the tar sands basket and wiping out jobs in the manufacturing sector. There is no vision for the future and no willingness or courage to do what remains to be done.

It was an extraordinary revelation listening to the comments by the member for Cambridge because those things are usually just hinted at by Conservatives during partisan rallies. It was extraordinary to hear the member for Cambridge stand before this House earlier today and use scare tactics on the Canadian public when he said that respecting our international obligations was something that would destroy the economy. Word for word he said that it would destroy the Canadian economy, and they have the nerve to talk about future impacts.

The changes that are being operated on the world climate right now, because of the irresponsibility of people like the Conservative Party and their allies before them in the Liberal Party, it is the Conservative Liberal Alliance party, and I will let members work out the acronym, and the dose of climate change and of greenhouse gases that they are inflicting on Canadians and future generations is something that needs to be countered.

Future generations will take us to task. First they will look at the Liberals' inaction, mismanagement and incompetence over 13 years. I know something about that because I was Quebec's environment minister when the current Leader of the Opposition was Minister of the Environment, and their inaction was scandalous.

However, there is no excuse for the Conservatives to continue that inaction. Future generations will hold them accountable, as will the voters in the next federal election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. From the outset, I want to say to this House that we are in favour of all the proposed amendments to Bill C-377 under consideration this morning.

It is somewhat paradoxical today to speak after having heard the speech by the hon. member from the Conservative Party. I was listening to him a few minutes ago and he seemed to be saying that the Kyoto protocol was nothing more than a socialist conspiracy that has now become a communist conspiracy worthy of the former Soviet Union. That is what the hon. member just said here in this House. This is an inappropriate response to such an important issue that will affect future generations.

I heard the member tell us today that the implementation of Kyoto and Bill C-377 would result in higher gas prices at the pumps. As though today the price of gas at the pumps is $1.40 or $1.50 because of Kyoto. That is basically what the member is claiming. In reality, in recent years, the Canadian economy has been built on an economic base primarily located in Alberta and based on the oil industry. More than $66 billion of our taxes have been invested, through tax incentives, in an industry to help it rake in huge profits.

This morning, the member told us that implementing Bill C-377 would cripple Canada's oil and gas industry. That is completely ridiculous, especially if we think about the profits this industry has made year after year.

Bill C-377 sets clear targets for the second and third reduction phases in 2020 and 2050. Why is there a reduction target of 25% below the 1990 level by 2020? Unlike what the member claimed this morning, these figures were not pulled out of a hat. They were chosen simply because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that in the coming years, the average temperature must not increase more than 2^oC above what it was during the pre-industrial era. These figures and targets were not pulled out of a hat, as the Conservative member said. These same experts believe that industrialized countries will have to reduce emissions by 25% to 40% compared to 1990 levels.

Thus, the 25% target set out in the bill is essential if we want to escape the worst when it comes to climate change. What we have seen in recent weeks is just the tip of the iceberg if we decide, here in Parliament, to reject Bill C-377. We must go further and limit the temperature increase to 2^oC. This is key.

What is the government proposing? First, it is proposing reductions in intensity, not absolute reductions. That means that greenhouse gas emissions reduction will take increasing production in the coming years into account. Basically, the government is proposing increases, not reductions.

The Minister of the Environment's plan sets 2006 as the base year. That is totally unacceptable. It conflicts with the essential reference set out in the Kyoto protocol—the base year, 1990, which has not yet been renegotiated, not even in Bali during the climate change conference. Not only is this unacceptable internationally, it is unacceptable for Quebec companies that have made an effort based on the 1990 baseline. They have succeeded in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10%, particularly in the manufacturing sector, and they want access to a carbon credit exchange. That is the second reason why the plan is unacceptable.

The plan proposed today, however, maintains 1990 as the base year, and insists on absolute emissions reduction targets, not intensity targets.

Clause 6 of the bill specifies that interim plans are to be produced every five years. Why is that so important? Because experience has shown that without accountability or monitoring with respect to Canada's international commitment, emissions rise considerably. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by over 30% since 1990.

That is why we need interim plans. Why else do we need interim plans? We need them to avoid what is happening right now, with the UN investigating Canada for failure to fulfill its commitments. Why is that so important to Quebeckers? Because Canada is in danger of being cut off from the most important tools available to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets: international emissions trading markets.

What are people saying in Canada and around the world? The UN said that if its investigation finds Canada to be in violation, we risk—and Quebec businesses risk—losing access to international markets. Thus, Quebec businesses will be penalized for this failure to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets set out in the Kyoto protocol—particularly the very real and calculated increases in the rest of Canada.

There is another consequence related to this failure to meet the Kyoto targets—particularly in the rest of Canada: Quebec businesses could be forced to pay an export tax. This means that if Canada is found to be in violation of an international agreement, Quebec businesses might have to pay a tax. What does this mean? Once again, this means that the manufacturing sector will be penalized, which will affect Quebec, because the federal government is clueless when it comes to supporting the Quebec manufacturing industry.

We have successfully amended the bill in committee—and I am sure we will do the same here in the House—to ensure that the territorial approach will be considered in meeting the reduction targets set out in the bill during the second and third reduction periods. What does this mean? I will read clause 7.

— each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

What does this mean? In Canada, the tendency is toward a three-pronged approach that would allow us to do what Europe did, when 15 independent countries—15 at the time, in 1997—reached an agreement on joint—but varied—reduction targets among the members of the European Union. This ensures that the energy policies of each country can be considered.

Basically, with Bill C-377, we have obtained this important recognition for Quebec so it can contribute to the international effort. That is why we wholeheartedly support not only the amendments we are debating here today, but also Bill C-377.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today on behalf of my riding of Cambridge to debate this private member's bill, Bill C-377, the climate change accountability act.

We agree with the NDP that real actions are necessary to tackle climate change. We agree that the time of inaction is over and we recognize that Canadians did so in the last election. However, we are convinced that this is a poorly written piece of legislation and, therefore, is not part of the solution but could in fact be part of a bigger problem.

The medium and long term targets, which Bill C-377 calls for, would be difficult to achieve without causing significant disruption to the country's economy. The witnesses who appeared at committee and even the sponsor of this bill, the member for Toronto—Danforth himself, leader of the NDP, agreed that his party had failed to cost out its own bill. This is simply irresponsible.

We believe we can in fact protect the environment without destroying the economy. We are not prepared, nor should any member of this House be prepared, to blindly adopt targets that could put at risk the well-being of Canadians and the country's ability to participate in the necessary global solutions going forward.

Even at the most simplistic level this bill would result in much higher gas prices at the pumps and, ironically, the first person to rise in the House to challenge and demand that the government take action on the rising gasoline prices is none other than the member for Toronto—Danforth, the sponsor of the bill.

Is the sponsor of this bill prepared to tell the House how much Canadians will have to pay for gasoline under this bill? No, he is not or he would have. Is he prepared to tell how many jobs will be lost in the automotive and other manufacturing sectors in Ontario as a result of the poorly contrived plan to basically bludgeon the Canadian economy into reducing greenhouse gases? He is also not prepared to do that or he would have.

The NDP appears intent on crippling Alberta's oil and gas industry, and driving Ontario further into recession, just like it did provincially in the early 1990s. The NDP does not realize that our ability to fight climate change requires a strong economy. It requires both a plan to attack climate change and to keep the economic fundamentals strong so we can continue to do so. We cannot move forward with a bill that would shut down the economy. This government will not impose that on Canadians.

Financially speaking, the results of years of inaction on climate change has left Canada in a deep hole in terms of reducing gases. We must climb out of that hole but we cannot destroy the country to catch up overnight for the Liberals' decade of inaction.

Between 1990 and 2005, Canada's greenhouse emissions increased from 596 megatonnes to almost 750 megatonnes per year. Without further action on greenhouse gases, they could grow to over 900 megatonnes by 2020 and approach 1,500 megatonnes by 2050. That is double today's current levels.

On March 10 of this year, the government announced further details on its turning the corner plan in order to do what previous governments failed to get done. Our plan will get real reductions at manageable costs. By 2020, under the turning the corner plan of this government, emissions in Canada will be some 20% lower than 2006 levels, and that is good. By 2025, emissions will be some 25% below. That is great news. However, by 2050, under this government's emissions plan, we will be 60% to 70% lower, not double but lower, and that is fantastic.

By any comparison the turning the corner targets will lead to the most significant actions of any G-8 member between now and 2050. Unlike the NDP, the government did not just pick these targets and numbers out of thin air simply because they sounded impressive to Canadians and possibly could gain a vote. As a government that takes responsibility seriously and speaks the truth to Canadians, we designed an approach that would restore Canada's leadership on this most important global environmental issue of our time without crippling our economy or mortgaging the economic future of our children to pay for indecision, poorly written legislation and inaction of the past.

We have ensured that Canadians know what the trade-offs will be under our turning the corner plan. Through the publication of detailed analysis of the emissions and economic impacts of our plan, that is a measure of accountability which it seems the promoters of Bill C-377 have not only failed but have chosen not to assume. Maybe it is because they already know that Bill C-377 would impose punitive penalties on Canadians and would cripple the Canadian economy.

The fact is that Bill C-377 requires a rate of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for Canada that is three to four times higher than what the analysis of turning the corner shows can be managed by the Canadian economy. This is unprecedented and frankly, completely irresponsible. If members wish to look at the Soviet Union, they will see examples of economies that attempted to do half of this and collapsed in their attempts.

This is a short-sighted publicity motivated bill. It attempts to substitute unrealistic rhetoric, and apparently is sponsored by the Liberals who are famous for such things, for sound economic, public and environmental policy. What Canada and the world need are an approach to climate change that recognizes the importance of keeping the economy strong and the citizens educated and employed. It is only on the basis of a strong economy and innovation by the citizens that the technological breakthroughs and investments essential to address climate change can become possible.

To the contrary, Bill C-377 seems likely to impose a crippling burden on the Canadian economy in the short term and clearly will not allow us to reduce greenhouse gases as our economy falters in the long term.

This government truly desires to work with all parties to find the right solution for Canada and for Canadians. We are committed to achieve real and concrete results and we do not simply want to throw around numbers without appropriately weighing the consequences of what is being proposed.

The member for Toronto—Danforth wants the House to adopt this bill in the absence of any information regarding its impact on the economy. This government cannot do that in all responsibleness. This government believes that Canadians have the right to know the economic impact of this bill.

This government is already on the right path and we have made it clear that we are committed to delivering solutions. We take that commitment very seriously. In establishing targets, the government is taking into account what impacts they will have on all sectors of the economy. Bill C-377 does not do that and therefore is irresponsible.

In closing, I cannot support a bill that is irresponsible in its costing and does not take the future impacts on the Canadian economy, Canada and the people of this country. I cannot support it at this stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Outremont. We will provide time for him to illuminate us in another official language.

Let me get to the four definitions. As the government spent day after day and week after week delaying the committee, Canadians stood by with growing concern about this bill being unable to pass.

The first amendment deals with the actual definition of greenhouse gases, which has been amended through changes we have made to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This is a change in the bill that has been learned over time and is correct even by the government's own standards. I would expect the government to support this amendment, unless of course it chooses to stand on ideological principles only and vote against it.

The second will switch the role of who it is that will be guiding and looking over the shoulder of government. This is a role we clearly have defined as much needed. The commissioner of the environment appeared before us and made recommendations, which at least the opposition parties have adopted, to give the role to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy so that it can verify with some final seriousness that what the government is proposing to do with climate change will actually happen.

What a remarkable breath of fresh air this will present for Canadians. The spin and the doublespeak that have been so consistent from the government when it comes to climate change will in effect be against the law, because the government's plans will be verified by the national round table, which is made up of a group of Canadian experts on issues of the economy and the environment.

The third role is to allow for a new role for the commissioner of the environment. The commissioner of the environment exists within the Auditor General's office. Again, this will provide the commissioner with a means to look back on what the government says it has done, the commitments it has made, and to verify whether those things happened or did not.

When I came to the House in 2004, there had been for too long a perception in the Canadian public that in issues related to climate change we were doing okay. My colleagues will remember it as well. The perception was that maybe we were not great, but we were not awful. Only when we started to open the books, and report after report came in about Canada's actual greenhouse gas levels, did Canadians and parliamentarians become increasingly concerned and then downright angry. International agreements that we had signed and committed to had been broken.

What Canada had put its signature to and its good name and reputation, which were earned over years and years, were suddenly in jeopardy. The world looked upon us as maybe not being an honest broker in the environmental global community, as maybe making commitments that we were not intending to keep.

This amendment and this bill would prevent that and would begin to recover and repair Canada's international reputation. Could anything be more critical to us in this place than to start to perform with authenticity and in such a way that we can hold our heads up with pride at international meetings and at future protocol meetings under the United Nations? This is what the amendment would do. Again I encourage all members in this House to support it.

Finally, the fourth amendment, which is as important as the rest, would allow the national round table to provide a more concrete advisory position to the minister of the environment, to guide his or her hand, if we will. One thing we have learned is that minister of the environment after minister of the environment has been in desperate need of adult supervision, of somebody looking over and making sure that as much time is spent on the policy as the politics. That is what Bill C-377 does. It should pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your wise ruling today and ask you to accept our accolades.

The reason this is important for us as parliamentarians is that what took place at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is something that all parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe or interest, should resist. The government's unwillingness to accept a private member's piece of legislation meant that it used a tactic that has never been known in the recorded history of this place: that of filibustering, in a sense, a private member's bill.

As was noted in a Speaker's ruling some weeks prior to this, the committees in this place must learn to function and govern themselves in an appropriate way. They must learn to conduct the will of Parliament and the will of Canadians who have sent us to this place to advocate on their behalf for good things to happen.

Bill C-377, with the four amendments that I will be addressing today, does exactly that. For the first time in Canadian law, the targets relating to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions for this country, will be legislated into law, thereby prohibiting any government, this one or any future government, from resisting the will of Canadians, from resisting the inclination that we must do the right thing when it comes to climate change.

As for these amendments, the irony, I suppose, which my colleagues are well aware of although I am not sure that all government members are, is that when we ran into this impasse in committee, this filibuster presented by the Conservatives, it was around clause 10, which is a clause for accountability and transparency when dealing with greenhouse gases. That is all the clause said. This part of the bill said that the government must tell Canadians what it has done, what the record has been on climate change, where the successes and failures have been, and then also tell Canadians what the plans are and have that accountable to Canadians. That is where we hit the roadblock.

This is obviously ironic coming from the Conservatives, who spent a great deal of time and effort in the last Parliament and then in the lead-up to this one in their campaign, talking about transparency and accountability. When it came to facing a bill on the environment, on climate change, which is top of mind for Canadians, in the very section that says the government must be transparent and accountable the government chose to delay and deny the reality of what we are faced with.

The fact is that Canada as a nation, as an economy, is far off track with our own commitments, our international commitments, but also far off track with what the rest of the developed world is doing, which is to find a way to make our economy more efficient, to produce more green collar jobs, and to allow Canadians to feel assured about our environment's future and not have to continue to face the threat of irreversible climate change, which we are already seeing.

It is a moral question that the government has been unable to face. It is a question of ethics that the government is unwilling to consider. In its two and a half long years in the House, following up on the 13 long years in government of the previous regime--too many--the government has been unable to effectively address the issue of climate change.

New Democrats, under the leadership of the member for Toronto—Danforth, have finally presented a reasonable, considered piece of legislation that will allow the country to move forward on this critical issue.

The actual amendments dealing with this bill are I think quite instructive. This bill, like all bills by the time they reach their final stages and final processes, originated some two years ago. The final four amendments to this bill deal with lessons learned over two years. They are lessons learned at the special legislative committee on the clean air and climate change act. That act was a flawed government bill that the NDP rewrote and for which it presented the best thinking on issues related to the environment at the time.

This was learned from events with respect to Bill C-288, when the government found a way to again try to put the kibosh on what was happening. We learned again from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, please correct me if I am wrong procedurally, but I have just been handed a note about splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are four motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The Chair does not ordinarily provide reasons for its selection of report stage motions in amendment. However, in light of the point of order raised on Thursday, May 8, 2008 by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the subsequent intervention of the hon. deputy government House leader, I would like to convey to the House the reasoning involved in considering these motions.

In his submission, the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh described the particular circumstances surrounding the committee consideration of Bill C-377.

During its consideration of the bill, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development presented three separate reports. In the first of these reports, presented on April 14, 2008, the committee described procedural difficulties it had encountered in the course of its study of Bill C-377 and recommended some action that the House might wish to take.

On April 29, 2008, in its second report relating to this bill, the committee reported Bill C-377 with eight amendments. On the same day, the committee presented a third report. This report explained that having begun its clause by clause study on March 3, 2008, prolonged debate on clause 10 of the bill resulted in an impasse; and that as no further progress seemed possible, the committee turned to the consideration of a motion, the effect of which was to deem adopted the remaining parts of the bill and to agree that the bill be reported to the House without further debate or amendment. This motion was adopted on division by the committee.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh also referred to previous Speaker's rulings where motions in amendment at report stage were selected on the basis that members involved did not have the opportunity to present motions during the committee consideration stage. Specifically, he cited a ruling given on January 28, 2003, regarding Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, and a ruling given on November 6, 2001, regarding Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada.

In his intervention on Friday, May 9, 2008, the hon. deputy government House leader also reviewed the sequence of events surrounding the committee consideration of the bill and referred to the two rulings just cited. He went on to argue that, in his view, the committee's decision to report the bill back to the House prior to the May 7, 2008 deadline represents a conscious decision of the majority of the committee not to make full usage of the time remaining and thus to forego further opportunities to propose amendments at the committee stage. On this basis, he concluded that the motions at report stage should not be selected.

Four report stage motions have been submitted. These motions are identical to committee amendments which were not considered due to the impasse, as described in the committee's report and the adoption by the committee of the motion to report the bill. The motions relate to clauses of the bill which were deemed carried at the committee stage, quite clearly as a way out of the impasse.

The Chair is now faced with the matter of selection. The note accompanying S. O. 76(5) reads, in part: “The Speaker ... will normally only select motions which were not or could not be presented [in committee].”

Having carefully reviewed the sequence of events and the submissions made by the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh and the hon. deputy government House leader, the Chair is of the opinion that we are facing very exceptional circumstances. The committee recognized that the impasse was significant and wanted to bring that situation to the attention of the House. It did so in a report which states in part:

Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill....

Therefore, I am satisfied that these motions could not be presented during the committee consideration of the bill, and accordingly I have selected them for debate at report stage. Accordingly, Motions Nos. 1 to 4 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the Table.

I shall now propose motions numbered 1 to 4 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bill C-377—Climate Change Accountability Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised on May 8 by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the selection of report stage amendments to Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

It will be my contention that the member is, in effect, Mr. Speaker, asking you to allow his party, and especially the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to act in variation from the principle you laid out for us on March 21, 2001, when you said:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

Let me give you some background, Mr. Speaker.

Bill C-377 was referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 25, 2007, in the previous session and was subsequently reinstated in that same committee pursuant to Standing Order 86(1).

The committee began its study on December 11, 2007, and was granted an extension on March 12, 2008, which gave the committee until May 7 to report the bill to the House.

At its April 17 meeting the committee adopted a motion, on division, which had been put forward by the New Democratic member for Windsor—Tecumseh, to put an end to the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill and to report it back to the House with amendments.The committee adopted the motion well in advance of the May 7 deadline imposed by the Standing Orders.

The bill was subsequently reported to the House on April 29. The committee had more time to complete its work than it used, but it chose not to do so. It chose to do so, on division.

Procedural considerations that should be taken into account are the following. The note to Standing Order 76.1(5) states that the purpose of report stage is:

—to provide Members who were not members of the committee, with an opportunity to have the House consider specific amendments they wish to propose. It is not meant to be a reconsideration of the committee stage of a bill.

The committee decided to end its clause by clause examination of the bill prematurely. One of the persons involved in that decision was the member who is now proposing further amendments. The new Democratic Party is putting forward amendments at report stage therefore that ought to have been considered in committee. Thus, the course of action being proposed to you, Mr. Speaker, by the New Democratic Party is inconsistent with the purpose of report stage.

In this vein I would note that the amendments on the notice paper stand in the name of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, where the bill was considered. He therefore had ample opportunity to introduce the amendments at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the fact that I sound like I am doing a bad imitation of Brian Mulroney, but I have a cold.

Furthermore, the Standing Orders state, at page 270:

Motions which were considered in committee and subsequently withdrawn are also generally not selected.

I would note that the amendments that appear on the notice paper are the same amendments the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley had given notice of during the committee's clause by clause examination of the bill. These amendments therefore were effectively withdrawn when the committee decided to report the bill back to the House.

In his point of order, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh took note of the lengthy debate on the bill during the committee's clause by clause consideration of the bill and stated that this was the committee's rationale for ending its work prematurely.

I would concede that this point might have been relevant if the debate in committee had prevented the committee from reporting the bill before the May 7 deadline, at which time, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the bill would have been deemed reported without amendments, thereby depriving the member of the ability to present those amendments in committee. However, this was not the case as the committee decided, with the support of the relevant member, to end its study of the bill three weeks before it was obliged to report the bill to the House.

We turn now to some precedents.

To support his argument, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh raised two previous rulings where the Speaker selected report stage amendments that could have been moved in committee. However, the circumstances in each case were clearly different from the case before us today.

In the first case, the January 28, 2003 ruling, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Mississauga South on the grounds that the member was not a member of the standing committee and therefore could not propose amendments in committee. This is clearly not the case with the report stage amendments to Bill C-377, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

The second example. In a ruling on November 6, 2001, Mr. Speaker, you selected report stage amendments from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh on the grounds that the member sat on two committees that were seized with bills at the same time and therefore it was not possible for the member to be present at the relevant committee at the time when such amendments would have, in the normal course of events, been introduced.

This precedent does not apply to the present case since the committee's minutes of proceeding show that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was clearly an active participant in the committee's clause by clause study of Bill C-377.

In short, unlike the precedents cited by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley would have been able to move his amendments if the committee had chosen to continue clause by clause consideration. Instead, the committee decided to stop its work and report the bill back to the House, thereby precluding the introduction of the said amendments.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a blatant abuse of the rules of the House. This is clearly an example of the majority on a committee effectively suspending or bypassing the Standing Orders in order to abrogate the protection that these Standing Orders provide to the rights of the minority.

By using such tactics, the opposition majority on any committee could theoretically rush through any bill by deciding to report the bill without any study and then proposing report stage amendments to amend the bill. This would be a dangerous precedent to set for private member's bills as such items are already subject to a significant time allocation and are already fast tracked relative to government bills.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to draw your attention to your statement of March 21, 2001, on the guidelines for the selection of report stage amendments:

—motions in amendment that could have been presented in committee will not be selected....Accordingly, I would strongly urge all members and all parties to avail themselves fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage so that the report stage can return to the purpose for which it was created...

I have emphasized that quote because it is so important.

Clearly the New Democratic Party has chosen to ignore the Speaker's wise advice by not availing itself fully of the opportunity to propose amendments during committee stage. NDP members cannot have it both ways. They cannot decide that clause by clause consideration should be terminated prematurely and then expect people to propose its committee amendments at report stage. The NDP is essentially asking that the committee stage of Bill C-377 be continued at report stage, and this is exactly the opposite of what is stated in the Standing Orders and what has been confirmed by the Speaker.

I therefore submit to the House that the amendments to Bill C-377 should not be selected for debate at report stage.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order today relates to Bill C-377, which is on the notice paper and which was reported back to the House within the last week, I believe on April 29. It will come forward on Monday for your rulings in selecting what amendments would be in order.

The provision for making that determination is in accordance with the Standing Orders, and specifically with Standing Order 76.1(5). I will only read the first sentence because the rest of it is not particularly germane. It states:

The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it.

Flowing out of that particular Standing Order, the procedure and House affairs committee some period back made a proposal to be brought forward in the form of a resolution. There was a note attached to that, Mr. Speaker, which you made some reference. However, the note, and I will quote the initial sentence of it, which is by way of explanation of how Standing Order 76.1(5) is to be interpreted, states:

The Speaker will not normally select for consideration by the House any motion previously ruled out of order in committee and will normally only select motions which were which were not or could not be presented in committee.

You made further rulings with regard to that, Mr. Speaker, in a ruling that affected, first, myself and then the member for Mississauga South. In response to the report from procedure and House affairs, you made these notes. I want to quote in terms of setting the criteria. First, in terms of what the considerations would be, you said, “past selection practices not affected by this latest directive will continue to apply”. We have a history of how we deal with amendments at report stage. You went on to say:

For example, motions and amendments that were presented in committee will not be selected, nor will motions ruled out of order in committee. Motions defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges them to be of exceptional significance.

Then you went on and referred members to pages of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

You further went on, Mr. Speaker, and said:

Second, regarding the new guidelines, I will apply the tests of repetition, frivolity, vexatiousness and unnecessary prolongation of report stage proceedings insofar as it is possible to do so in the particular circumstances...

I want to quickly add that the amendments being proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley are not frivolous or vexatious and do not meet that test whatsoever.

In the two decisions you have rendered in this regard, Mr. Speaker, one, as I pointed out, affected myself when I was first here back in November 2001. It was a situation where I was unable, because of conflicts of being at two committees at the same time, to get my amendments put forward. You ruled at that time, acknowledging the difficulty on my part, that I did have difficulty in moving these amendments and the Chair, in those circumstances, would give me the benefit of the doubt and allow the amendments to move forward, and they in fact did.

Then there was a second ruling by yourself, Mr. Speaker, in January 2003, involving a request from the member for Mississauga South for amendments to be selected by you. At that time, you made two points, the second of which I think is more relevant to the circumstances we have today. The first one recognized that our parliamentary system was party driven and that the positions of parties were brought forward to committees through its officially designated member. The Chair also recognized that some members may want to act on their own. You then went on to say, Mr. Speaker:

Consequently, the Chair is of the opinion that certain motions by the hon. member for Mississauga could not be presented during the clause by clause study in committee and should therefore be studied at the report stage.

In combination, those two rationales, Mr. Speaker, were to the point that if motions could not have been presented at the time when we normally would in committee, then you would normally allow them to be selected at report stage.

I argue today that this is exactly what we are confronted with here. In that regard, the history of what has happened, and I will go to the two reports that have been issued from the environment committee, because that is where Bill C-377 was considered, is there was an initial report, the third report about two or three months ago, which indicated that there were significant difficulties in process at that committee, to the extent that it felt compelled to bring the report forward. I would refer you to the report, Mr. Speaker, when you make considerations as to my point of order.

The second report with regard to Bill C-377 and the environment committee was the sixth report from that committee, and there were several points. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the third paragraph of the report, indicating that in fact work had been done on Bill C-377 in committee, that certain clauses had been adopted, others were postponed because of, to use the term in the report, “a prolonged debate of over twenty hours on clause 10 which led the Committee to an impasse”. In effect, what was going on, in the terms that we more often use in the House, was a filibuster by the government. Therefore, the report was passed back here from the committee.

I also would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize the effect of what was going on there and the degree of the impasse, to the fifth paragraph of the report, which states, “Given the impasse, the Committee opted not to consider the remaining clauses and parts of the Bill and adopted the following motion”. Out of consideration of time, I will not read that, but in effect the motion reflected that certain sections were reviewed, some were amended, but there were outstanding amendments that were never considered, and the final paragraph sets out which ones those were.

The motion was adopted by the committee, that the bill be sent back at that stage. Therefore, some have been amended, others have not even been considered, and others had been considered, but with no opportunity for amendments to be made.

The amendments proposed by our member are very clear. They are not frivolous.

I also want to make one final note. There were minority reports to the sixth report, and in that, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley made it very clear to the committee so there was no misunderstanding, and I was there at the committee and also made a similar statement, that we would be moving amendments at the report stage, subject to the determination by the Chair as to whether they should be selected or not. It is not like the committee did not understand that these amendments would come forward and that they would be pursued at report stage.

In summary, I believe it is one of those opportunities. We did not have the ability to move these amendments at committee. It is appropriate that you consider them, Mr. Speaker, and select them at this time.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in relation to Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change.

Second, I have the pleasure to present the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The report provides reasons for the committee not having completed its study of Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change.

Mr. Speaker, the committee adopted clauses 3 to 9 with amendments, postponed clause 1, the preamble and the short title pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), and stood clause 2. The committee was unable to vote on clauses 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 due to a prolonged debate of over 20 hours on clause 10, which led the committee to an impasse.

As members will recall, the committee presented a report on April 14, 2008, arising from the debate on the bill, regarding inherent difficulties in the rules and procedures of the House. As a result of the impasse, the committee adopted a motion to the effect that the title, the preamble, clauses 1, 2, 10, as amended, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Bill C-377, an Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change be deemed adopted, that the bill as amended be deemed adopted, and that the chair report the bill as amended to the House.

I wish to note that as an indicator of the impasse, the report contains in annex four supplementary opinions.

I wish to thank all members of the committee for their willingness to find a compromise, allowing the committee to proceed in its important work.

[Warren Newman]

Any mandate must take into account the fact that we live in a federation made up of provinces and that municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Even federal documents must sometimes refer to the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I do not think we can go beyond the scope of this act, because we do not have the authority to do that. The constitutionality of such a move could perhaps also be challenged, although I do not want to get into that. This issue is already being debated in the case of bills C-377 and C-288.

How far can the federal government go in terms of intervening in areas under provincial jurisdiction? I do not think this bill attempts to do that. Rather, it applies more to the workings of federal institutions. It is up to Parliament to enact legislation for the peace, order and good government of Canada and its federal institutions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have not seen the report. Basically, the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP were in support of Bill C-377. My colleagues and I on this side of the table were quite concerned about Bill C-377 and that it doesn't do anything substantial for the environment. So we submitted our supplementary report.

It would be nice to know what the other parties are presenting. Would it be possible, before you table that, for us to have a chance to see it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Great. We'll get the clerks to pass these around.

So on Bill C-377, my plan is to table that tomorrow. You know the report. I think everyone has received a copy of the letter from us that's going with it; it basically summarizes what happened and why we're sending it back in the form we are.

Does anybody have any comments or questions about that?

Mr. Warawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Order, please.

I would like to deal with a couple of items before we get started and welcome our guests and so on.

First of all, regarding Bill C-377, we have received the Liberal, Bloc, and Conservative papers, which will be attached when I table this tomorrow. I understand that the NDP's paper will be completed shortly.

Is it ready now? Okay.

Anyway, if the members wish, we do have copies here. We need your permission to hand them around to everyone. No one has seen the others' copies of this. So what is your wish?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay, everybody understands that.

Okay, that is Bill C-377, and Mr. Cullen wasn't here to enjoy this moment with us.

You've BlackBerryed him? Good.

Mr. Godfrey, at that first meeting on April 28 we would be looking at the report. We would be finalizing that so the clerks can get that all put together for me to table later that week. We could then move on to Bill C-474 and try to arrange witnesses for, say, the last hour of that day, and then again on the Wednesday.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, on the suggestion from Mr. Godfrey that it be limited to two pages, we've become quite used to the opposition members trying to keep us from sharing our concerns about Bill C-377, but in the spirit of moving out of the woods, as Mr. Bigras suggested, we can live with two pages.

As my colleague Mr. Harvey shared, we do have great concerns. Mr. Watson shared at length the impacts of Bill C-377 on the auto industry, the huge increases in energy costs that would result if Bill C-377 were to go forward. It may be difficult to put it within two pages, but we will try.

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

Mr. Chairman, we several times indicated that we had various concerns with regard to Bill C-377. We underscored the fact that it was missing a few important elements. Today, not only is it missing certain elements, but it is even missing portions of the bill tabled by Mr. Layton a few months ago, a few weeks ago. It is therefore really not possible to limit ourselves to two pages. Personally, I hope to be able to present a dissenting report and I do not believe I will be able to summarize in fewer than 20 pages my views on the weakness of the bill as tabled.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Because of the great concern I had regarding Bill C-377, which I've shared at length, we'll be submitting a supplementary minority report as per routine proceedings. I think it's also important that we have that so we can adequately share, through you to the House, the concerns we have with Bill C-377.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

What we'll do is put together this report.

Have we finished Bill C-377?

Yes, Mr. Warawa.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My understanding, upon reading the motion as presented, is that the proposal is to adopt the bill as amended. At the beginning of the motion, mention is made of the title, of the preamble and of clauses 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. What concerns me is that the Bloc made amendments to clauses 5, 7 and 9 that were adopted. I wish to ensure that Bill C-377 as amended is not solely limited to the title, the preamble and the clauses indicated, but that it also includes clauses 5, 7 and 9.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me ask, then, through you to the parliamentary secretary, if the answer from his 48 hours of consultation is no—and there's so much more to discuss with Bill C-377—does the government intend to table any amendments to this bill in any remaining clauses at all?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, maybe I could answer that. I want to make very clear that I have a number of issues with Bill C-377. I have shared some of them and I have a lot more to share. As has been shared numerous times, we have to protect the right of members in this committee to be able to have the opportunity to share their concerns on Bill C-377, or any other bill. So I'm not going to take any lessons from Mr. McGuinty.

I do appreciate the good faith of Mr. Cullen, what he has attempted to do here today, but it's a rushed motion. We heard at the beginning of this meeting--and it was 45 minutes, not one hour, and I appreciate that 45 minutes--that this is not a normal procedure. Not being a normal procedure, I would like to make sure we're heading in the direction I'm comfortable with, so I'm asking for some time.

Right now, I don't want to stop anybody else from speaking, so I'm not going to make a motion for adjournment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Maybe I can then restate what I understand. We've been here for 20 hours looking at this bill. We have an offer on the table here today from the party moving the bill to take it off this committee table, to stop what is clearly, and I think objectively, a filibuster, to take it to the House of Commons.

We broke and allowed the government an hour of conversation time, and now the government is coming back and telling Canadians and all the opposition parties here that this measure of good faith isn't acceptable, that it wants to continue raising concerns about Bill C-377.

Is that what I understand is going on here?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I will be glad to.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Cullen for making this suggestion. I just want to make sure of the ramifications of a decision like that. That's why we normally have a 48-hour time period before motions are tabled, so that we have an opportunity to think it through, to prepare.

I was taken by surprise by his motion, and I would like to meet with my colleagues to make sure they are finished what they would like to present on Bill C-377. As I said, I have some more I'd like to share on Bill C-377.

Taking into consideration the 48-hour notice requirement, it's not really in this, Chair, but in the spirit of that, maybe if we were to adjourn and reconvene on Thursday, that would be adequate time to consider this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that explanation. I also appreciate the patience of the members of the committee in providing opportunity for me to talk to my colleagues.

At this point, there are a number of concerns I have on Bill C-377 that I have yet to be able to share with the committee. I would like to see debate continue, so please put me on the list as a speaker, if we are going to continue on clause 10.

I am also concerned that if, as was proposed by Mr. Cullen, this is reported back to the House on May 7, if clause 10 weren't passed, it would have to carry, I think, before it could go back with that first part.

I have a lot that I would like to share with the committee yet today. I think we should either continue debate today or adjourn today and reconvene on Thursday. I'll wait for your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, that's right. I think we have passed the amendment for clause 10; we just haven't carried clause 10. That would be a point we would have to make sure we clarified when doing our report.

That would basically be our option.

The other option, of course, is to carry on and have, I suppose, as many as five more meetings on Bill C-377, and it would be reported back to the House on May 7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

There are more people I need to talk to. I'm ready to provide what I believe is some very important input on Bill C-377, but I would ask that we suspend for another half hour to give me a chance to make sure we're heading in the right direction.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I am quite opposed to the motion that Mr. Cullen has put before this committee limiting the speaking times on Bill C-377 clause-by-clause to two minutes per member of committee. Chair, we need to have thorough debate, and as I said before, we've heard every witness group raise concerns about Bill C-377. We have had amendments from the Liberals, from the Bloc, and from the NDP. Every party in opposition presented a major rewrite of the bill.

I had suggested to Mr. Cullen, and I think it was Mr. Bigras also who recommended, that Bill C-377 be rewritten. Well, in essence, it was. But we don't know--it's still missing so much and we haven't heard back from any witnesses since this attempt to rewrite--whether it is a good bill or not. I believe genuinely that Bill C-377 is not a good bill, but we already have a good bill.

What Mr. Cullen is attempting to do in this motion now is stifle healthy debate. Chair, freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. Freedom of expression promotes certain societal values, as noted by Professor Emerson in 1963:

Maintenance of a system of free expression is necessary (1) as assuring individual self-fulfillment, (2) as a means of attaining the truth, (3) as a method of securing participation by the members of the society in social, including political, decision-making, and (4) as maintaining the balance between stability and change in society.

Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints. That's what I see happening right now with this motion.

They do not want to see an opportunity for members achieving self-fulfillment, members of this committee being able to share their moral concerns of Bill C-377, commitments to see a clean air environment. Bill C-377 will not achieve that. What this motion attempts to do is stifle self-fulfilment, an opportunity to share with this committee the importance of a bill that will accomplish reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We all in this committee know the importance of doing real actions, real things on cleaning up the environment, the environmental mess left by 13 years of Liberal inaction. Maybe that's why the Liberals also want to stifle this opportunity for healthy debate, limiting it to only two minutes, because they're ashamed of their track record and our opportunity to remind Canadians of that--that for 13 long years they made a lot of promises, a lot announcements, but emissions continued to rise. So if they can keep members of this committee stifled to only two minutes, two minutes per clause, then we're not going to have the opportunity to be able to tell Canadians what happened.

Chair, we need, as Professor Emerson said back in 1963, the importance of individual self-fulfillment, and the attempt now of the NDP to stifle that is wrong. It should not be happening.

Point two was a means to attaining the truth, and Canadians need to know the truth of what is Bill C-377--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the motion is that Mr. Cullen would like to see the members of this committee limited in their speaking time to two minutes. Chair, I don't believe that's proper. It would limit the opportunity for us to share with Canadians the concerns--and they are legitimate concerns--about Bill C-377. It would not hold the NDP accountable if we limited our comments to two minutes, comments that I need to make about the impact Bill C-377 would have on the environment--which is nothing--and the impact that Bill C-377 would have on the economy of Canada, which would be dramatic. There would be dramatic increases in the cost of energy and increases in the cost of gasoline. They're speaking against these increases on one hand, and then, in the committee, they're speaking in favour of them.

Chair, it's not possible to talk about this in two-minute limitations. We need to have thorough debate, and what we have from the NDP is attempts to limit debate.

It's quite ironic, Chair, that it would be the NDP, a party that has a long history in Canada. Tommy Douglas worked hard for Canadians, and now we have an NDP that has evolved to the point where it's limiting debate. That's their attempt. This is a party that has done very little in Parliament, and now they're trying to limit debate in Parliament. Chair, I don't think it's appropriate. Maybe they need to change the name of their party, because what we're seeing happening here is not democratic.

Chair, as I said, I have had a passion for the environment for years. A number of years ago in my riding there was a serious issue of an energy plant that they wanted to build, called SE2. I fought against that vehemently, as did our community. We had opportunities to go to EFSEC and we had opportunities to go before the energy board, and you cannot share properly the concerns of the committee in two minutes, Chair. It's example after example, Chair; you cannot limit thorough debate to two minutes. It has to be appropriate debate.

What I am speaking against in the motion is the limitation to two minutes.

Chair, let us think back to my parliamentary model, and then I'll get back to the immediate issue. My parliamentary model was a man by the name of William Wilberforce. He was in the British Parliament in the late 1700s. Chair, he spoke in the British Parliament over approximately 40 years, fighting for the abolition of slavery. Could he have done that, Chair, if he had been broken and limited to two-minute speeches? He would not have been able to.

Throughout history, Chair, people have been fighting for freedoms, and the basic freedom of democracy is the freedom of speech. Chair, what we see from the NDP here is an attempt with this motion.... Chair, I gave Mr. Cullen the opportunity to do the right thing and remove his motion from the table, and he refused to do that. He wanted to forge ahead and have speech limited to two minutes, so here we are dealing with this motion.

As I said, Chair, under Canadian constitutional law, freedom of expression is incredibly important.

Paragraph 2(b) of the charter states that everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media communication. Chair, it's part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is a direct attack against that freedom. Two minutes is not an adequate amount of time to share in this committee and fulfill my responsibilities representing my constituents in the beautiful community of Langley, to speak and share my concerns about Bill C-377.

If Bill C-377 was a bill that was well written, that ensured that we would see reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, then I think you would have a totally different atmosphere in this committee, but we've heard from every witness group that it will not accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It was not costed, and they have every opportunity to cost it. It doesn't include talking about carbon capture and storage. Bill C-377 does not deal with absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting that the NDP did not like my bringing this up. When I talked on one hand about their asking for reduced gas prices, with Bill C-377 it hasn't been costed, and they don't want it costed. One day they do want it costed; it was when Mr. Layton was here. Every witness group said that it should be costed and that there should be an impact analysis. The reason I believe they don't want it costed is that we know there will be dramatic increases in the cost of energy. Chair, Canadians need to hear about that, and they can't hear about it if you restrict the time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Our government is very concerned about the environment, and that's why our target is the toughest in Canadian history: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. That's why we're already seeing positive results within the community and industry, with even a carbon market through the Montreal Climate Exchange.

With these signals of action on the environment in Canada, we're already seeing the positive signals that would not be happening with Bill C-377, particularly if everyone on this committee were limited to two minutes to debate Bill C-377. That's why Canada has a plan already in place—the Turning the Corner plan—that is providing these positive results.

But the topic at hand is whether we should be limiting all discussion about Bill C-377 to two minutes. Chair, I would suggest it's not fair and it's not right.

The environment is very important to me. I have been impassioned about the environment for most of my life. I live in British Columbia, one of the most beautiful parts of Canada, in the Fraser Valley, in my riding of Langley. The environment is very important. I have a responsibility, Chair, to work hard for my constituents and to represent them, and a moral obligation to work hard for a cleaner environment, and not only for the health of just this generation—and hopefully, Lord willing, I'll be living a lot more years. I want a cleaner environment for my wife and myself, but also for my family—my children and my grandchildren—and my neighbour's family and our community. That's why I've taken this to be so important.

I've found, Chair, that Bill C-377 is a very empty and hollow bill that will not achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What we would end up seeing is dramatic costs for energy, dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline, natural gas, electricity—dramatic increases in cost to Canadians. Chair, that's not what Canadians want.

Canadians don't want a sin tax. They don't want increased taxes. They don't even want increased gasoline prices, to the point where two days ago the NDP again rose in the House and asked a question about rising gasoline prices. The irony is that Bill C-377 would cause dramatic increases in gasoline prices. And how can we share that in two minutes, Chair?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Watson for his intervention. I found it heartfelt and hopefully it will enlighten some members of this committee. I found it interesting.

Chair, the motion that we find right now is a motion to limit the opportunity for us to speak. This started in our clause-by-clause debate, discussions, over Bill C-377. I think we would not be where we are if Bill C-377 was a good bill. If Bill C-377 had been supported by the witness groups, we wouldn't be where we are. What happened was that the witness groups said very clearly that there were some significant problems with Bill C-377. We heard from numerous witness groups, and every one of them said it should be costed.

What Mr. Cullen is suggesting by his motion is that we limit all critique to two minutes, and it's not realistic. So one would ask why Mr. Cullen would want to limit members of this committee from speaking for only two minutes.

Chair, there was another issue that came up on Bill C-377, which was that it was not constitutionally sound and that it would be challenged and likely defeated because it would give unlimited powers to the federal government over the provinces and territories. Do we need more than two minutes to talk about that? Absolutely. And for Mr. Cullen to attempt to stop all discussion after two minutes is beyond comprehension, actually.

Mr. Chair, it was Mr. Layton who introduced the bill, and after Mr. Layton was done speaking, it was Mr. Bramley who spoke to this committee. Both of them suggested that the government do a costing of Bill C-377. Can you do a critique, a costing, with two minutes? Well, not a very thorough costing.

I found it quite ironic in the questions we've also heard in the House--and there are definite timeframes in the House, because we have, for question period, approximately 45 minutes, Monday to Friday. There is approximately 30 seconds for a question to be asked and approximately 30 seconds for an answer, because of that timeframe.

Now it's actually 35 seconds, as Mr. McGuinty points out, but we try to aim at 30, because sometimes with the noise and the exuberance in the House, if you aim for 30, sometimes it's 35 by the time you actually start talking from when your light comes on. So it's very important that we have timeframes, depending on the circumstances.

Bills are debated in the House and sent to this committee to be properly debated. In that process, for example, Bill C-377 is sent to this committee to hear from witnesses and then to be debated. As I pointed out, we heard from witness group after witness group, and every one, including Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley, said that the government needs to do the costing.

What we heard in question period, yesterday actually, was a question on the quality of our water. It was an NDP member from Vancouver Island North, Ms. Bell, who asked about the number of boil orders over a number of years--actually 1,760 boil orders. Well, that's a very serious problem, Chair. And this government is committed to cleaning up the water in Canada.

On one hand, we have members from the NDP—with time limits, appropriately, within a question period—who asked this 30- or 35-second question about boil orders, and then we had a subsequent answer. It was Minister Baird who answered the NDP member very clearly that the government is helping communities to clean up waste water treatment facilities with $8 billion.

Now, the NDP knew about that, but they voted against it. That's the difficult irony I have. On one hand, in question period they're asking questions about why we aren't cleaning up water. Well, we are, yet they voted against it. To be able to deal with that takes more than two minutes. To be able to share that takes more than two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I am prepared to make a ruling on the point of privilege Mr. Warawa raised on April 2. I'd like to begin by doing that.

I believe the cameras will be leaving. This is of course on television, but not by live camera, as members know.

After looking at this ruling, members, with the assistance of our clerks and senior clerks and getting a lot of advice about the rules—as they will be—I would like to go through it point by point. It certainly has been a learning experience for me, as well as for some other members, I think—of course taking some guidance from the Speaker of the House.

This ruling arises from the question that was raised by Mr. Warawa on April 2, 2008, regarding the proceedings of the meeting of Monday, April 1, 2008.

Secondly, during the debate on clause 10 of Bill C-377 at the meeting of Monday, April 1, Mr. Cullen sought the floor on a point of order and moved a motion limiting debate on Bill C-377.

The chair ruled the motion out of order based on two arguments—first, that the motion was moved on a point of order, and second, that the committee was already seized with a question on clause 10—at which point Mr. Cullen challenged the decision of the chair. The chair's decision was overruled on division, and debate was allowed on the motion of Mr. Cullen. The meeting was suspended shortly thereafter, and it was agreed unanimously to resume the meeting the next day, April 2, 2008.

Next, on resumption of debate, Mr. Warawa raised a question of privilege alleging that the rules of the House had been broken. He referred to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which on page 454 states that when moving a superseding motion it “is not in order for such a motion to be moved when the Member has been recognized on a point of order”.

Mr. Warawa argued that overruling the chair on matters that are clearly set out in usual procedure and practice constitutes disorder and misconduct, which impinges on members' abilities to carry out their duties. Other members referred to their right to debate the bill at that point.

Mr. Cullen, Mr. McGuinty, and other members expressed the view that the committee had an obligation to consider in a serious manner the bill before it and, while acknowledging that members have the right to debate, that the right to obstruct is not unfettered. Members pointed out that the committee had spent over twelve and a half hours in filibuster at that point. They further noted that the committee was not abiding by a work plan agreed to unanimously by all parties.

As your chair, I have attempted to be fair and equitable. I interpret the procedure and practice of the House and provide guidance to the committee in order to assist it in accomplishing its work. To that effect, I have ruled several times that members may not move motions on points of order, as this goes against practice, as referenced on page 541 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I quote: “...Members may not rise on a point of order to move a substantive motion”.

A member cannot move a substantive motion when there is already a question before the committee, as was the case with the motion proposed by Mr. Cullen. Although these are well-known and established practices, the committee has now overruled the chair on two recent occasions.

I am not questioning the right to challenge a ruling of the chair, since this is in conformity with Standing Order 117, referenced on page 857 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I quote: “While the Chair's rulings are not subject to debate, they may be appealed to the committee.” This is, of course, what happened.

Members, however, must weigh carefully the impact of such actions. The committee, by not following the usual procedure and practice of the House, places itself in unchartered procedural territory. These comments are echoed in Mr. Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 14, 2008, on page 4183, concerning proceedings in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in which he states:

...appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedure and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy.

By its own actions the committee finds itself in a procedural conundrum. Acting against the confines of established procedure and practice, yet having done so within the confines of procedures and practice, the committee is nearing an impasse. As Mr. Speaker Milliken stated in his ruling of Friday, March 14, 2008, as found on page 4183 of Debates:

Frankly speaking, I do not think it is overly dramatic to say that many of our committees are suffering from a dysfunctional virus that, if allowed to propagate unchecked, risks preventing members from fulfilling the mandate given to them by their constituents.

What are the options, then, for our committee? As noted on page 129 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege”, and “The Chair...has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege...has occurred”. My role in this instance is to determine if the matter raised does in fact touch on a matter of privilege, and not a point of order, a grievance, or a matter of debate. If in my opinion the matter does touch privilege, then the committee can proceed to determine if it wishes to report the matter to the House. The report should capture the essential elements of the situation and include a motion that would form the text of the report. The motion is debatable and amendable and would take priority over all other committee business.

I've given a lot of thought to exactly what that would mean and what that would do and what privilege is. According to a classical definition of parliamentary privilege in Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament , “Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions”.

Does overruling the chair on procedurally sound decisions constitute privilege, in that by doing so members cannot discharge their functions? The answer to this question must be taken also in the context that one of the rights and powers of the House is the regulation of its own internal affairs. As I indicated, Standing Order 117 allows chairs' decisions to be appealed.

I'll just refer to a couple of things. I found very interesting the fact that on TV yesterday afternoon, Don Newman was questioning Bill Blaikie. As you know, Bill Blaikie is the senior member in our House. I thought he had some great insight into what was happening right now. He in fact suggested that rules were written for majorities, and that under majorities this sort of thing would never happen. In his opinion--and I will paraphrase--it may be time that we look at some changes to the rules in order to accommodate the kind of situation we find ourselves in at this committee and in several other committees.

I certainly found that interesting--and wish all of you had seen that--to hear from a senior member of the House.

Looking at all of that, my opinion is that although it is within the prerogative of the House to make its own rules, the use of conflicting rules may at one point impinge on members' ability to carry out their duties. To that effect, and given the seriousness of the matter, I will allow a motion--although not a motion of privilege per se--to be put to an immediate vote to report the matter to the House and recommend that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs--or possibly, as suggested by the Speaker, a special committee--consider whether changes to the Standing Orders might alleviate our current difficulties in committees.

So this goes beyond just our committee. It's all committees.

I note that the standing committee...and if I can give you a little precedence here, this has been done before. A former Standing Committee on Finance presented a report to the House of Commons on April 30, 1990, recommending that the question of rules and procedures, as they relate to the limiting of debate in cases where committee has reached an impasse, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That committee now, of course, is called the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I also looked at the Speaker's rulings very carefully. I found that he had suggested, without actually going further, that in fact that would be a way, possibly, to solve this. Further to that, reading the comments by the chair of the justice committee, he also is suggesting that the rules need to be re-examined to allow us to get rid of this impasse that we find ourselves in--and in an increasingly serious manner.

What I would to do, then, is invite a member of the committee to propose the following motion: That the committee report to the House inherent difficulties in the practice, procedure, and rules of the House that allow procedurally sound rulings of chairs to be overruled, and that the committee recommend that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or possibly a special committee to consider whether changes to the Standing Orders might alleviate current difficulties in committees.

Basically I'm suggesting a proactive move where we attempt to push the issue in order to solve the problem that we face. It is a compromise. It will require that the motion be voted on without debate. Then we would go back to where we were when I suspended to come up with this ruling.

Yes, Mr. Cullen.

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this kind of inanity shows why things are not getting done around here.

For 25 years Canadian families have been waiting for action on the environment. They were told the big polluters were going to be taken on. All they got was dithering and inaction.

We see the same thing now. The big polluters were the first to celebrate the so-called action by the government on the environment. That is why we put forward Bill C-377, which would get Canada on track to deal with the crisis of climate change, yet the government is filibustering and delaying.

Will the Prime Minister tell them to stop today so we can get some results?

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

By the way, I was talking to the Chair.

I would like to raise another very good example, which is biofuel. In fact, when I talked about regulated emission limits and performance standards… More than $2 billion has been invested in biofuels, but we still know very little about their direct and indirect effects. The advantage of biofuels is that their carbon cycle is much shorter than for fossil fuels. With fossil fuels, we find carbon that was discarded several thousand years ago, possibly even several million years ago. The biofuel carbon cycle is a year or two—no more. But, ultimately, it is the exact same carbon that is emitted during combustion.

I want to talk about the cost or effects of Bill C-377, and especially clause 10, so that we are clear on the consequences of clause 10 for the Canadian economy, the people of Canada and the entire North American continent. In terms of biofuels, we are told that grains and plant material produced by farmers are now more expensive. Farmers are obviously happy about that. Recently, I was watching the news feature on Third World countries…

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

As Mr. McGuinty pointed out, we have to talk to Canadians.

We have asked a lot of questions about costs. The answer we were given was that the cost is not important. We asked whether we should conduct a study. We were told that they didn't have to answer that. We asked whether, if we did conduct a study, if it should be done before or after the bill is passed. That's important. Should we do it before or after we pass Bill C-377? Well, we were told that it doesn't matter if it's done afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, when the Kyoto Protocol was signed, that is exactly the kind of decision-making on the fly that occurred. The consequence of that was that in 2006, we exceeded by some 33% the target levels Canada agreed to when it signed Kyoto. From 1997 to 2005, $1.4 billion was invested and, ultimately, we are nowhere near achieving the targets set initially. Why is that? When we signed the Kyoto Protocol, we didn't know the kind of challenges we would be facing and we didn't know what exactly the industry could do to comply with Kyoto.

Today we are talking about clause 10. I am going to provide an overview of what is missing from this private member's bill, proposed by a member of the NDP, and without which it is impossible for us to see how it could make sense. Let me explain.

It was noted that Canada needs energy to develop. That is the basis for every country on this earth. Economic, industrial and social development are all based on access to reliable and—especially—available energy sources. There are various technologies out there that provide that reliable and available energy. A number of times, Opposition members have referred to European successes, in France, England or Germany. We are told about these successes, but no mention is made of the technologies that these countries use. For example, France has several dozens reactors and sites where nuclear technology is used. But, when people talk about France, they often neglect to mention that. They say that it is able to produce energy without emitting CO2, but they don't say that there is a cost, which is the use of nuclear energy.

The environmental groups that we met with here said we should produce electricity the same way the Europeans do, but without relying on the nuclear option. That is what I would term a paradox, a little like the paradox of the Bloc Québécois, which is trying to manage the Canadian environment when, in actual fact, it says its only mandate is to defend Quebeckers and that the tar sands are, incredibly, the reason for their being here in Ottawa.

The joke, Bernard, is that…

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe the record will show that I regularly refer to Bill C-377, clause 10. It is morally reprehensible to see a bill like Bill C-377. It is a bill that the NDP is trying to promote to Canadians as the silver bullet, when in fact there's nothing there. It's a very deceptive bill. It's a dangerous and irresponsible bill that misleads Canadians and tries to use Canadians. I feel quite sad that Mr. Cullen is put in that position that he has to try to defend a bill like Bill C-377.

If you look at clause 10, there's nothing there. It is a bill that is missing the ingredients to see absolute reductions. With respect to my analogy, my parable of people trying to sell a car with no costing, every reasonable person will ask what it will cost and how you prove it gets what you claim in fuel economy. There's nothing of substance. There's no reason anyone would believe that Bill C-377 will do what it says it will do.

On the other hand, with the Turning the Corner plan, we are already seeing positive results. I would encourage the NDP to stop trying to deceive Canadians and to tell the truth about the Turning the Corner plan and the good results we are already seeing.

Chair, I know Mr. Harvey has some very important things he wants to share. My understanding is that he is the next speaker. I would like to stop speaking so we can hear from Mr. Harvey, but I will ask to be put back on the speakers list after Mr. Harvey, because I'm not finished.

Thank you so much.

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

Mr. Chairman, you have a duty to ensure that the debate focusses on Bill C-377. If the member doesn't know what to say anymore, he should cede the floor to his colleague. Mr. Watson should focus on Bill C-377. I have the sense he is straying from it more and more.

[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--

The Environment

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with the arrival of April, our thoughts finally turn away from an exceptionally snowy winter and we start to look forward to summer. Canadians are famous for talking about the weather, but never before have our weather chats carried with them such concern for the future of our planet.

Most of us know that it is human activity that is responsible for putting too much strain on our earth. While the Conservatives may still be in denial, most ordinary Canadians are exploring ways to take action on climate change. I am looking forward to joining them at this year's Earth Day celebrations in Hamilton.

On April 26 I will be at the 12th annual Earth Day tree planting at Princess Point where the Earth Day 5 kilometre walk and fun run will also conclude. Other Earth week events include the eco-festival, the Go Green Challenge and the film festival.

It is only fair that if Canadian families are willing to do their share, so too should the big polluters and the government. Unfortunately, after 20 years of promises to get the job done, we are still waiting. The Liberals did not do it and the Conservatives will not do it. Only the NDP's climate change accountability act will do it.

I urge all MPs to join ordinary Canadians by focusing on environmental solutions and passing Bill C-377 today.

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

Thank you, Chair. Absolutely.

Again, I attempted to introduce this motion the first time and was interrupted on the point of order. We've worked together for some time on trying to improve the state of the environment and the condition of the government's treatment of the environment, and I think you've handled yourself under the circumstances very capably and ably.

I'm not sure what Mr. Watson is hoping to contribute.

The motion I've put forward to the committee is as follows: that there be a maximum time limit of two minutes' debate per member of Parliament on each remaining clause of Bill C-377. This, I think, will allow members to put forward their points and their concerns and their addresses and yet allow the committee to get through the work of this bill and then return to the calendar, which, I'll remind all committee members, we agreed to unanimously. We have witnesses coming before us tomorrow and in the following weeks.

I move that motion.

Thank you, Chair.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Absolutely, Chair. I appreciate that, and it's unfortunate that there was a lot of time wasted by interruptions over the last, I think, about 15 minutes.

What clause 10 is missing is what we see in Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which will see absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. Chair, what should be in Bill C-377, which unfortunately the members opposite did not want to see in there, was that all coal-fired electricity plants that come into operation in 2012 or after will be required to meet a stringent target based on the use of carbon capture and storage by 2018.

Carbon capture and storage is a wonderful technology. We are world leaders here in Canada. In Weyburn, Saskatchewan, we have a carbon encapture technology that is used for enhanced oil recovery. It works wonderfully. It is piped right now approximately 320 kilometres from South Dakota into Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Then the carbon dioxide is mixed with water, and carbon dioxide is then injected into the geological formations in which the thick oil is suspended. As you inject the carbon dioxide and water mixture, the viscosity of the oil increases, enabling an oil field that was not producing oil anymore to be producing oil again. That's why it's called enhanced oil recovery.

The water and carbon dioxide are recovered and then reused, reinjected back into the ground. Not all of the carbon dioxide is recovered because much of it ends up staying in the earth. But it's a wonderful technology that is used for enhanced oil recovery.

The other reason that carbon capture and storage, also known as carbon sequestration, is so important is that the international community is counting on the carbon capture and storage technology to be used to capture and store approximately 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. So it's a huge part of the equation to address climate change and growing greenhouse gas emissions. If you can capture 25% of greenhouse gases and see them injected back into the ground, either stored or to be used for enhanced oil recovery, it's effective. There is no silver bullet, so to speak, but it is one of the major technologies the world is counting on.

As you go to these different international conferences, you find that carbon capture and storage is being counted on. That's why, when the minister was in Indonesia, in Bali, just a few months ago, one of the groups that came with the Canadian delegation was with EnCana.

The Bloc has made reference to that in its questioning in QP, and this is a technology that is missing in Bill C-377, but it needs to be in Bill C-377. It needs to be in any piece of legislation. It needs to be in any plan. In any regulatory framework, you've got to have carbon capture and storage. It's missing in Bill C-377. It's missing in clause 10. If it's missing, you're going to have an ineffective bill. That's why I'm looking forward to being able to introduce that amendment to clause 10.

The federal government will establish also, in addition to carbon capture and storage, by 2018.... That means all the coal-fired plants that are dirty coal-burning plants, all the new ones coming on line, will have to use carbon capture and storage. That means you don't have the greenhouse gas emissions and you also have a complementary technology that will reduce that amount of SOx and NOx, which are pollutants, causing Canadians to be ill. So you have the dual benefit.

People wonder how we can take the oil sands, that natural resource, and use that natural resource in a way that's not going to be harmful to the environment. Carbon capture and storage is one of the key technologies. It is part of Canada's Turning the Corner plan for greenhouse gas reductions. It's missing in Bill C-377, and it's missing in clause 10.

The federal government will establish a clean electricity task force to work with provinces and industry to meet an additional 25-megatonne reduction goal from the electricity sector by 2020. Do we see that in Bill C-377? We do not. Bill C-377 is a very general bill. Clause 10 is extremely general and does not give the impacts that we need.

We heard from every single witness group that it needed to be costed, that there would be jurisdictional problems. One of the witnesses was Peter Hogg, who said that the constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gases solely to the regulatory power vested in the executive. The only direction given to the Governor in Council on the nature of the regulations is that they must be written to carry out “the purposes and provisions of this Act” and to “ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under section 5”. This is the clause that contains the targets for 2020, and there is a later target as well. Clause 10 refers to clause 5, so they're intertwined.

We need a plan that is effective. Bill C-377 is not turning the corner; the plan is. One wonders why the Bloc would support a plan that won't be effective. I think that's an important question. Why would the Bloc support a plan that could give the federal government unlimited, unfettered powers over provincial jurisdiction? Why would the Bloc want that? It baffles me to this day why the Bloc would want to give the federal government all that power, unlimited power, over the province of Quebec. It's definitely what this government wants. We believe you have to respect provincial jurisdiction. It's up to the Bloc to tell people why they would want to give the federal government unlimited power over Quebec. I don't agree with that. This is another one of the flaws within Bill C-377.

Also missing in Bill C-377 are the targets, which we find in the Turning the Corner plan. All covered industrial sectors will be affected in the Turning the Corner plan, but not in Bill C-377. All industrial sectors will be required to reduce their emissions intensity from 2006 levels by 18% by 2010, with 2% improvement every year afterwards. The target will be applied at the facility, sector, or corporate level, as determined after consultations with each sector.

Where is there mention in Bill C-377, under clause 10, of consultations with each of the sectors? It's not there. Some would ask, should it be there? Mr. Cullen asked whether the government would like to make recommendations. I would like to recommend that there be consultations with each of the sectors. It would be an improvement to Bill C-377 and clause 10.

The government's Turning the Corner plan also includes minimum thresholds that will be set in five sectors to avoid imposing unreasonable administrative costs on the small facilities. The cost of operations is different in small businesses, small corporations, small facilities. It's different for small compared to big, and you have to accommodate that. You see that in the government's Turning the Corner plan, an accommodation for the smaller facilities; you do not see that detail in Bill C-377.

I think it's a very important point, that you have these details in clause 10 of Bill C-377, considering what small facilities have to deal with and avoiding imposing unreasonable administration costs. If you don't have that, you're putting small facilities out of business, and we don't want that. We don't want Canadians losing their jobs. We also want them to be successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

So clause 10 of Bill C-377 is another example of missing the mark dramatically. On the other hand, the government's Turning the Corner plan has fixed-process emissions that will receive a 0% target. The definition of fixed-process emissions will be based on technology feasibility.

To improve incentives to adapt the best available technologies for new facilities, those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later, a target based on a cleaner fuel standard will be applied. There'll be an incentive until 2018 for facilities to be built carbon capture ready.

A very important point that is also missing in Bill C-377, clause 10, is that as new facilities are built, they have to have that design built into them. If you do not design a new facility with carbon-capture-ready capabilities, it is not practical to do it afterwards. It becomes too expensive. That's why it's very important that we're giving that clear direction.

Does Bill C-377 provide clear direction that carbon capture storage has to be designed into that facility? No, it doesn't. Canadians would ask, is it important? If the world is counting on the technology to capture 25% of greenhouse gas emissions, is it important that we give that message to industry? I believe it is. Then why would it be missing in Bill C-377?

Is it possible Bill C-377 is just a poorly written bill? Why is Mr. Cullen now getting directions from Mr. Layton not to cost the bill? He began his testimony saying it should be costed; now he's saying it shouldn't be costed. Why would there be this flip-flop? Canadians want to know. When every witness, including Mr. Layton, is recommending that it be costed, that an impact analysis be done, why would they now say no? The Bloc is saying they support moving this forward, and please disregard what the witnesses have said, let's move Bill C-377. Have they made a deal with the NDP?

How about the Liberals? The Liberals did absolutely nothing to clean up the environment—13 long years of growing emissions. We heard from Mr. Godfrey that they just didn't have the political will, I think those were the words he used. I hope I'm not misquoting him. The previous Liberal government just didn't get it done--13 years of not getting it done. In 1993 they ran on a platform of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it didn't happen. We saw emissions go up and up, to the point where they ended up 33% above the Kyoto targets, not even close.

So it's very important that Bill C-377, including clause 10, include components that will see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but that's missing. Canadians are wondering why the Liberal Party members, getting their directions from their leader, Mr. Dion.... Why would Mr. Dion say to support a bill that hasn't been costed? Why would Mr. Dion do that--support a bill that will have constitutional challenges, will not stand up to a constitutional challenge. Why would Mr. Dion instruct--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Clause 10 reads:

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

(a) the measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including measures taken in respect of

(i) regulated emission limits and performance standards,

(ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets,

(iii) spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry, and

(iv) cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments; and

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

(c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

What we're seeing, Chair, in Bill C-377 is, as I've said before, a very poorly written bill. It is missing the content that would see action. Mr. Cullen said that the committee needs to get to work, and it was yesterday that he suggested we have a motion on how we'd amend it. Unfortunately, when we did present an amendment here, it could have been accepted, but not surprisingly, Mr. Cullen did not want us to deal with that motion. It was a good motion, and it dealt with what Canada has now, the Turning the Corner plan.

The April 2007 regulatory framework for air emissions laid out the broad design of the regulations for industrial emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and we see that missing in clause 10. This document, the Turning the Corner plan, sets out the final regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions. It includes both an elaboration and a strengthening of the April 2007 regulatory framework.

The federal government still intends to work to reach equivalency agreements with any interested provinces that set enforceable provincial emission standards that are at least as stringent as the federal standards. We know that those standards in the Turning the Corner plan are the toughest in Canadian history. We're talking about absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. These are the toughest in Canadian history, and they also include improvements to air quality through a mandatory requirement to clean up the air that Canadians breathe.

The final regulatory framework strengthens the April 2007 regulatory framework in three key respects. All oil sands, upgraders, and in situ plants that come into operation in 2012 or after will be required to meet a stringent target base on the use of carbon capture and storage by 2018.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, I think Mr. Godfrey brought up some very good points. I want to thank him.

He's quite right. Bill C-377 has been up for a long time. We raised some concerns when it was tabled, and during the second hour of debate similar points were made. Yet where is the costing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As far as clarity in scheduling is concerned, February 22 was the date at which amendments were to be in, translated, and then sent out to all members. That was done. Everybody has a copy, everybody has the reference. Our clerk referenced everything.

It was agreed to by this committee at a steering committee meeting that the parliamentary secretary become a permanent member of that steering committee in deciding an agenda. The agenda was decided upon with a couple of additions, that we would not begin any other work until Bill C-377 was completed. That was agreed to by the steering committee and agreed to by this entire committee, and it was unanimous.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The point of order that Mr. McGuinty was referring to was with regard to the hours of filibustering. I am sharing concerns about Bill C-377, and that's being interpreted as a filibuster.

I had an interesting discussion with the replacements for the NDP yesterday, after Mr. Cullen left. We all stayed until about 10 o'clock, but he left and had a replacement. I asked Mr. Julian how many hours he had filibustered, and Mr. Martin also. I think it was around 14 to 18 hours, something like that. I can't imagine how somebody would talk for 14 to 18 hours. Now, I may have those hours slightly wrong, and if I do, I apologize, but I think that's what was shared with me last night.

It is a tool if somebody wants to use it in the House of Commons. Again, referring to Mr. McGuinty's point of order, I think it might be helpful to provide the history, as the clerk is looking at the history of people making long presentations in the House of Commons, and to see the records on abnormally long speeches.

I feel quite passionate about Bill C-377 and about dealing with the problems with Bill C-377, and I will talk about that during my time, when I have the floor, talking specifically about clause 10. But specifically to Mr. McGuinty's point of order, I think it's important that we have all that enlightening information, and maybe even how long Mr. McGuinty himself has spoken at times. That may be quite enlightening.

Particularly the NDP, I think, have been famous for the amount of hours they've spoken. As for me, I spoke at length--I think it was an hour yesterday, or an hour and a half--but it was nothing compared to the legacy that has been known in this House.

I would ask Madam Bennett--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Correct. So we again would like to see Bill C-377 dramatically improved, because it's a phony bill at this time.

That's again for clarification for Mr. McGuinty. We will be tabling that motion, and we look forward to a healthy debate on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would hope we're going to get on and deal with.... I would like to get Bill C-377 done with. We have many more things that we could be discussing.

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

No. I think the point of today's discussion is to actually see this committee perform its function and get to work. We have heard from many witnesses. We've heard from Canadians who would like this Parliament to establish a clear direction forward for climate change.

There hasn't been a single validator in the country who has supported the Conservative government's so-called plan. What Bill C-377 establishes is a framework that will require government—not “may”, not “maybe not”, but will finally require government—to meet obligations set in law. And to not do so would be breaking the law.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That may be an option for the future, if we don't complete Bill C-377 today.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, what I was sharing was that Bill C-377 is missing important solutions, technologies, and mechanisms to help industry reduce its carbon footprint. We're seeing that in the Turning the Corner plan; we're seeing tangible mechanisms that will help industry. And it's missing in there. I strongly believe that we need to focus on them and maybe even spend some meetings looking at solutions instead of having rhetoric and silly games.

Now, the sectors have to have minimum thresholds. Again, that's missing in clause 10 of Bill C-377. You have to have thresholds. Some sectors have very large facilities, often including many small facilities that contribute little to a sector's overall emissions. Other sectors have only a few, but large, facilities.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

So new facilities, which are those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later, would be granted a three-year commissioning period before they would face an emission intensity reduction target.

After the third year--and this is all missing in Bill C-377, clause 10--new facilities would be required to improve their emission intensity by 2% each year. A cleaner fuel standard would be applied, therefore setting the targets as they were using the designated fuel. A flexible approach would be taken in special cases where the equipment or technology used in a new plant facilitates carbon capture and storage or otherwise offers a significant potential for emission reductions.

It is so important that we have the technology of carbon capture and storage as a technology that Canada encourages, promotes, and helps fund, because the global community, our international partners, people, the major emitters that have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, everybody needs to be able to be given those tools to stop climate change, to fight climate change. One of those tools is carbon capture and storage.

The world community is hoping carbon capture and storage will account for about 25%. So it's important that this be developed in Canada. We already are the world leaders.

The carbon capture and storage project in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, has now moved on to a phase from proving that it is very effective, very successful in storing carbon dioxide, and also by pumping it into the ground with water to enhance oil recovery from old oil fields that were no longer producing.

But we've also, in our funding of $9 billion of environmental programs--$9 billion, it's a huge investment, and it's a historically high investment in Canada, it's huge, because this government is serious about seeing greenhouse gas emissions reduced in Canada and globally. That's why we're investing in this technology of carbon capture and storage.

We have moved to that phase of commercialization. Between now and 2009, there's a phase of commercialization research. So it's very important that we fund that. We have.

When people do something that is good for the environment, I want to acknowledge that. In the past I have been quite disappointed by the Liberals and their lack of action on the environment, but when they do something good, I want to give them credit. They did support our budget, which included that $9 billion for environmental programs, and I want to thank them. I want to thank them for supporting our Turning the Corner plan.

On the other hand, I was disappointed by the Bloc. They voted against $9 billion for environmental programs. They voted against carbon capture and storage research and development. Of course, not surprisingly, the NDP did not support that either.

We need to have that technology, and Canada is moving forward for both new and existing facilities. Fixed-process emissions, which are emissions tied to production and for which there is no alternative reduction technology, would require a 0% target in the reductions. In other words, there is no way with current technology for these types of emissions to be reduced except for shutting down production.

So we're looking at the situation in a very practical way. Are we seeing that in Bill C-377? No, we're not. Bill C-377 is missing substance that would actually initiate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is what we have been telling Canadians we're here for.

We're here in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to work together cooperatively to see tangible results. Bill C-377 is not accomplishing that; the Turning the Corner plan is.

We need to see Bill C-377 dramatically rewritten. I think it was the Bloc that suggested that Bill C-377 be totally rewritten. Now they have introduced a number of amendments, as did the Liberal members, as did the NDP. They basically rewrote Bill C-377.

But we need to accept further amendments, and as I said before, we need to seriously change clause 10, because the way we have clause 10 written now in Bill C-377, it's missing the ingredients to see absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And that's what Canadians sent us here for, to work hard together to see absolute reductions.

We're already seeing results through our Turning the Corner plan, because it includes what Bill C-377 does not. It needs to include compliance mechanisms like those we see in the Turning the Corner plan. In order to provide flexibility and to minimize the economic impacts of the regulations, firms could comply with the regulations either by reducing their own emissions through abatement actions or by making use of one of the framework's compliant mechanisms, for example, the technology fund.

Now, Bill C-377 does mention a transition fund dealing with businesses that would be put out of business. A technology fund is quite different. Firms would be able to obtain credits for compliance purposes by contributing to a technology fund. The fund would be a means to provide the development, deployment, and diffusion of technologies that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases across industry. A third party entity at arm's length from government would be created to administer the fund. A key principle is that there would be no inter-regional transfer of wealth. It's a very important point.

Are we seeing any of those details in Bill C-377, clause 10? No, we're not. It's very concerning that we have Bill C-377, clause 10, which is not providing mechanisms that will actually see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It's not providing mechanisms, like a technology fund, to help industry, and those are definitely needed.

Under the Turning the Corner plan, contributions to the development and infrastructure component of a technology fund aimed at investments with a high likelihood of yielding greenhouse gas emission reductions in the near term would be limited to 70% in 2010. That's less than two years away, and industry is aware of this happening. That is why we're already seeing tangible and concrete action through our mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to a level of 20% by 2020.

I might add that this is the toughest target in Canadian history, and it's one of the toughest in the world.

The contributions to the technology fund--which are missing from Bill C-377--as I said, would be limited to 70% in 2010, but falling to 65% by 2011, 60% by 2012, 55% by 2013, 50% by 2014, 40% by 2015, only 10% by 2016, and again 10% in 2017. So you see a definite pattern. This gives direction, Chair, to industry that they can use the technology fund, but only for a certain period of time. You have to phase out of it.

Now, do we see that in Bill C-377? No. The fund they have is a transition fund for industry that is being put out of business. That's not good for Canadians, and it's not good for the environment. Industry needs to be successful at cleaning up the environment, and it needs to be able to continue to provide good green jobs to Canadians if we're going to be able to tackle climate change and show how we do it,and take that strong leadership here in Canada, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that it can be done here.

An example of that concerns the amount of carbon dioxide that you create when you make aluminum. In Canada, one tonne of aluminum creates four tonnes of carbon dioxide--in China, it's seven--and through technology we're cleaning it, and it will become even less than four tonnes. So Canada will be one of the cleanest, environmentally friendliest producers of aluminum, when we already are and we'll continue to improve that. So that technology fund helps build Canadian technology--technologies, again, like carbon capture and storage.

No further contributions would be accepted to the technology fund after 2017. The research and development component, which would focus on projects aimed at supporting the creation of transformative technologies, would be limited to five megatonnes each year, also ending in 2017.

From 2010 to 2012, the contribution rate for the fund would be 15 tonnes for carbon dioxide equivalent, and that is the rate that's set based on carbon dioxide, and that's why it's called the carbon dioxide equivalent. Methane is 21 times more damaging than carbon dioxide, and that's why you use the base of a carbon dioxide equivalent.

In 2013, the combination rate for a tonne of carbon would be $20. Thereafter, the rate would escalate yearly at a rate of growth of nominal GDP to 2017.

We've already seen action happening on the environment that we will not see with Bill C-377. Again, we've heard from every witness group that Bill C-377 does not have the components to evoke action, while we are already seeing action happening on the environment through Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which is moving from a voluntary program, which was used by the Liberals, to now a mandatory regulatory program using CEPA 1999. And we've had our notice of intent to regulate, so the regulations are already in that process, which has now spurred a carbon market, the Montreal Climate Exchange.

So they're already seeing very definite positive results. It is puzzling that from the support we received from the Liberals for our Turning the Corner plan to move forward—and them all over the place.... I'm hoping they're encouraged by the good work that they are seeing happening already in Canada from the Turning the Corner plan. We definitely are, and I know Canadians are.

One of the other compliance mechanisms that we have in the Turning the Corner plan that we don't have in Bill C-377 under clause 10--and I really believe it needs to be in there--is the inter-firm trading. Firms whose actual emission intensity in a given year is below their target would receive tradable credits equal to the difference between their target and their actual emission intensity multiplied by their production in that year. These credits could be banked for future use or sold to other parties, including other regulated firms.

Another mechanism is the offset system. You need to have these compliance mechanisms, and Bill C-377 is missing that. I would be very open to seeing Mr. Cullen accept these as amendments to Bill C-377. In the offset system, offsets are projects that result in incremental real verified domestic reductions or removals of greenhouse gas emissions in activities that are not covered by the federal greenhouse gas regulations. These projects would generate credits that firms could use for compliance purposes.

Then there are CDMs, clean development mechanisms, through the UN. Firms could use certain credits from the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanisms. Access to these credits for compliance purposes would be limited to 10% of each firm's total target.

CDMs are one of the many tools that are important to industry, and this is what is being used internationally to help industry reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and their effect on the climate. CDMs are not in Bill C-377, clause 10. They are supposed to be listing mechanisms that would actually see reductions to greenhouse gas emissions. They are not in Bill C-377, clause 10, but they are in Canada's Turning the Corner plan.

As we go through this, it becomes very clear that Bill C-377 is not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It still needs a lot of work before we proceed.

Another compliance mechanism that's missing in Bill C-377 that should be there is a one-time credit for early action. Firms that took verified action between 1992 and 2006 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions would be eligible to apply for a share of a one-time credit for early action. A maximum of 15 megatonnes worth of credits would be allocated, with no more than five megatonnes to be used in any one year. Firms would be required to submit evidence of changes in processes or facility improvements they've undertaken that resulted in verifiable incremental greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The maximum allocation for emission reductions would be one credit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction. If the total tonnage of emission reductions applied for were to exceed 15 megatonnes, the credits would be distributed to individual firms in proportion to their contribution to the total emission reduction achieved. So it's a good recognition of good corporate citizens that were doing their part already in Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Is it fair? I believe so.

The government's plan has already been enacted, is already at work, and is already happening. We're seeing actual positive results, real results, in Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which includes credit for early action. Why would that not be in Bill C-377, clause 10? I'm not sure, but it should be. Credits for early action should be given. So that's another suggestion for Mr. Cullen, and maybe he will accept that as an amendment--to see credits for early action. Businesses that have invested in cleaner technology for the benefit of the environment are good corporate citizens.

On the example he used about aluminum, there are cheaper ways of making aluminum. You can make aluminum using dirty coal-fired generating plants. To make aluminum takes a lot of electricity. If you use coal-fired plants to make aluminum, you're using an old technology and you're going to be producing a lot of carbon dioxide and pollutants. It is a very popular metal and is used worldwide. The demand for aluminum is continuing to grow, because the more aluminum you use in making vehicles, the lighter the vehicle becomes, and the less energy is used to move a vehicle down the road. That's why our North American auto manufacturers are using a lot more aluminum.

Canada is using a cleaner technology that produces only four tonnes of carbon dioxide for one tonne of aluminum. It's a cleaner technology than what is being used in China, where they produce seven tonnes of carbon dioxide for one tonne of aluminum. So should those Canadian companies that have invested in cleaner technology that benefits Canada--and it's more expensive to build it that way--get a credit for that early action? I think they should. That's why we have that.

Why would that be missing in BillC-377? As I said, I believe strongly it shouldn't be missing. Bill C-377 is unfair by not having that. It needs to be in there.

An application for the industrial regulatory framework is expected to result in significant absolute reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from the 2006 levels. I'm not optimistic at all that this would happen with Bill C-377. That's why I'm so concerned about Bill C-377. The Turning the Corner plan would put Canada on the path to meeting its national emission reduction targets--20% absolute reductions by 2020--and that's good news.

We were at the international COP 13 meeting in Bali. We had the witnesses come back to this committee, and they shared with this committee that Canada had gone through a cycle of being embarrassed because they weren't getting things done. That's what concerns me about Bill C-377, clause 10. It would not accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-377 is a bill that would embarrass Canada.

Canadians are tired of being embarrassed by inaction by the previous government. They want action. They have action now. We're already seeing positive results from the Turning the Corner plan. Why would we want to go back and have Bill C-377 slow the process down, not get any results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and again embarrass Canada? We don't want that, and I believe Canadians don't want that either. They want action, and they're getting that under this government.

Following the release of the framework in April of last year, the government consulted extensively with the provinces and territories as well as with ENGOs, aboriginal peoples, industry, and other stakeholders on key policy and regulatory development issues and the framework that remains to be elaborated on.

The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have initiated a cooperative process to work through the regulatory issues, through the environmental protection and planning committee of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Some provinces have indicated an interest in negotiating equivalency agreements with the federal government. We're working with every single province and territory in Canada to see absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We heard, and there is mention in Bill C-377, clause 10, of cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories, or other governments, but there are no details--no consultation, no mention of ENGOs, no mention of aboriginal government. That's another example of not even coming close to the mark of what kind of consultation needs to happen.

The federal government is responsible for setting targets that are realistic and concrete, and for setting them within a regulatory framework that will end up with results. We see that in the Turning the Corner plan. We do not see that in Bill C-377.

It also involves the federal government providing partnership with the provinces. We've set standards that are minimum standards. If the provinces want to exceed them, then we encourage that. We are helping fund that. Almost $600 million, I believe, was provided to the Province of Ontario to close down some coal-fired plants. I'm not quite sure what the Province of Ontario has done with that dollar amount, but that's what it was for, to help them close down the coal-fired plants.

That needs to happen, because that's the old technology. The new technology is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's where the Government of Canada is going. We're providing leadership. We're providing regulations. We're providing targets that are realistic.

At the same time, we're helping the economy and helping the environment. We're providing the funding. We then want a partnership. We want to work with the provinces in equivalency agreements and in friendly ways to see absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And we're very happy with the progress we've made working with the provinces.

Following the release of the framework last year, the government, as I said, consulted. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments initiated a cooperative process to work through the regulatory issues. The consultations focused on coverage.

Should small facilities be excluded from the regulation in order to minimize the administrative burden, and if so, on what basis? I believe that we need to show consideration for the smaller facilities. You have to take a different approach with a large facility than you take with a small facility. Each is producing greenhouse has emissions, but the business case for an older facility or a small facility is different from that for a facility that is just being built using a cleaner technology. So that has to be considered. It was part of the consultation process with the provinces.

We don't see that in Bill C-377, clause 10. I believe that it needs to be in there. I hope Mr. Cullen is listening, because I'm hoping this is another part he would be willing to see added to clause 10 of Bill C-377.

Also, the consultation included discussions about targets. For example, how should the greenhouse gas targets be applied in different sectors? Each province has different sectors, different focuses of industry. Should certain sectors face special circumstances that would require a different application of the framework?

There was discussion on finalization of the definition of fixed-process emissions in each sector and on targets for treating major expansions and transformations. Do they have carbon capture storage built into them? How will a cleaner fuel standard be incorporated into the target for new facilities in each sector? It is very important that we burn a cleaner fuel, that we recycle the fuel, the energy that we already have above the earth.

The problem with climate change is that we are taking the energy that is below the earth above the earth and burning it and adding this new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. We need to stabilize that. We need to recycle the carbon dioxide, the carbon we already see above the earth, to stabilize and stop a warming climate.

We need to have targets with the provinces--and that's part of the consultation--for incorporating the cleaner fuel standards. How would the regulations apply an appropriate incentive for cogeneration, a wonderful technology that needs participation from the provinces and the federal government? That's already happening. A wonderful example of that is landfills.

Chair, you've often encouraged the committee to talk about actual practical things we can do to see greenhouse gas emissions.... What we need to have in Bill C-377, in clause 10, is an opportunity to focus on solutions. One of those solutions is cogeneration, or gasification of garbage. Instead of using a landfill to bury it, you gasify it, and from that gasification you separate out the gases and chemicals and use them instead of burying them in the ground. That's good technology.

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

I have a point of order for my colleague from the Conservatives—not to interrupt the flow of his filibuster. I just realized that he's reading from a document, and I think it's in order that when members of the committee don't actually present their own or original thoughts, but read from documents....

I have documents in front of me from the witnesses to whom he's referring who support Bill C-377, and I will submit those documents showing witness after witness saying this is the right direction to go in, from Nobel Prize laureates to economists, who are saying this is a good bill.

He is reading from a document. I would request that he submit that document for the committee's perusal.

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

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning, I have been rather disappointed with the governing party's attitude with regard to Bill C-377. I must conclude that the governing party—and I will not name its members—is acting in bad faith. They keep filibustering in order to torpedo Bill C-377 and this is totally unacceptable.

If the member believes that his privileges have been breached, look into the matter and take it under advisement. Nothing prevents us from continuing to consider the bill as it is. I find Mr. Watson's demand to move to other business, namely Bill C-474 , completely ridiculous since the point of privilege does not deal with the bill but rather the rights of the member.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take this point of privilege under advisement. For the time being, we must continue with our consideration of Bill C-377. I am very disappointed in this government and the way it behaves. We are here to work for the public good and the government is having us lose precious time. This wastes taxpayers' money and I do not believe the people of Quebec and Canada expect us, as parliamentarians, to behave in such a fashion. So I ask the government to get a grip and to work constructively in order to make Bill C-377 acceptable to both the government and the opposition.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I want to thank you and to apologize to the committee for not providing that motion in both official languages. I should have and I didn't, and I apologize for that.

It was in the spirit of enthusiasm. Mr. Cullen had asked for some amendments, and I believed that request was genuine, just as when Mr. Layton had asked that the plan in Bill C-377 be costed, and as Matthew Bramley asked that it be costed. I thought there was a genuine effort or recommendation from the NDP that we have an opportunity to improve Bill C-377.

Bill C-377, unfortunately, as I have shared before, is—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So “shall” would be changed to “may, at his or her discretion”.

Then paragraph 10(1)(a) says, “The measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including”, and then this is what would replace “measures taken in respect of”: after the word “including”, it would read, “the targets in the Government of Canada's Turning the Corner plan and measures taken in respect of”.

Under subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i) would be “the framework announced on March 10, 2008”. That would become the new subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i), and the other subparagraphs, (i) to (iv), would now become subparagraphs (ii) to (v). So it would be inserting a new subparagraph 10(1)(a)(i).

This will address a number of the concerns I raised yesterday dealing with the vagueness, the emptiness of Bill C-377. We heard from the witnesses that Bill C-377 was void of policy, void of anything that would see action happen. I'd be glad to share more details.

Do I have permission to continue speaking?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I've read clause 10 again and again. Mr. Cullen had requested that we make some amendments. I think we've made it very clear that I have great difficulty with Bill C-377 as it's written and as it's been amended to this point. I don't believe the concerns that have been raised by the witnesses have been addressed to this point; therefore, in the spirit of goodwill, I would like to move a subamendment.

Clause 10 begins under—

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservative MPs on the environment committee simply do not want to work. They prefer filibusters and sabotage.

The Conservatives are currently holding the only comprehensive post-Kyoto legislation hostage. Bill C-377 would finally put Canada back on track in the fight against dangerous climate change.

Will the environment minister tell his MPs to stop the delay and deny tactics? Why is there so little energy to tackle climate change and why is there so much energy for the monkey wrench gang over there?

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

I don't need to catch my breath, as I've only just begun speaking. We're talking about clause 10 of Bill C-377. Let me explain how this bill, specifically clause 10, is problematic in certain respects.

The April 2007 Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions laid out the broad design of the regulations for industrial emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

This document sets out the final regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions. It includes both an elaboration and a strengthening of the April 2007 regulatory framework. The federal government still intends to work to reach equivalency agreements with any interested provinces that set enforceable provincial emission standards that are at least as stringent as the federal standards. The final regulatory framework will contribute significantly to the commitment in the 2007 Speech from the Throne to implement a national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The final regulatory framework strengthens the April 2007 regulatory framework in three key respects: All oil sands upgraders and in-situ plants that come into operation in 2012 or after will be required to meet a stringent target based on the use of carbon capture and storage by 2018. All coal-fired electricity plants that come into operation in 2012 or after will be required to meet a stringent target based on the use of carbon capture and storage by 2018. The federal government will establish a clean electricity task force to work with provinces and industry to meet an additional 25 Mt reduction goal from the electricity sector by 2020.

Let's move on to targets.

All covered industrial sectors will be required to reduce their emissions intensity from 2006 levels by 18% by 2010, with 2% continuous improvement every year after that. The target will be applied at the facility, sector or corporate level, as determined after consultations with each sector. Minimum thresholds will be set in five sectors to avoid imposing unreasonable administrative costs on small facilities. Fixed process emissions will receive a 0% target. The definition of fixed process emissions will be based on technical feasibility. To provide incentives to adopt the best available technologies for newer facilities, whose first year of operation is 2004 or later, a target based on a cleaner fuel standard will be applied. There will be an incentive until 2018 for facilities to be built carbon-capture ready. A special incentive will be provided through the target structure for high-efficiency co-generation.

Elaboration of April 2007 regulatory framework: compliance mechanisms

Canada's domestic offset system: The offset system will issue credits for incremental real, verified domestic reductions or removals of greenhouse gas emissions in activities outside the regulations. Offset credits may be used by regulated firms for compliance with their targets. The offset system will be administered in a cost-effective manner and will promote projects in as many sectors and for as many project types as practical.

Firms may use credits from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (with the exception of credits for forest sink projects) for up to 10% of their regulatory obligation.

Credit for Early Action Program:

Firms that took verified early action to reduce emissions will be eligible for a total one-time allocation of 15 Mt in credits. These credits will be bankable and tradable, and will be allocated based on clear criteria and a simple, transparent process.

Technology Fund:

Subject to the conditions set out in the April 2007 regulatory framework, firms will be able to make contributions to a technology fund as a means of complying with the regulations.

The technology fund will take a portfolio approach to investing in a range of technology deployment and development projects; the technology fund will own the emission reductions resulting from its investment, based on the cost of the project.

Subject to equivalent conditions as apply to the technology fund, firms will be able to invest directly in pre-certified investment projects, drawing from a menu of projects established by the federal government.

In order to ensure that carbon capture and storage is in widespread use by 2018, firms in sectors that can make use of this technology may be credited for investments in pre-certified carbon-capture-and-storage projects up to 100% of their regulatory obligation through 2017.

Emission reductions

The regulatory framework is expected to achieve approximately 165 Mt in direct and indirect emission reductions from the industrial sector by 2020; that is about a 37% reduction from projected levels or a 21% reduction below 2006 levels. This does not include the additional 25 Mt targeted reductions from the electricity sector.

Next steps

The regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions will now be translated into regulatory language. Draft regulations are expected to be published in the Canada Gazette, Part I for public comment in fall 2008. Final regulations are expected to be approved and published in the Canada Gazette, Part II in fall 2009. The greenhouse gas provisions of the regulations are to come into force, as planned, on January 1, 2010. Air pollutant elements will be added to the draft regulations once the regulatory framework for air pollutants has been finalized in spring 2008.

On April 26, 2007, the Government of Canada released Turning the Corner: An Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution. This plan set out an ambitious agenda to improve the environment and the health of Canadians through a series of concrete, innovative measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Rather than relying solely on the voluntary measures used in the past, for the first time, the government is introducing mandatory and enforceable actions across a broad range of sectors. In addition, the government committed to reducing Canada's total emissions of greenhouse gases, relative to 2006 levels, by 20% by 2020 and by 60% to 70% by 2050. The Turning the Corner action plan has several components, including:

a regulatory framework for industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants;

the development of a mandatory fuel-efficiency standard for automobiles, beginning with the 2011 model year, as well as action to reduce emissions from the rail, marine, and aviation sectors, and from on-road and off-road vehicles and engines; the implementation of new energy performance standards to strengthen existing energy-efficiency standards for a number of products that consume electricity, including light bulbs, in order to reduce emissions from the use of consumer and commercial products; and the development of measures to improve indoor air quality. Since the release of the Turning the Corner action plan, the Government of Canada has made significant progress in all of these areas. The April 2007 regulatory framework, entitled Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions, laid out the broad design of the regulations for industrial emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants. This document provides a detailed description of the final regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions. The framework for industrial emissions of air pollutants will be finalized in spring 2008. Section 2 summarizes the broad regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions as set out in April 2007 in the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. In Section 3, a brief overview of the consultations undertaken is provided. In Sections 4 and 5, the final greenhouse gas regulatory framework is elaborated, first with respect to the application of the target, and secondly, with respect to the design of the compliance mechanisms. Section 6 reiterates the government's intention to move from an emission-intensity based system to a fixed emission cap system in the future. In Section 7, a summary of the estimated economic impacts of the regulations on industrial greenhouse gases is given. Section 8 outlines the steps in finalizing the regulations.

The regulatory framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions proposed that the following sectors would be covered by the regulations: electricity generation produced by combustion; oil and gas (including oil sands, upstream oil and gas, natural gas pipelines, and petroleum refining); pulp and paper; iron and steel; smelting and refining (including base metals smelting, aluminum and alumina, and ilmenite (titanium) smelting; cement; lime; potash; and chemicals and fertilizer.

The targets for greenhouse gas emissions will set reductions in emission intensity from 2006 levels that will come into force in 2010. The government has committed to review the regulations every five years in order to assess progress in reaching the government's medium- and long-term emission reduction objectives. The first such review would take place in 2012 and would entail an assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and of advances in industrial technology in order to determine the potential for further emission reductions.

The framework for industrial greenhouse gas emissions has two key components: (1) stringent, mandatory short-term emission-intensity reduction targets, relative to 2006 emissions; and (2) compliance mechanisms that provide firms with flexibility in how they meet their targets. Each of these components will be addressed in turn.

The April 2007 framework set an initial required reduction of 18% from 2006 emission-intensity levels in 2010 for existing facilities. Every year thereafter, a 2% continuous improvement in emission intensity would be required. By 2015, therefore, an emission-intensity reduction of 26% from 2006 levels would be required, with a further reduction to 33% by 2010. The emission-intensity approach ties the emission reduction targets to production. This allows emission reductions to be achieved while accommodating economic growth. New facilities, which are those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later, would be granted a three-year commissioning period before they would face an emission-intensity reduction target. After the third year, new facilities would be required to improve their emission intensity each year by 2%. A cleaner fuel standard would be applied, thereby setting the target as if they were using the designated fuel. A flexible approach would be taken in special cases where the equipment or technology used in a new plant facilitates carbon capture and storage or otherwise offers a significant and imminent potential for emission reductions. The purpose of this policy is to provide an incentive for new facilities to choose cleaner fuels or to invest in the technology needed for carbon capture and storage in other less emission-intensive technologies. For both existing and new facilities, fixed process emissions, which are emissions tied to production and for which there is no alternative reduction technology, would receive a 0% target in the regulations. In other words, for these types of emissions, there is no way, with current technology, for them to be reduced except by shutting down production. In order to provide flexibility and to minimize the economic impact of the regulations, firms could comply with the regulations either by reducing their own emissions through abatement actions or by making use of one of the framework's compliance mechanisms, detailed below.

Technology fund:Firms could obtain credits for compliance purposes by contributing to a technology fund. The fund would be a means to promote the development, deployment, and diffusion of technologies that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases across industry. A third-party entity, at arm's length from government, would be created to administer the fund. A key principle is that there would be no inter-regional transfer of wealth. Contributions to the deployment-and-infrastructure component of the fund, aimed at investments with a high likelihood of yielding greenhouse gas emission reductions in the near term, would be limited to 70% of the target in 2010, falling to 65% in 2011, 60% in 2012, 55% in 2013, 50% in 2014, 40% in 2015,10% in 2016 and 10% in 2017. No further contributions would be accepted after 2017. The research and development component, which would focus on projects aimed at supporting the creation of transformative technologies, would be limited to 5 Mt each year, also ending after 2017. From 2010 to 2012, the contribution rate for the fund would be $15 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. in 2013, the contribution rate would be $20 per tonne. Thereafter, the rate would escalate yearly at the rate of growth of nominal GDP to 2017.

[...] Firms whose actual emission intensity in a given year is below their target would receive tradable credits equal to the difference between their target and their actual emission intensity, multiplied by their production in that year. These credits could be banked for future use or sold to other parties, including other regulated firms.

Offset System: Offsets are projects that result in incremental real, verified domestic reductions or removals of greenhouse gas emissions in activities that are not covered by the federal greenhouse gas regulations. These projects would generate credits that firms could use for compliance purposes. [...] Firms could use certain credits from the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. Access to these credits for compliance purposes would be limited to 10% of each firm's total target. [...] Firms that took verified action between 1992 and 2006 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions would be eligible to apply for a share of a one-time credit for early action. A maximum of 15 Mt worth of credits would be allocated, with no more than 5 Mt to be used in any on year. Firms would be required to submit evidence of changes in processes or facility improvements they had undertaken that resulted in verifiable, incremental greenhouse gas emission reductions. The maximum allocation for emission reductions would be one credit for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction. If the total tonnage of emission reductions applied for were to exceed 15 Mt, the credits would be distributed to individual firms in proportion to their contribution to the total emission reduction achieved.

Application of the industrial regulatory framework is expected to result in significant absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 levels. This would put Canada on the path to meeting its national emission reduction target of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. Under the April 2007 analysis, the economic costs of regulating industrial emissions of both greenhouse gases and air pollutants were estimated not to exceed 0.5% of GDP in any given year up to 2020. At the same time, the environmental and health benefits were estimated to exceed $6 billion per year in 2015. Following the release of the framework in April, 2007, the government consulted extensively with provinces and territories, as well as with non-governmental organizations, Aboriginal peoples, industry, and other stakeholders, on key policy and regulatory development issues in the framework that remained to be elaborated. The federal, provincial, and territorial governments have initiated a cooperative process to work through the regulatory issues, through the Environmental Protection and Planning Committee of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. Some provinces have indicated an interest in negotiating equivalency agreements with the federal government. The consultations focused on the following issues: Coverage Whether small facilities should be excluded from the regulations in order to minimize administrative burden, and if so, on what basis? Targets How the greenhouse gas target should be applied in different sectors? Whether certain sectors face special circumstances that would require a different application of the framework? Finalization of the definition of fixed process emissions in each sector. How to treat major expansions and transformations? How to incorporate a cleaner fuel standard in the target for new facilities in each sector? How the regulations could provide an appropriate incentive for co-generation?

With regard to the Technology Fund, the consultations focused on the structure of the fund; the eligibility of pre-certified investments in specific projects; emission reductions resulting from fund investments; and the ownership of emission reduction that result from fund investments.

Facility-specific: Each facility within a sector receives an individual target of an 18% reduction from its own 2006 emission intensity. This approach is applied in sectors where factors beyond the control of a facility operator affect emissions. For example, terrain characteristics, elevation, configuration, and diameter of pipe all have an impact on emissions from natural gas pipeline facilities, yet these are features that cannot be altered by existing pipeline facilities. Facility-specific targets are also used in sectors with complex and diverse facility structures. Facility-specific targets will be applied in the following sectors: iron ore pelletizing, potash, base metal smelting, chemicals, fertilizers, iron and steel, ilmenite (titanium), oil sands, petroleum refining, natural gas pipelines, and upstream oil and gas. Sector-wide: All facilities within a sector face the same target, which is an 18% reduction from the sector's average 2006 emission intensity. This approach is applied in sectors where facility structures are more homogeneous in structure across the whole sector and less complex. It will be applied in the lime, pulp and paper, aluminum and alumina, and cement sectors. Corporate-specific: Each company within a sector receives a target of an 18% reduction from the average 2006 emission intensity of its entire fleet of facilities. This approach will be used in the electricity sector, as it provides a strong incentive for investment in new non- and low-emitting power generation since the entire fleet of facilities will include all types of electricity generation. With this approach, electricity companies can reduce their emission intensity by replacing high-emission intensity facilities (for example, coal and other fossil fuels) with non-emitting or lower-emission intensity facilities (for example, wind and other renewable energy, hydro, nuclear).

4.2 Minimum thresholds

Some sectors have a large number of facilities, often including many small facilities that contribute little to the sector's overall emissions. Other sectors have only a few, but large, facilities. It may make sense to exclude very small facilities from coverage by the regulations. The approach taken balances threshold levels to ensure: (1) that the loss in emission reductions will be minimized; (2) that the regulatory burden on both industry and government will be minimized; (3) that similar facilities within a sector will face similar regulatory treatment; and (4) that facilities with similar levels of emissions in different sectors will face similar regulatory treatment. Minimum thresholds will be established for facilities in the chemical, nitrogen-based fertilizer, natural gas pipeline, upstream oil and gas, and electricity sectors.m oil and gas, and electricity sectors.

The upstream oil and gas sector comprises a very large number of facilities with a wide variety in size. The proposed threshold is much more stringent than what is currently used by the Government of Alberta in its July 2007 regulations for emissions in this sector. The government is committed to achieving a common threshold and common reporting regime in Alberta. It will continue discussion with the Government of Alberta on these issues, seeking a common practical approach to emissions coverage, including the phasing of thresholds and the identification of additional measures that could be implemented to address emissions in the rest of the sector. The federal government will also engage in discussions with the Governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. These discussions will be informed by the additional information to be provided to the government in response to its December 8, 2007, Section 71 Notice.

In all other sectors, all facilities will be covered by the regulations. 4.3 Fixed process emissions The April 2007 framework stated that fixed process emissions would receive a 0% target in the regulations, and included a general definition of fixed process emissions. After sectoral analysis and consultation with industry, the definition of fixed process emission has been made more precise. Fixed process emission are those emissions that are:

from chemical processes that produce carbon dioxide emissions and are fixed to production; and created in a process where: carbon that is chemically bound in the raw materials is removed from these materials to produce a carbon-free product (that is, less than 1% carbon by mass); carbon is used to remove an undesired component from the raw material and where the raw material is not substitutable; or unintentional oxidation of hydrocarbon feedstocks results from the catalytic conversion of these feedstocks into products; or carbon dioxide entrained in ethane gas feedstock is removed and released to the atmosphere in order to process the feedstock. Fixed process emissions do not include the result of: combustion, where combustion is the exothermic reaction of a fuel with gaseous oxygen; or a process that is for the purpose of reducing emissions of air pollutants from the facility; or the release of formation carbon dioxide from the processing of crude oil or natural gas.

How is a new facility defined?

In the April 2007 framework, new facilities were defined as those whose first year of operation was 2004 or later, but the framework did not specify how major expansions or transformations of existing plants would be treated. New facilities will include facilities that came into operation in 2004 or later and include greenfield facilities, major expansions and major transformations: Greenfield facilities are those built where no facility existed before. Major expansions are defined as a 25% increase in the physical capacity of an existing facility. Major transformations are those in which there have been significant changes to process (further details will be provided in the regulations). Only the expanded or transformed portion of the facility would be treated as new, unless the integrated nature of the facility requires that the entire facility be treated as new. Re-opened facilities would be treated as existing facilities, unless they met one or more of the above conditions.

The application of a cleaner fuel standard will be achieved as follows:

A sector-specific approach will be used to specify a cleaner fuel standard for the determination of targets for new facilities. In sectors where fuel choice is an important factor in a facility's emission intensity, an explicit cleaner fuel standard is needed to ensure that the emission intensity of the sector continues to decrease over time. This approach will apply to the potash, natural gas pipeline, upstream oil and gas, oil sands and electricity sectors. A fuel-specific cleaner fuel standard will apply to the electricity sector which will be equivalent to the emission-intensity performance of: “supercritical” technology for coal-fired generation; “natural gas combined cycle” technology for gas-fired generation; and “oil-fired gas turbine” technology for oil-fired generation.

In the other sectors, the cleaner fuel standard will be based on natural gas. In the case of oil sands, the cleaner fuel standard will be [...]

Mr. Chairman, would the committee be amenable to adopting an adjournment motion?

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

Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

I have a question for the NDP member. The Leader of the NDP, Mr. Layton, tabled Bill C-377, but everyone acknowledges that a cost study and a feasibility study should be carried out in connection with this bill.

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

Mr. Martin, when Bill C-377 was tabled, Mr. Layton indicated that there should be...

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, again, the problem with Bill C-377 is that it's void of substance, and it's quite shocking that members would support a bill that is void. Yet you have a plan, the Turning the Corner plan, which is a good plan that actually has the details, and we're actually seeing improvements already.

We need to have fixed sectoral emission caps, and that's what the Turning the Corner plan has, which Bill C-377 does not. The emission trading targets for a given pollutant will specify a maximum level for the pollutant that can be emitted for each sector every year, and that's missing from Bill C-377.

You also need to have benchmarking. In the notice of intent, the government made a commitment to develop emission targets that are at least as rigorous as those in the U.S. or other environmental performance-leading countries. To achieve this end, a benchmarking exercise was undertaken. The exercise began by researching existing regulatory regimes' environmental performance, technology, and operating practices, and the most stringent provincial operating system permits in Canada, Canadian jurisdictions, and other countries such as the United States, Finland, Sweden, and Germany. It also included taking into consideration the factors underlying those regulatory regimes, such as the size and composition of the sectors, the concentration of the facilities across the jurisdiction, and the availability and quality of feedstocks and other raw materials.

From this exercise, environmentally leading requirements were benchmarked by sector and by pollutant. Concurrently, information was gathered on Canadian sectors in which regulatory limits exist in other regulations, for example, the pulp and paper and electricity sectors. Actual Canadian regulatory limits and performance were compared with the regulated limits from the leading jurisdictions. In some sectors, regulatory limits are typically set through provincial certificates of approval or operating permits or licences for individual facilities--for example, petroleum refineries or chemical production facilities--which can have processes and/or products that vary significantly from one facility to another,

In these sectors, the actual emission performance of Canadian facilities was compared with the reported or required performance in different jurisdictions, both in Canada and internationally. This involved deriving the emission intensity values and comparing the performance of similar Canadian and foreign facilities. For other sectors--for example, aluminum smelting in iron and steel-- emission performances both in Canada and abroad, as well as regulatory limits in other jurisdictions, were reviewed. In other cases such as conventional upstream oil and gas, the approach was to benchmark against other facilities in the sector as a whole.

Finally, for the oil sands sector, which is unique to Canada, there are no comparable regulated sectoral emission limits in other countries that would enable a comparison with other jurisdictions. In this case, sectoral targets were established using a multi-step approach. This included an evaluation of performance for similar activities, equipment, and processes at similar sources of emissions in other jurisdictions--such as heavy oil refineries--examination of the potential for reductions using selected emission control technologies, and a comparison of emission intensity performance of individual oil sands facilities within Canada.

In some sectors, analyses carried out in recent years were also taken into account when carrying out the benchmarking exercise. Work done jointly by government and industry was already under way to determine how to adapt benchmarked standards to Canadian circumstances in the pulp and paper sector through the Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum, in the refining sector through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment national framework for petroleum refinery emission reductions, and in the base metal smelting sector through the base metal smelting pollution prevention plan.

The objective of the Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum was to design a 10-year overall multi-faceted air emissions management regime for the pulp and paper industry that would include short-term air pollutant targets at a level that would ensure consistent requirements for all facilities. These proposed air pollutant targets were derived from benchmarking analyses that compared world-leading international industry performance and the most stringent provincial limits.

The approach of the Pulp and Paper Air Quality Forum ensures that a consistent level of achievable control technology exists among similar facilities and is in application elsewhere, and that the overall economic impact of achieving these limits remains realistic. It also facilitates the establishment of equivalency agreements with the provinces and territories, which is very important.

The complexity of the existing regulatory system for petroleum refineries makes it difficult to define a single regulatory emission standard within Canada and other jurisdictions. For this sector, the approach used to determine the cap on emissions was based on the methodology developed through the CCME refinery framework established on May 25, 2005. This framework established an approach to setting facility-level annual caps for a range of air pollutants based on benchmarking Canadian emission performance to comparable performance in the United States. Benchmarking was updated to reflect changes to the U.S. requirements.

A notice requiring the preparation for pollution prevention plans for the base metal smelters and refineries and zinc plants was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on April 29, 2006. This notice was the result of extensive work involving stakeholder consultations, and five years of analyses of existing standards, performance, and sulphur capture efficiency of smelters around the world. The targets identified for consideration in the pollution prevention plans would be the basis for air pollutant caps for the base metal smelting sector.

In some sectors, regulatory limits or emission performance levels from leading jurisdictions were adapted to take into account characteristics specific to those sectors in Canada. Characteristics taken into account varied from sector to sector and included the financial situation of the sector, potential impacts on the economy, and the quality of the feedstocks and other raw materials relative to the benchmarked jurisdiction.

The technical feasibility of meeting the most rigorous limits was also considered in establishing emission reduction target options. In some sectors, technically feasible options were evaluated to determine expected reductions in emissions and their costs in dollars per tonne. National emission caps were established by adding together the sectoral emission caps for each pollutant of concern, taking into account an allocation for growth of each sector by 2015.

Is there any mention of this analysis within Bill C-377? No, there's not. There needs to be. There is with Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which is already having a positive effect on the environment, but in Bill C-377 it is missing. It needs to be there but is not.

Under the Turning the Corner plan, there would be a domestic cap and trade emissions trading system for SOx and NOx. The method for allocating credits under the system, including the method by which new facilities would be accommodated within the overall cap, would be determined during the regulatory development process.

There would be separate credits and compliance assessments for SOx emissions and for NOx emissions. Firms would be required to submit credits each year equal to the emissions from their facilities for that year. If a firm is in an area where the quality of the air does not meet national air quality objectives that have been set in advance by the government, restrictions would be placed on the use of credits from outside that area. The feasibility of the use of offsets, in combination with the cap and trade emissions trading system for SOx and NOx, would also be assessed.

The United States and Canada share cross-border airsheds and therefore have a shared responsibility for and interest in reducing air pollutants for all sources that contribute to air pollution. Is there any mention of protecting the air quality of Canadians within Bill C-377? No, there's not. Should there be? I believe there should be. There is in the Turning the Corner plan.

Addressing air pollution on only one side of the border does not make environmental or economic sense. The Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement was signed in 1991 to address transboundary acid rain. An annex to the agreement was added in the year 2000 to address ground-level ozone, a key component of smog. Under the agreement, Canada and the U.S. must reduce domestic emissions that flow into the other country and contribute to acid rain or ozone.

Canada and the U.S. recently agreed to start negotiations for an annex to the agreement to reduce transboundary flow of particulate matter. This is very important; recent scientific analysis has shown that joint strategies are needed to address these pollutants. The annex will result in reductions of particulate matter as well as of many of the chemicals that contribute to other air quality issues of concern, such as the acid rain, regional haze, and visibility in the communities along the Canada-U.S. border. Serious action by Canada to reduce its own emissions will make it easier to work jointly with the U.S. to reduce overall emissions.

As part of its ongoing work with the U.S. to address transboundary air pollution, the government will expedite discussions with the U.S. on a cross-border SOx and NOx emissions trading system. Having caps in Canada and in the U.S. of similar stringency would facilitate the development of cross-border trade. Such trading would provide additional flexibility for regulated sources by allowing the most cost-effective emission reduction to be made. A joint Canada-U.S. study published in July 2005 demonstrated the feasibility of cross-border trading of SOx and NOx for the electricity sector.

It is important, Chair, that we have this detail in a bill that's going to be taking Canada post-Kyoto and would be even now taking action on the environment. But Bill C-377 is dealing primarily with post-Kyoto, with no substance, no plans, no details, nothing. It has targets that were set internationally—and we agree with setting international targets—and then each country has unique circumstances. We heard from Mr. Bramley that no details specific to Canada were made, no costing, and he said we need to cost, as did Mr. Layton.

On Bill C-377, again we have another example of the importance of air quality. We have it in the Turning the Corner plan. We end up with cleaner air for Canadians to breathe and we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have that now with Canada's Turning the Corner plan--details of how to do it, details about the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement, details of focusing on SOx and NOx and particulate matter, and creating this annex with that Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement. We don't have any of that in Bill C-377.

CEPA 1999 has a number of compliance and penalty provisions. Failure by regulated entities to meet any of the requirements set out by CEPA 1999, or the regulations made under it, is an offence.

Enforcement officers verify compliance with the act and its regulations. If a violation is confirmed, action is taken using one or more of the enforcement tools provided under CEPA 1999, such as warnings, directions, tickets, and orders of various types, including environmental protection compliance orders, injunction, or prosecution.

Action taken in response to any failure to comply with regulatory requirements will be predicted and will correspond to the seriousness of the non-compliance. When prosecution is undertaken, such offences may be prosecuted by either summary conviction or indictment. CEPA 1999 includes maximum fines of up to a million dollars a day for each day an offence continues, imprisonment for up to three years, or both. Corporate directors and their officers have a specific duty to take responsible care to ensure that corporations comply with the act, its regulations, and any orders of establishments issued by enforcement officers.

As the members are well aware, enforcement is an important part of the government's plan. Did the NDP support that? No. They voted against enforcement. How about the Bloc? They must have supported it. No, they did not support enforcement of Canada's environmental laws. Now, did the Liberals? Yes, they did.

Thank you very much to my members opposite.

We have to have enforcement. It's like not having police officers enforcing the traffic laws of Canada. People would be speeding if there was never anybody enforcing the speed limits. Canada would be a much less safe place if we didn't have our police officers protecting and keeping Canada safe.

It's the same thing with the environment. You have good environmental laws, which we have with the Turning the Corner plan, and you have them enforced. What's being proposed by the NDP is a bad bill that is vague, with no details of how they're going to achieve anything, so it's not achievable. It will create jurisdictional problems and court challenges, constitutional challenges, with no enforcement options and no enforcement officers. It's no wonder the NDP will never have a real bill that will actually see positive results for the environment.

The air quality has to be part of the objectives of any good bill for the health of Canadians and for the coming generations. Health risks to Canadians from air pollution are associated with direct exposure to ambient levels of particulate matter and ozone, the main components of smog. The relationships between actual emissions, the levels of smog, and their effects on human health are complex. However, health science indicates that even at very low levels, air pollutants affect human health. They also have negative impacts on the environment, on human health, and on environmental health.

The government will set air quality objectives for particulate matter and ozone that will specify a target concentration for ambient air based on an assessment of the health and environmental effects associated with exposure to these air pollutants in Canada. A decision on air quality objectives will be made after an analysis of benefits and risks over a range of concentrations in the air we breathe.

Chair, we need to provide an analysis in modelling to determine the health and environmental benefits and the economic impacts of proposed regulations to reduce industrial air emissions. We need to directly address questions of central importance to Canadians. How will actions improve the health of Canadians and the health of the environment?

Does Bill C-377 address that? No.

How will these actions affect Canadians and the Canadian economy? No, C-377 doesn't address that.

Does the Turning the Corner plan? Absolutely. The impacts of the Turning the Corner plan were systematically traced through several models. All parts of the analysis started with an estimate of what would happen in the absence of the proposed regulations, the business as usual case. The proposed regulatory system and emission targets were then introduced in the model and assessed in terms of established reductions in emissions and changes in economic activity. Reductions in emissions are also translated generally into improvements in key air quality parameters. These improvements, in turn, have associated health and environmental benefits.

The modelling work to date has been complex but provides reasonable, albeit preliminary, general results. Work to generate more refined estimates of the impacts is ongoing.

The economic impacts reflect an integrated assessment of the industrial greenhouse gas and air pollutant regulations. On the benefit side, the modelled impacts reflect improvements in air quality resulting from reduced air pollutant emissions only. It is clearly recognized, however, that climate change has long-ranging global economic, environmental, and social impacts with significant associated costs. These costs are not included in this analysis but are an important consideration in the assessment of the cost-benefit impacts of the regulations.

What happens to air pollutants released to the atmosphere from human-related activities as well as natural emissions, as simulated by Environment Canada's regional air quality modelling system? It describes the physical process such as transport, mixing, the deposition of the air pollutants, and the chemical transformations that air pollutants undergo in the atmosphere. The model provides the concentrations and geographic distributions of primary air pollutants, those directly emitted to the atmosphere, and of secondary air pollutants, those formed chemically in the atmosphere from reactions involving the primary pollutants to which humans and the ecosystems are exposed. The effects on human health and the environment from exposure to these air pollutants are then estimated by impact models. The results are based on these models.

If one goes to Environment Canada's web page, one will see a figure that provides an indication of the reductions of NOx emissions that are expected from the proposed regulatory system and targets, assuming they're all in place by 2015. Reductions in emissions are expected in the major urban centres and throughout the western provinces. That's good news.

The predicted improvements in air quality resulting from the proposed reductions in air pollutant emissions are also illustrated as percentage reductions in annual levels of particulate matter and in summertime ozone levels, again assuming the regulations are implemented by the year 2015. Improvements in ozone levels are shown only for the summer, as the formation of ozone increases with the amount of sunlight; as a result, ozone is not an issue in the winter months.

In addition, in order to highlight the impact of the proposed regulations on Canadian quality, transboundary emissions of air pollutants from the U.S. were assumed to be constant in the model. If one looks at figure G.2, preliminary results indicate that full implementation of the industrial regulations would decrease ozone levels by approximately 5% to 15% in large portions of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba; in localized areas in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes; and by 1% to 5% in the rest of the country. Decreases in levels of ozone are also seen in neighbouring U.S. states.

In figure G.3, the preliminary results predict annual reductions in PM_2.5 of between 5% and 50% across a large portion of the country, with large reductions of 15% to 50% in PM_2.5 across the prairie provinces and reductions of 5% to 15% for southern Ontario.

Improvements in both ozone and PM_2.5 levels are largest in western Canada, where marked reductions in emissions would result from the proposed regulations. Improvements in eastern Canada--although smaller in magnitude, due to the large influence of long-range transport of air pollutants--provide benefits for the large populated areas that are more than often affected by smog events.

In addition to improvements in ambient levels of both PM_2.5 and ozone, figure G.4 shows that reductions in acid deposition are predicted primarily in areas where there are significant reductions in NOx and SOx emissions. This will result in a reduction in the size of the area receiving acid deposition levels that are in excess of what the environment--such as lakes or soils--can withstand without being adversely affected.

Health Canada's air quality benefits assessment was used to estimate the human health benefits expected from changes in Canada's ambient air quality due to the proposed regulatory actions. It uses information on air quality, health effects of air pollutants, and the value of avoiding specific effects to calculate both the number of effects and approximate value of these to Canadians.

Substantial health benefits are predicted from the proposed regulations, since it is established that they will achieve reductions in summertime ozone levels of about 3% and a decrease in particulate matter of about 8% in the year 2015. These two air pollutants are the major components of smog.

The total health benefits in the year 2015 from the reduced risk of death and illness associated with these air quality improvements are established to be $6.4 billion. That's huge. The health benefits include reductions in premature mortality and various types of health effects. Most of the benefits are associated with the reduced risk of premature death because of the large value placed on reduced mortality.

Reductions in particulate matter account for the greatest share of the benefits because of the much greater effects on human health of long-term exposure to particulate matter relative to ozone. The total health impact is probably underestimated, because only two air pollutants are considered and only some health outcomes could be quantified because of the lack of information on all the outcomes.

Reductions in the emissions of harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases would have many benefits for society, including improved environmental conditions. That would provide direct benefits to Canadian ecosystems. In addition, reductions can also raise economic productivity for specific sectors and increase the well-being of Canadians.

Some direct estimates were made of the environmental benefits from the proposed regulations. For example, ozone can hamper photosynthesis and increases the vulnerability of plants to pests and other stressors. The proposed regulations are predicted to reduce ozone levels and associated stress to agricultural plants, resulting in an increase in production of $123 million for key agricultural crops in Canada. That too is huge. The total benefits to agriculture could be much higher because the crops modelled only account for roughly 60% of the value of all crops and the impacts of soil acidification were not included.

It's very important that we consider in Bill C-377 the impacts of the environment and the impacts of a bad plan. A good plan will save Canadian lives. Canadians will live longer. It will increase agricultural output. It will save health care costs. That's what we see now with Canada's Turning the Corner plan.

A poorly written plan will not accomplish anything other than a line in the newspaper—as the commissioner said, confetti and then nothing happens, which is Bill C-377. You end up with a continuing environmental problem where Canadians are dying prematurely. So we have a responsibility to provide a healthy environment, and that's what we get with Canada's Turning the Corner plan but we do not get with Bill C-377, a plan that is void of details, a plan that is void of costing, a plan that is void of impact analysis, a plan that is void of constitutional stability. It is a plan that will not accomplish anything to protect the environment or the health of Canadians.

Canada's Turning the Corner plan has estimated costs of environmental damage. It's rated it as a relatively new area of research, and it is complex. Estimating the costs of environmental damage is important. Further work will be taken to estimate and place a value on the broader range of anticipated environmental impacts of the industrial air emission regulations. This work will build on the results of numerous studies that have estimated various costs of air pollution. For example, acidification of the lakes and rivers in eastern and central Canada has been estimated to result in annual economic losses of $500 million—that's annually—from reduced recreational fishing. Acidification depletes fish stocks in Canada's inland commercial fisheries, an industry worth $70 million per year.

It's important that we protect the environment. Bill C-377 ignores this.

The loss of nutrients due to leaching from acid rain affects forest productivity. Some estimates put annual timber losses from reduced forest growth at $197 million, and $89 million from damage to the maple syrup industry in eastern Canada. Acid rain in the most highly polluted areas in eastern Canada accelerates structural corrosion of costly transmission towers, imposing annual repair costs of $1,000 to $2,000 per tower and reducing tower lifespan by almost 30 years. The environment has a direct cost on Canada's infrastructure.

Greenhouse gas reductions by Canada alone will not significantly address global climate change. Nevertheless, Canada needs to do its share to control global greenhouse gas emissions in order to help address both the global effect and the more local threats to key sectors, resources, and the infrastructure associated with climate change. Those threats could include increased drought and temperature, with particularly severe consequences for the north and the west; decreased hydroelectric generation and transportation capacity from reduced water levels in the Great Lakes and elsewhere; and increased frequency of extreme weather events.

I've noted that the benefits associated with improved human and environmental health arising from the proposed regulations, the Turning the Corner plan, are in the order of $6.4 billion annually. What do we get from Bill C-377? Nothing.

So there are huge benefits to Canada and the environment from the direction Canada is heading in with the Turning the Corner plan—$6.4 billion annually. These benefits need to be weighed against the possible economic costs that can be attributed to the regulatory regime, in order to assess the overall impact on the Canadian economy and quality of life. The economic costs of regulation are often difficult to measure, as they depend on the reactions of a number of economic factors beyond the specific sectors directly affected.

In the case of the proposed regulatory package, the Turning the Corner plan, this would require not only the estimation of the direct impacts on production costs arising from industry compliance with emission regulations, but also that the indirect impact of these costs on future investment decisions, demand and supply, and related consequences for other businesses and consumers be tracked. There are many points of uncertainty throughout this chain of action and reactions.

Preliminary analysis performed by Environment Canada indicates that these costs will be small, but not inconsequential, relative to the total GDP. From an aggregate perspective, the annual economic costs of meeting both the regulated greenhouse gas targets and the regulated air pollution targets should not exceed 0.5% of GDP in any given year up to 2020.

The size of the national economic costs anticipated under the regulations, combined with the inherent margin of error that must be applied to microeconomic model results, makes it difficult to assess with any degree of certainty the impacts of the regulatory initiative at a provincial or a sectoral level. However, the following general observations can be made. There will likely be some year-to-year variation in the national and provincial GDP impacts, reflecting changes in industry and industry investments, with the possibility of small positive GDP impacts in the early years as the regulated industries accelerate investments in more energy-efficient, less polluting capital and technologies in response to the regulations.

Provincial economies with a strong oil and gas sector are expected to continue to see large uninterrupted volumes of production and exports of natural gas and oil. Global demand and strong world prices are expected to allow oil and gas producers and gas pipelines to absorb the relatively small incremental costs of production arising from the regulatory package. For major parts of the oil and gas sector, existing analysis also indicates a high potential for meeting much of the required reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through cost-effective options for carbon capture and storage.

Machinery and construction industries, together with sectors such as iron and steel that supply many related inputs, are expected to benefit overall as demand for their products rises because of new capital investment motivated in other sectors under the regulations. Energy utilities, electricity and natural gas, will likely be mildly affected as they'll be able to pass through many cost increases to their customers. Other major sectors such as manufacturing may experience a small rise in the cost of production associated with the pass-through of increased energy prices by the utilities. The extent to which prices will increase depends on a number of variables, including provincial regulatory policies, differences in capital turnover cycles between provinces and electricity generation units, and the take-up of renewable energy initiatives under recent federal and provincial programs.

A noticeable increase in electricity prices is nevertheless possible. This increase could in turn result in some minor downward adjustments across most sectors of the economy over the long term, for example, around 2015 and later.

The proposed industrial regulations present Canadians with concrete action on key environmental challenges and meet their expectations for responsible and effective government measures to secure a cleaner and healthier environment for themselves and their children. I have five children and four grandchildren, and I want them to be able to inherit a clean environment. That's why I am so proud to be part of a government that is actually cleaning up the environment for the coming generation.

The economic costs associated with our Turning the Corner plan, which we see in the plan but not in Bill C-377, are real and manageable. The benefits of our plan are equally real but in many respects incalculable—cleaner communities and natural spaces, healthier children, fewer premature deaths, more sustainable natural resources, and for the first time since signing the Kyoto Protocol, meaningful contributions by Canada to the global effort to control greenhouse gas emissions.

The $6.4 billion a year in health benefits that will accrue under this initiative is significant on its own, yet it represents only a portion of the health and environmental gains that Canadians will receive. The cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that the proposed regulatory package we now have in Canada's Turning the Corner plan presents a responsible path forward. It'll enable Canada to address climate change and air pollution without putting Canada's quality of life and economy at risk.

It is equitable across regions and economic sectors. It respects the polluter-pay principle. It puts in place for the first time in Canada a regulatory policy that can be fine-tuned to meet climate change and air quality objectives as we move forward. Most important, it provides Canadian businesses and citizens with the economic signals required to take into account the environmental consequences of daily decisions— whether it's choosing more environmentally efficient appliances or deciding to construct a new plant that uses renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

Canadians have long demanded that their government provide the leadership and tools necessary to enable them to better manage climate change and air quality as responsible citizens. Canada's new government is responding to this, and we've moved forward with our comprehensive, realistic, and achievable plan.

Our regulatory framework for air pollutants, including the timeframe for the entry into force of regulations, is well under way. Sector-specific regulations are being developed, leading to publication of the draft regulations in the Canada Gazette, Part I. The regulations will be revised to incorporate the air pollutant provisions a few months later, following normal regulatory procedures.

The government intends to undertake a series of consultations, and it has been doing that. We have none of that in Bill C-377. We need, for this generation and for generations on, to provide leadership.

Mr. Cullen--I wish he were here, but I guess he has stepped out and been replaced--made a comment when the commissioner was here that it was the opposition's focus to try to make the government fail on the environmental file. Fortunately for the Canadian environment, for Canadians, and for the globe, they haven't been successful. We are moving forward. The Turning the Corner plan, by regulation, is forcing the industrial sectors to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, with the toughest targets in Canadian history.

Bill C-377 will not achieve greenhouse gas emissions because it's a plan that is void of substance. It's a plan that will not withstand constitutional challenge. It does not include enforcement. It's a plan that won't work.

The irony is that the author of the bill, or the sponsor of the bill...well, actually, both the author and sponsor were witnesses here, and both of them said that the bill needs to be costed and we need an impact analysis. We heard that from every witness group. Yet now we're hearing from the NDP representative that they don't want to do that. They want Bill C-377 to move ahead just for reasons of optics.

The time for optics, Chair, is over. Canadians want action. They're getting action. We are reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That's what Canadians want, that's what they're getting, and that's why we will not be supporting Bill C-377.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So we have to be very careful, and that's why the government will determine which are good and appropriate for Canada.

Is there any mention of the CDMs in Bill C-377? No, it's missing. How much is missing? It seems that everything is missing from Bill C-377, and that's what the witnesses have said. There is nothing there.

Access to CDM mechanisms under the Turning the Corner plan, credits for compliance, will be limited to 10% of each firm's total target.

A number of U.S. states are currently considering implementing regulatory regimes with emissions trading to reduce emissions for greenhouse gases. The Western Regional Climate Action Initiative intends to establish an emissions trading system for greenhouse gas emissions from industry in five western U.S. states. Starting in 2009, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative will implement a regional emissions trading system in nine northeast and mid-Atlantic states that covers carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the region. Several other greenhouse gas emissions trading initiatives have been proposed at the state and federal levels in the United States.

Canada will actively work with U.S. partners to explore opportunities for linking Canada's emissions trading with regulatory-based emissions trading systems at the regional and state level, and with any that may be established at the federal level. Canada will also actively explore cooperation on emissions trading with Mexico. Bill C-377, again, is silent on all of this.

The government will monitor, under the Turning the Corner plan, the development of an international carbon market. As this market becomes more fully developed and robust, and emissions monitoring, verification, and reporting systems evolve further, the government will consider full linkages that could allow a broader range of international credits to become eligible for compliance with Canada's regulatory system in place. An essential condition is that any international credits used towards compliance with Canadian regulations represent real and verified emission reductions—again, the importance of having a plan that is working, in which you can verify the reductions in greenhouse gases. Do we see that in Bill C-377? No, we don't.

I wish I could share what good there is in Bill C-377, but it's missing all the fundamentals of a plan that will achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We don't see that, but we do in Canada's Turning the Corner plan, which is already taking action.

There needs to be credit for early action, and that's what we see in the Turning the Corner plan that Canada now has. Firms in a number of sectors have made efforts over the last decade to reduce emissions, and we applaud those. There would be a one-time allocation of credits to those firms covered by the proposed regulations that took verified action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions between 1992 and 2006. A maximum of 15 megatonnes would be allocated, with no more than 5 megatonnes to be used in any one year.

Firms would be invited to make a one-time application where they would submit evidence of changes in processes or facility improvements they undertook that resulted in incremental greenhouse gas emission reductions in the specified timeframe. There would be eligibility criteria to determine which emission reduction activities would be considered, and evidence of emission reductions would be audited.

Once all applications were received, the reserve would be allocated to all qualifying applicants on a pro rata basis. The maximum allocation for emission reductions would be one credit for one tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction. If the total tonnage of the emission reduction applied for were to exceed the 15 megatonnes, the credits would be distributed to individual firms in proportion to their contribution to the total emission reduction achieved.

So there is recognition for early action. Is it important that we do that? I think so. The government has recognized the importance of recognizing early action. Do we see any mention anywhere in Bill C-377 of giving credit for early action? No, you don't. Why not?

Under the Turning the Corner plan, the availability of different compliance mechanisms will provide industry with the access to emission reduction opportunities it needs to meet the regulatory obligations at a reasonable cost and will support the development of a functioning emissions trading market system. That said, the government recognizes there may be concern about the level of market liquidity in the trading system, both at the start of the system and over time. The government will carefully monitor the evolution of the emissions trading system and other aspects of the compliance mechanisms in order to determine any modifications that might be required. It has to be a system that works, and we're committed to that. And I'm happy, again, that the Liberals supported that plan.

The emission reduction targets for a given air pollutant will specify a maximum level of that pollutant that can be emitted from a given sector in a given year. These targets will represent national reductions from the 2006 emission levels for each pollutant.

Fixed emission caps will be set for the following air pollutants: nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, VOCs, and particulate matter. Fixed emission caps for certain other air pollutants from specific sectors, such as benzene from natural gas production and processing, refineries, and iron and steel, and mercury from electricity generation and base metal smelting, will also be set. As more information becomes available and regulatory development is undertaken, the government will consider whether the regulations for specific sectors should include targets for other air pollutants not already identified—for example, benzene from the oil sands.

Do we see any mention of that in Bill C-377? No. One would ask why not. Why is Bill C-377 void of all these important components?

I'll continue. Sectoral emission caps will be set for each air pollutant of concern in a given sector. Whether a cap is set for a specific pollutant in a given sector will depend on whether the pollutant is emitted in significant quantities from facilities in that sector. In some cases, caps will not be proposed for an air pollutant in a sector if the measures to reduce another air pollutant will significantly reduce emissions in the first. How the sectoral caps will be allocated among the facilities will be determined during the process of developing the detailed regulations. The targets will come into effect as early as possible, between 2012 and—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So with carbon capture and storage, I was sharing with you that as one injects the water and carbon dioxide mix into that geological formation—and Canada has an ideal geological formation in Alberta, up along the Rockies—we would be able to put that carbon back where it came from, below the earth. Carbon capture and storage is a technology that the world is hoping will accomplish about 25% of the problem.

So along with the efficiencies and cleaner fuels, the technology that is showing the biggest promise is carbon capture and storage. It is a great technology in Canada, and it's part of what we're proposing. Are these kinds of details in the plan of Bill C-377? No, they are not; they're missing. Again, there are general targets set, with no substance attached to how these targets are going to be achieved. There's no costing, and there are jurisdictional problems. So what it is important to realize is that Bill C-377, if it were to move forward and be supported by the Liberals and the Bloc—who would be supporting the NDP's bill—is a good bill in principle, but it is missing all the details.

Bill C-377 is missing a fund, yet the fund in the Turning the Corner plan would support critical infrastructure—for example, carbon capture and storage, including a pipeline in Alberta for carbon dioxide transport. We have the plant at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, that pumps the carbon dioxide from North Dakota, 300 kilometres north, and it's very effective. So we need to be able to come up with a pipeline that would be able to move the carbon dioxide. You purify it and condense it. And you have to have a program where we get the dollars where they are needed.

So you should build that technology, and it won't happen just by having Bill C-377. Bill C-377 won't accomplish that, whereas the Turning the Corner plan—what we have in Canada now—will accomplish that and is supporting that.

Now, I want to thank the Liberal members for their support of our Turning the Corner plan. They have supported that, but unfortunately the Bloc hasn't supported it and the NDP has not supported the funding of this great technology.

Our technology fund could also support an east-west electricity grid linking markets from Manitoba to Newfoundland. As a way of meeting part of our regulatory obligations, firms could contribute to the fund at a rate of $15 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent from 2010 to 2012, and $20 a tonne in 2013. Thereafter the rate would escalate yearly at the rate of growth of nominal GDP. This rate structure would be reviewed every five years as part of the general review of the regulatory system.

Do we see these details in Bill C-377? No, we don't. They're all missing. Yet in the Turning the Corner plan, it is very clear. Contributions to the deployment and infrastructure component would be limited to 70% of the total regulatory obligation in 2010, falling to 65% in 2011, 60% in 2012, 55% in 2013, 50% in 2014, 40% in 2015, and 10% in 2016 and 2017. The contribution limit would fall to 0% by 2018.

So what we see is a plan that will achieve an absolute reduction in industrial sectors, a plan that will begin to help industry to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that they can buy into. But they can't continue to emit greenhouse gases; they have to clean them up. Every year they have to get cleaner, and they need the tools to put money into a technology fund to buy down their carbon. They cannot continue as they are. Eventually, by 2018, it's zero. These are very clear details that provide very clear direction to industry.

To the different industrial sectors now, in May they would provide their targets. They realize there's a carbon market now forming and they realize their targets are fixed. They report their 2006 targets, and their targets are fixed, and then, within a very short period of time, they have to provide absolute reductions. They have to. It's not voluntary; it's mandatory.

Those kinds of details are absent from Bill C-377. With those details being absent from Bill C-377, will Bill C-377 achieve what it says it would like the government to? No, it won't, and that's what we heard from the witnesses.

The Turning the Corner plan gives clear direction to industry, it gives them the tools to reduce their emissions, and it also lets them know it will be done. And there's a rationale that protects the environment and protects the economy and sets these high standards. Bill C-377 is missing all of this, which would then tell us very clearly that it will not achieve anything.

One would even question, what is this bill trying to accomplish if it's not going to accomplish a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? Going back to what the commissioner said--and I will not reread that at this meeting--you've got to have a plan that is realistic, that is achievable, and that has had social, economic, and environmental assessments. If those are missing, which they are in Bill C-377, the end result is a phony bill that tries to make a party look like they care about the environment, a party that has had every opportunity to vote for the environment, for funding for the environment, that has a legacy of voting against the environment, against the environment, and against the environment.

Even in British Columbia—and I encourage people to come out and visit British Columbia, because I think it's the most beautiful province in Canada—we have the Great Bear Rainforest. It was protected, and the NDP even voted against protecting that very sensitive area and the $30 million that was funded.

So one would ask, what is the real purpose of Bill C-377 when it's not going to accomplish anything?

On the other hand, the government's plan will explore the option of providing credits to individual companies for government pre-certified investments on specific projects. This option would allow a company that invests in a transformative technology that would incrementally reduce future emissions to receive credits from the government for that investment. These credits could be used towards its regulatory obligations. Criteria for such investments would be determined in advance by the government in consultation with the industry and other experts, and that takes time. But it's good.

Imposing a mandatory requirement for investments to be made in specific infrastructure products and a smaller component of the fund limited to an additional five megatonnes per year from 2010 to 2017 would help finance research and development projects aimed at supporting the creation of transformative technologies that are expected to achieve emission reductions in the medium to longer term.

Emissions trading is very important. It'll be an important component, and it is now the government's market-driven approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What detail do we have about market trading? We have eight words: “market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets”, with no details. Well, details are needed, and they're missing in Bill C-377.

Well-designed emissions trading systems can reduce overall costs associated with regulatory compliance by allowing firms with a high cost of emission abatement to fund lower-cost emission reduction projects at other firms. In addition, emissions trading systems create an economic incentive for companies to do better than their regulated targets and bring innovation to bear on the challenge of climate change.

The emissions trading system that will be part of the regulatory framework for greenhouse gases will have a number of components. Inter-firm trading, through which regulated firms may buy and sell emission credits among themselves, will be the centre component. A domestic offset system will allow regulated firms to invest in verified emission reductions outside of the regulated system. There will be no limit on firms' access to domestic emissions trading and offsets.

In addition, Canadian firms will have limited access to certain types of credits from the Kyoto Protocol's clean development mechanisms, or CDMs, for compliance with the regulations.

Potential linkages with regulatory-based trading systems in the United States will be actively pursued. In particular, the government will examine the flexibility of linking with such emissions trading systems as the western regional climate action initiative and the regional greenhouse gas initiative, as well as with other systems as they become established. Over time, as national and regional carbon markets become more mature and the market becomes more global in nature, with robust emission reduction verification systems--and you have to have verification systems--Canadian firms will have increased access to international trading markets for purposes of compliance with Canadian regulations. Canadian firms will not, however, be allowed to use hot air credits, which do not represent real emission reductions, for compliance with Canadian regulations.

It's important that you have a verification system. Is that in Bill C-377? No, it's not. It's missing. Will it achieve greenhouse gas emissions? Will it achieve a supportable carbon market? No, it won't. Do we need that? Yes, we do. Does industry need to have a carbon market? Yes. This is missing in Bill C-377, and yet we already have that with the Turning the Corner plan.

Recognizing the opportunity offered by emission trading, Canada's exchanges have been positioning themselves to launch trading when the regulatory framework is finalized. We've already seen now the good news about a carbon market being headquartered out of Montreal. The Government of Canada will not purchase credits or otherwise participate in the carbon market. It will not be happening with the Government of Canada; it will be industry-driven.

The central component of the emissions trading system for greenhouse gases will be a baseline and credit system. For each firm, the baseline will be its emission intensity target. Firms whose actual emission intensity in a given year is below their target will receive tradeable credits equal to the difference between their target and their actual emission intensity, multiplied by their production in that year. These credits could be banked for use in future compliance years or sold to other parties through an emissions trading market established by the private sector.

Is it important that you have those kinds of details? Yes. Are they in Bill C-377? No.

The emissions trading system would also include domestic offset credits. Offsets are emissions reductions that take place outside the domain of the regulated activities. Offsets credits, which regulated firms could use towards their regulatory obligations, would be issued for verified reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that were incremental to what would have happened without the regulatory system or other governmental programs.

An offset credit would represent one tonne of verified greenhouse gas reduction or removal achieved by a given project, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent. The credit would be recognized in the regulations as tradeable and could be used to meet the obligations of the regulated facilities. Offset credits would be issued for those activities where emission reductions could be accurately quantified and verified at a reasonable cost. Examples of possible offset project types include the capture of methane from landfill gas that is then used to generate electricity, energy efficiency projects, and projects that store carbon in agricultural land.

To lower the cost of participation, pre-approved quantification approaches would be provided and the aggregation of small projects would be encouraged. The framework for the offset system would be built on the experience gained in three Canadian pilot initiatives and on project-based crediting systems in other countries.

In addition, considerable work on the development of a framework has taken place in Canada, with the provinces and the private sector playing leading roles. Canada's private sector would play a major role in the offset system, including verifying emission reductions achieved from eligible offset projects and providing infrastructure and services required for the trading of the credits.

The offset system would start prior to the entry into force of the regulations in order to provide adequate time for projects to generate emission reductions. Credits would be issued to those verified emission reductions. These credits could be sold to regulated entities for use for compliance purposes.

Do we see that in Bill C-377, a clarification on an offset system, the mention of an offset system? No, it's not there. Have we heard mention from witnesses? Yes, we have. Is it deliberately missing from this, or is there an omission because the bill is poorly written? I would suggest that the bill was rushed. It was not well thought out and it probably needs to go back and be totally rewritten and reintroduced to Parliament because it's missing so much.

It's also missing mention of CDMs, clean development mechanisms. Generally speaking, an emissions trading system with a broader scope will provide more opportunities for cost-effective emission reductions.

Over the past five years a number of subnational, national, and regional greenhouse gas emissions trading markets have been implemented or proposed for implementation in the near future. The most comprehensive of those is the EU's emissions trading system, which began as a pilot phase in 2005, and it is moving to a more complete system starting in 2008. The experience of the EU trading system has provided valuable insights in developing Canada's regulatory system for greenhouse gases, and the government intends to continue discussions with the EU on what Canada can learn from the EU's experience with emissions trading.

Notwithstanding these developments, the international carbon market is still fragmented and in its infancy. As the global market develops and matures, there will be additional opportunities for Canadian firms to participate in it.

When we were in Berlin, Mr. Cullen, I myself, Mr. Godfrey--and I forget the member from the Bloc--heard clearly that carbon markets need to first develop domestically and mature before you go into international trading, and that's exactly what's happening with our Turning the Corner plan.

The government intends to start modestly by allowing Canadian firms limited access to certain types of credits from the Kyoto Protocol's CDMs for the purpose of meeting their regulatory obligations. The government will determine which types of CDM credits should be eligible for regulatory compliance in Canada.

Mr. Harvey has talked a number of times about Madam Donnelly and her experience in CDMs internationally. We heard that there is a limited number of CDMs, and not all CDMs may be good for the environment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, thank you.

I appreciate Mr. Cullen's comments, but in fact I am speaking specifically to clause 10. I'm not going to read clause 10, because we've already done that and we all have clause 10 in front of us.

What we see definitely missing in Bill C-377 is the absence of what I'm presenting. Canada has a regulatory framework called the Turning the Corner plan, and this is missing in Bill C-377. We heard from the witnesses that it won't accomplish anything, because there's nothing there to accomplish.

In Canada, we already have the Turning the Corner plan, which sets the toughest targets in Canadian history. Mr. Cullen has asked for the target. So I'll remind him that it's 20% by 2020, which is the toughest target in Canadian history, and 60% to 70% reduction, absolute reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, by 2050. It's never happened before. We've never had such targets in Canadian history, but it's happening now.

The first review will be in 2012. Under the proposed greenhouse gas regulations, firms will have several options to take in meeting their legal obligations. Ideally, firms will reduce their own emissions through abatement actions such as energy efficiency measures, improved energy management systems, and deployment of carbon capture and storage or other emission-reducing technologies.

Are we seeing any of that in Bill C-377? No, we're not. In the Turning the Corner plan, there will be limited access to other compliance mechanisms. First, firms could meet their compliance obligations through contributions to a technology fund. That's good. Bill C-377 mentions the technology fund, which already exists in the Turning the Corner plan.

Secondly, they will have access to emissions trading, including inter-firm trading, emission reduction credits for non-regulated activities, and qualified credits from the Kyoto Protocol's CDMs, or clean development mechanisms. This is missing in Bill C-377. They have a bit about market-based mechanisms such as emission trading and offsets, but we already have that in Canada's Turning the Corner plan. So Bill C-377 is redundant. The few tools the bill mentions are already in the Turning the Corner plan. Maybe they're copying the plan.

Also, there will be a one-time recognition of firms that took early verified action between 1992 and 2006 to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Is that in Bill C-377? No, it's missing and it shouldn't be missing. Well, maybe it should be, because maybe we don't need Bill C-377.

Finally, linkages to the North America emissions trading system will be actively pursued. Over time, as the international carbon market becomes more developed and robust, and as emissions verification and reporting systems evolve further, government will consider further international linkages. All this is missing from Bill C-377.

It's important to have a plan that will be effective. This is the warning that the witnesses were giving us about Bill C-377. I'm going into details that may seem a little long, but details are important in a plan that will be effective. You can't just have ineffective targets like those of the Liberals—13 years of not getting it done. But we now have a plan. It has all changed. We have a plan that is effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's an effective plan. But we all have to actively participate and do our part and not come up with phony bills that aren't going to do anything. That's what we heard from the witnesses.

Over time, as the international carbon market becomes robust, you will see Canada taking an active part. Canadian business and industry will actively participate in trading in the carbon market, which will begin in Canada. We're glad it's going to be based in Montreal. I think Mr. Bigras is happy about that too. Canadians are. It's the market that's decided where that's going to be. It's in Montreal. It's part of our regulatory framework. Canadians need this dependability to be able to begin the trading regime. And it began because we have a Turning the Corner plan.

Bill C-377 would turn the clock back. It's a plan with no substance, no meat on the bones, and it would destroy the good inertia to clean up the environment that we now see in Canada. Bill C-377 is definitely a bad idea.

Technological advancement and innovation are critical to achieving significant long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies, both under development and ready for deployment, provide a means to transform Canada's industrial production and thereby significantly reduce emissions. I'll refer again to Mr. Harvey's example of the number of tonnes of carbon dioxide that are created by producing a tonne of aluminum. One tonne of aluminum in Canada produces four tonnes of carbon dioxide; in China it's seven tonnes. So where should the aluminum be made if we're seriously concerned about the environment? With Canadian technology, those four tonnes of carbon dioxide will be reduced, and I believe reduced substantially.

That's just one example of one manufactured product that needs to be developed with the cleanest technologies, and that's why we need to get all the major emitters as part of the solution. Canada is doing its part, and those technologies are being developed in Canada.

Under the Turning the Corner plan--not under Bill C-377, which is missing all these details--firms would be able to meet part of their regulatory obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by contributing to the technology fund. This fund would provide more than just a compliance mechanism for industry; it would act as an important means for promoting the development, the deployment, and the diffusion of the technologies that reduce emissions of greenhouse gases across the industry. Again, that is missing from Bill C-377.

A third party entity would be created to administer the technology fund. Is that in Bill C-377? No. This would be an independent, not-for-profit entity administered by a board of directors composed of individuals originating from industry, federal and provincial governments, and other stakeholders. It would operate under a federal mandate. Again, it's missing with Bill C-377. Is it an important tool that needs to be part of an effective plan that will see absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? Absolutely, but it's missing in Bill C-377. It's not part of any of the amendments either. It's missing in clause 10 of Bill C-377.

The process of determining the allocation for funding to projects and the legislative authority, governance, and administration of the fund has to be developed, and it is being developed. The design of the fund will respect two basic principles: no inter-regional transfer of wealth and no government control. These are very important items, and again there are no details of anything like that in Bill C-377. It's missing a very important tool for industry.

Before finalizing the structure of the fund, the government will work with the provinces and territories, as well as the sectors, to determine the appropriate disbursements of the fund, taking into consideration the development and employment of technologies that would be used by sectors with facilities across the country and provincial initiatives that support the development of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and potentially the air pollutants as well. Again, there are the dual benefits. Does Bill C-377 talk about those dual benefits? No, it doesn't. Should Bill C-377 talk about dual benefits for the health of Canadians and the health of our planet? Yes, it should, and they're missing. It's a big mistake and it's one of the problems with Bill C-377.

Again with reference to the technology fund, other funds that meet all necessary requirements could be certified to qualify as part of the regulatory framework. In particular, provincial funds that are consistent with the federal fund could be recognized as equivalent through working with the provinces. It's very important to have that.

The fund would primarily be used to fund investments that have a high likelihood of yielding greenhouse gas emission reductions in the short term. The primary focus will be funding technology deployment and related infrastructure projects. Carbon capture and storage is one of the most promising technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with a broad array of industrial activities, and I don't want to go over again the importance of carbon capture and storage, but I believe the other country that has that technology is Norway. The amount of carbon it captures and pumps into a geological formation in the water from a platform is, I believe, about half as much as at the Weyburn, Saskatchewan, plant. We've had our plant in Weyburn pumping carbon dioxide into geological formations for the longest time of any plant in the world. It's the biggest in the world. It's about twice the size of that in Norway, I believe.

What happens is that carbon dioxide can be stored. It becomes limestone over the years. It solidifies into the rocks. When you first inject it into the strata that are holding the oil, it creates an increased viscosity for the oil. The oil is not in a big pool; it's impregnated in the rocks, and as you inject the water and the carbon dioxide into that strata, the viscosity of the oil is increased. So oil fields that weren't active anymore, like those in Weyburn, now become productive oil fields again. That carbon dioxide and water is recovered then and reinjected back in along with the enhanced oil recovery.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It is clause 10. I'm sharing the importance of having targets that are realistic and that are achievable. The difficulty we've had with Bill C-377 is that there are targets that haven't been costed.

We've asked Mr. Cullen if he would accept a motion, but we haven't made a motion. I was just testing the waters: would he accept having it costed, as recommended by the witnesses? The instructions he has from his leader now are not to have that, which is disappointing. The Commissioner of the Environment advised that there be an analysis. This is what we heard from every witness group. Of course, the NDP, after introducing the bill and recommending that it be costed, is now suggesting that they don't want Parliament to be making a decision based on facts; they want emotional targets.

We agree that we need to set the toughest targets in Canadian history, and we have done that. Our Turning the Corner plan does that. It builds on intensity targets, and within a very short period of time, by 2012, we have absolute reductions coming. By 2020 we'll have absolute reductions of 20%, again the toughest in Canadian history.

We heard from the witnesses previously that intensity isn't bad; what's important is how tough those intensity targets are. Of course, they are mandatory, concrete intensity targets that will result in absolute reductions, which is good news for Canada and good news for the world. The targets will also make a vital contribution to the government's commitment to reduce the national absolute greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.

The government is introducing the toughest action in greenhouse gases ever proposed by a Canadian government. The government's emission intensity targets are 6% more stringent, at 18%, than the emission intensity targets proposed on July 16, 2005, at only 12%. Unlike the 2005 proposal, our Turning the Corner plan also requires annual improvements in emission intensity of 2%, meaning that by 2015, a 26% emission intensity improvement will be required under this plan. It's huge.

Short-term mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by sector are defined in terms of reductions in emission intensity from their emission intensity in 2006. That's the base year.

Each country has its own unique circumstances. Globally, everybody needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as we all agree, hopefully; some may not. The reality is that everybody has to do their part globally or greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. We need to get all the major emitters, including the United States, India, and China, reducing their emissions too.

Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production are capped under our plan. We don't hear any details in Bill C-377. It's unfortunately missing any details. We heard that from the witnesses. All they are, are targets, with no idea how they are going to be achieved. The NDP leader, Mr. Layton, equated it to building a railway, with no idea how he was going to do it, but he had a dream.

Our plan, the plan, which will be effective and is already being effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has the units of production capped. The regulatory release limit for individual facilities within a given sector that will be needed to achieve this overall percentage reduction will be determined as part of the process to develop the detailed regulations.

The emission intensity approach ties targets to production. This means that firms will not be able to claim emission reduction credits by shutting down production for environmental reasons or obtain credits for moving production out of Canada. Rather, credits can only be earned through cleaner production. More importantly, these rigorous targets will yield absolute reductions, even as the economy grows. As the World Resources Institute noted in a 2006 report, “For environmental performance, what matters overall is that targets are set at reasonably stringent levels and subsequently are met. This may be achieved with absolute or intensity targets.”

Again, this is what we see missing in Bill C-377--no details, no direction, no substance on how their targets can be achieved, no costing, and no impact analysis.

The approach for determining the emission intensity targets for each sector in the Turning the Corner plan is based on an improvement of 6% each year from 2007 to 2010. This yields an initial required reduction of 18% from 2006 levels in 2010, the year the proposed greenhouse gas regulations would come into full force. Every year thereafter, a 2% continuous improvement on emission intensity would be required. By 2015, therefore, a reduction in emission intensity of 26% from 2006 levels would be mandated. This basic approach will be applied to existing facilities in each industrial sector.

The 18% emission intensity reduction calculation applies only to combustion and non-fixed-process emissions. Regulatory release limits per unit of output for existing facilities would reflect this.

Predefined fixed-process emissions would have a zero percent reduction in emission intensity from 2006 levels in 2010. Fixed-process emissions are emissions tied to production for which there is no alternative reduction technology. The only way to reduce these emissions is to reduce production. Processes that are currently considered fixed may not be considered fixed in the future if technologies or processes are developed that could reduce or capture and store the emissions. At the sectoral level, the share of total emissions that are fixed-process emissions varies. For each sector, the basic approach will be an 18% reduction from the 2006 levels in 2010, with continuous improvement in emission intensity thereafter.

Fixed-process emissions will have to be determined on the basis of the characteristics of firms and sectors. To provide sufficient time for the facilities to reach normal operating levels, new facilities will be granted a three-year grace period before they have to meet an emission intensity reduction target. After the third year, the initial greenhouse gas emission intensity target will be based on cleaner fuel standards. New facilities will also be required to improve their emission intensity by 2% each year, as do existing facilities. New facilities are defined as those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later.

The three-year grace period means that no improvements are expected in the first three years of operation, and no target will apply during these years. Targets begin to apply in the fourth year of operation, even if that year is before 2010. For example, a facility that began operation in 2005 will begin to face a target in 2008, based on its emission intensity performance in 2007 and on the application of the cleaner fuel standard. A flexible approach to implementation will be taken in those special cases where the equipment used in a plant facilitates carbon capture and storage or another technology offering significant potential for emission reductions.

The approach I've just described is the one that will be applicable across the full range of industrial sectors. Specific sectoral issues will be considered in developing the regulations, but all resulting emission reductions must be equivalent to those resulting from the general approach.

The continuous improvement of 2% in a sector's emission intensity would be applied through 2020. As I noted, there would be a review of the regulatory framework, including targets, every five years. The first review would take place in 2012. This is what's missing in--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I am speaking to clause 10. What I said for a second time was not to repeat but to emphasize the importance of the fact that we need absolute reductions. And you phase in absolute reductions, starting with intensity, with very severe, tough intensity targets. This is all missing in Bill C-377.

Clause 10 says that....

Mr. Chair, I want to explain the relevance of clause 10. Do I have your permission to read clause 10 again?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It's always good to talk about the environment.

Mr. Rodriguez is here. We have some new faces.

Anyway, the government will validate the benchmarked air pollution targets over the next several months. The government will work with industry, the provinces and territories, labour, and environmental and health groups during the validation process. The regulatory framework for air pollutants—that is, the targets, the compliance mechanisms, and the timetable for the entry into force of the regulations—will be finalized in the fall of 2007, which it was, and after the government has validated the benchmarked air pollutant targets.

While this validation process is under way, we've developed sector-specific regulations for the general provisions and those related to greenhouse gases, leading to publication of the draft regulations in Canada Gazette, Part I, in the spring of 2008. The regulations will be revised to incorporate the air pollutant provisions a few months later, following normal regulatory procedures.

So it takes time for a regulation to be implemented, and that whole process has begun. For those who weren't here, it's a process that is already having positive effects.

What's being proposed by Bill C-377, we know, will not have effects. It is, again, one of those announcements with no substance. Yet the government, with our Turning the Corner plan, does have a regulatory process that will see absolute reductions of 20% by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050—the toughest in Canadian history and one of the toughest in the world.

The government will monitor the evolving regulatory framework as the regulations are developed and implemented over the two years and will make adjustments as needed.

In addition, the government is committed to reviewing the regulations on industrial air emissions every five years in order to assess progress in reaching medium- and long-term emission reduction objectives. The first such review would take place in 2012. The review would entail an assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and of advances in industrial technology—energy production, industrial processes, and pollution abatement—in order to determine the potential for further emissions reductions consistent with the goal of continuous improvement. The review would also examine the state of air quality and possible changes in the Canadian industrial sector mix, including regional changes, that could affect the goal of achieving tangible benefits for the health of Canadians and the environment.

The federal government will set stringent national standards and will work to reach equivalency agreements with those provinces that set provincial emissions standards that are at least as stringent as the federal standards. We're already seeing that happening. Equivalency agreements will allow provincial leadership, while ensuring a national level of health and environmental protection—again, strong federal leadership.

You don't see that in Bill C-377. You see, again, the whole structure, as Mr. Vellacott said, built on a very shaky foundation. You see now, with the Turning the Corner plan, a very clear, strong mandatory regulatory framework that is already having positive effects for Canada's environment and for the global environment. As the proposed federal regulations are developed, the government intends to work with provinces and territories to avoid, as much as possible, any duplication and to ensure consistency in the way in which regulations are applied, again respecting provincial jurisdiction. We heard from the witnesses that Bill C-377 would give broad and unlimited powers to the federal government over the provinces.

Now, I was quite sure that the Bloc would then not support Bill C-377, but they did. They've made some amendments, but they do not want to hear from any witnesses to find out if their amendments are effective. Of course, our government wants to respect provincial jurisdictional responsibilities and authorities. In our regulatory framework of the Turning the Corner plan, it's very clear that we are proposing a plan that does respect provincial jurisdiction. It's already happening. It's already having a positive effect, and Bill C-377 would take us far from that. That's what many of the witnesses were indicating.

Most provinces restrict the emissions of air pollutants; however, standards vary considerably across the country. Alberta has also recently released draft regulations to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions in its territory. Since the federal government recognizes the important role played by the provinces and territories and their management, work will be undertaken with interested provinces and territories to make the best use possible of equivalency agreements. When an equivalency agreement has been reached, the Governor in Council can suspend the application of the specified CEPA 1999 regulations in the signing province so that only the equivalent provincial regime applies. That's good. The federal Minister of the Environment remains responsible for reporting annually to Parliament in the administration of the CEPA 1999 provisions that permit these equivalency agreements.

Again you have the minister reporting directly to Parliament--another good part of Turning the Corner. CEPA 1999 authorizes the minister to enter into an equivalency agreement with a province, territory, or aboriginal government if the minister and the other jurisdictions' governments demonstrate that there are provisions in force in that jurisdiction that meet or exceed the equivalent level of environmental protection mandated by the federal regulations in force, and include rights similar to those prescribed in sections 17 to 20 of CEPA 1999--the right of citizens to request an investigation of alleged offences under the other jurisdictions' legislation. We see this missing in Bill -377--sweeping powers, unlimited powers over the provinces, which is not in the provincial interest--and also we heard clearly that there would be a constitutional challenge. Yet we have already in place a respecting of those provincial jurisdictions in the Turning the Corner plan.

And clearly we have taken action already with the toughest targets in Canadian history, and that is very preferential to Bill -377, which we have heard is actually a hollow and phony bill.

Provincial enforcement certificates of approval, or permitting, or licensing systems can be recognized as a basis for an equivalency agreement. Once an equivalency agreement is negotiated, the Governor in Council may make an order declaring that the provisions of CEPA 1999 regulation that are the subject of the equivalency agreement do not apply in the jurisdiction of a particular province, territory, or aboriginal government with which the agreement has been negotiated. The result is that the regulation, or a portion of it, would stand down, leaving the subject matter of CEPA 1999 regulation to be governed by the laws of the province, territory, or aboriginal government with which the agreement was negotiated.

Regarding short-term emission intensity targets, the government has put in place a short-term emission intensity reduction target that will come into force in 2010. These targets will result in absolute reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases from industry as soon as 2010 and no later than 2012.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

For greenhouse gases, the framework sets a 2010 implementation date for emission intensity reduction targets. For air pollutants, the framework sets fixed emission caps that will enter into force as soon as possible between 2012 and 2015.

In order to minimize cost to industry and the impact in the economy, the framework contains compliance mechanisms intended to provide industry with flexibility in meeting its regulatory options.

The framework also requires rigorous monitoring and reporting in order to ensure compliance, assessment, and transparency.

These are all ingredients that are missing in Bill C-377. There is no costing. There is nothing on the framework. There are just international targets, with no costing and direction as to how Canada can achieve those targets.

As you can see, the Turning the Corner plan does include that--a costing, a framework, consultation, and a realistic plan that is already seeing positive results.

The short-term targets are expressed as reductions from the 2006 levels. To support the development and implementation of regulations, comprehensive and consistent baseline data for 2006 will be required from facilities in the regulated sectors. To this end, the government will require that facilities in those sectors that will be covered by the regulations report 2006 emissions and other relevant data under a notice issued under section 71 of CEPA 1999. That is also at work, and industry is required to report by the end of May of this year.

This is another example of the regulatory process happening. It's exciting, Chair, to see it actually happening. After years of inaction, this government is getting it done.

Are the bells ringing?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's a good-news story.

Did the Bloc support extending the public transit credit to different types of public transit, enhancing public transit? No. Did the NDP support that? No. We have a very serious trend here, where the Bloc and the NDP are not supporting environmental programs.

We provided funding to protect Canada's natural heritage, including $225 million for conserving ecologically sensitive lands and $110 million for protecting species at risk. Surely the Bloc would have supported that. They didn't. Did the NDP support that? No.

Our plan included $22 million over the next two years to strengthen environmental enforcement. You can make laws, but if you don't enforce them you are not going to have an effect. Volunteerism only works to a point. You need to have mandatory regulatory framework and it has to be enforced. Did the Bloc support enforcing the environmental laws of Canada? Did the NDP support that? No.

We provided $92 million over two years to improve the water that Canadians drink, to clean polluted water, to protect ecosystems, and to ensure the sustainability of Canada's fish resources. We included over $200 million in funding to renew the Canadian Coast Guard fleet and support fisheries, science, and research. Again, the Bloc and the NDP did not support that. Canadians wonder why not.

These initiatives will deliver real results while industrial regulations are developing, and will promote the technology innovation required to support upcoming regulations. In addition, these initiatives include the regulations to set Canada on the road to making real progress toward its Kyoto commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The real reductions in emissions that will be drawn by the regulations, coupled with the impact of both the non-regulatory actions above and the ambitious new initiatives being taken by provincial and territorial governments, mean that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from all sources are expected to begin to decline as early as 2010. My colleagues brought that to the committee's attention. It's already happening. The environment is already cleaning up. We're getting it done.

I think it was Mr. Cullen who said that their focus has been on trying to get the government to fail. It's not working. The government is moving forward. We have a regulatory plan, a Turning the Corner plan that is already seeing results. Therefore absolute emissions continue to decline.

The government is committed to reducing Canada's total emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020, and by 60% to 70% by 2050. The government supports the Kyoto process--I think I'm hearing an echo here--and actions at home that will be the basis for Canada's participation in future international cooperative efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. We've seen our minister, John Baird, do an incredible job making sure the post-Kyoto negotiations were successful in Indonesia.

We all need to do our part. Greenhouse gas emissions are affecting Canada. We're already seeing the results of a warming climate in Canada, but we're also seeing it globally. Canada is doing its part and taking that leadership that was not there for a number of years. We're also encouraging all the international major emitters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

On October 21, 2006, our government published a notice of intent that imposed an integral, nationally consistent approach to the regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollutant emissions in order to protect the health and the environment of Canadians. Because greenhouse gases and air pollutants share many common sources, the coordination of requirements will allow firms to make cost-effective decisions to maximize synergies in reducing their emissions. As you reduce the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted, you often are reducing the pollutants that are also going in the air, for the benefit of the health of Canadians. And in our Turning the Corner plan, we have a reduction in air pollutants in half by 2015—a very short period of time. These are huge, aggressive targets that will be achieved for the health of Canadians.

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

Environmental protection is an area of shared jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments. The federal government has clear jurisdiction to regulate air emissions in order to protect the environment and the health of Canadians. The government recognizes the importance of endeavouring, in cooperation with the provinces and territories and aboriginal peoples, to achieve the highest level of environmental quality for all Canadians.

The provinces have taken important action to reduce air pollution emissions in their own jurisdictions. However, national consistency is necessary to provide a minimum level of air quality for all Canadians to ensure a level playing field and to protect the competitiveness of our Canadian industry in different regions by avoiding a patchwork of different regulations being applied to the same industrial sectors.

My colleague Mr. Harvey has brought up the point a number of times that the production of one tonne of aluminum produces four tonnes of carbon dioxide when it's produced in Canada, but in China it's seven. And with growing technology, my hope is that the four tonnes will be reduced more and more. So we need to make sure it's Canadian technology, the very best of technology, being used for aluminum too.

An integrated, nationally consistent approach will enable firms to reduce their emissions in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Again, Canada has to stay competitive. We don't want jobs leaving Canada; we want jobs in Canada. We want Canadian technology used to benefit the world globally for greenhouse gas emission reductions. The federal government has never—never—regulated emissions of greenhouse gases or air pollutants across industries before. This is the first government in Canadian history to do this.

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

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

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

The government is developing regulations that strengthen energy efficiency standards and labelling requirements for consumer and commercial products. The government is also developing, for the first time, a comprehensive regulatory agenda that will address indoor air quality--the first government to do that.

The goal of these actions is to improve significantly and measurably the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

Since the publication of the notice of intent in October, work has been ongoing on each of these priorities. The process you go through to end up with regulations has begun, and it began in October 2006. Two draft regulations in the transportation sector to reduce smog-forming pollutants from vehicles and engines have been published in the Canada Gazette. Work has also begun on a series of amendments to the energy efficiency regulations.

As I indicated in the notice of intent, an integrated approach to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants has been taken to maximize the benefits to the health of all Canadians and to the environment. In the notice of intent, the government committed to develop and implement an integrated, nationally consistent approach to the regulation of industrial air emissions.

As you can see, Chair, what I am speaking to relates directly to clause 10 of Bill C-377. In November and December of 2006, extensive consultations were undertaken with the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups, and health and environmental groups on elements of the proposed approach and the development of the regulatory framework. A companion document was published to further elaborate and present elements and options for consultation. These consultations and the public comments received in response to the notice of intent have informed the development of the regulatory framework.

The regulations will mandate reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants from the following industrial sectors: electricity; electricity generation produced by combustion; oil and gas, including upstream; oil and gas, downstream; petroleum; oil sands; and the natural gas pipelines.

Chair, we have a vote happening. I have much more that I'd like to share, and that's why I didn't believe we would complete today. I think we could complete it in another day.

At this point I would move that we adjourn.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, we are, thank you.

Clause 10 says:

10. (1) On or before May 31 of each year, the Minister shall prepare a statement setting out (a) the measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including measures taken in respect of (i) regulated emission limits and performance standards, (ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets, (iii) spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry, and (iv) cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments; and (b) the Canadian greenhouse gas emission reductions that are reasonably expected to result from each of those measures in each of the next ten years; and (c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

That's exactly what I'm speaking to, Chair, and that is clause 10.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Alberta's Minister of Energy have commissioned a Canada-Alberta ecoENERGY Carbon Capture and Storage Task Force. The task force is made up of CEOs from the oil, power, and pipeline industries, as well as a member of the academic community. It's been tasked with examining the opportunities for the large-scale application of carbon capture and storage technology in Canada. Based on that examination, the task force will provide a comprehensive set of options describing how government and industry can work together to take advantage of those opportunities. In carbon capture and storage technology, Canada is the world leader.

When we were in Germany, I asked if there has been a mapping of geological formations globally. We were told, no, each country is going to be responsible for that. But Canada has taken that leadership in carbon capture and storage, and we have that model in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. It's very important that we not continue to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need to capture it. That's going to be happening on new projects in the oil sands, and it will also be required for new coal-fired electric generating plants.

We also look forward to Ontario shutting down those coal-fired plants and building these new electric-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and I'm sure Mr. McGuinty is looking forward to that too.

On March 19, 2007, just a year ago, our government further demonstrated its commitment to environmental action to provide health and environmental benefits to Canadians by allocating $4.5 billion in budget 2007 for initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases and their pollution, as well as water conservation enforcement initiatives. These initiatives included the following: $1.5 billion for the trust fund for clean air and climate change, a new national trust fund that provides financial support for provincial and territorial government projects that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

It included a rebalancing of the tax system to encourage investments in the oil sands and other sectors in clean and renewable energy, while phasing out the accelerated capital cost allowance put in by the previous Liberal government for the oil sands development. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

It also included an extension to 2020 for existing tax incentives for clean energy production and an expansion of the eligibility to cover wave and tidal energy, as well as additional solar energy and waste-to-energy technologies. Surely the Bloc would have supported that. Did they support it? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

We also funded performance-based rebates on vehicles according to their fuel efficiency, with levies on fuel-inefficient vehicles beginning with the 2011 year. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No.

We funded $36 million over two years to support programs to get older high-emitting vehicles off the road. It's a good plan. When you get the older vehicles off the road, people then will buy new energy-efficient vehicles. Did the Bloc support that? No. Did the NDP support that? No. They do support Bill C-377, though, which is a bill with no plan and no costing.

Our plan included $2 billion over seven years to support the production of renewable fuels--$1.5 billion for operating incentives for producers of alternate low-emission fuels and $500 million for investing with the private sector in establishing large-scale facilities for the production of next-generation renewable fuels, such as Iogen here in Ottawa--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is called the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. This is the Turning the Corner plan.

I think it's important for members of the committee who are supporting Bill C-377 to remember what witnesses have told us, namely, that the bill is missing substance, has jurisdictional issues, and is poorly written. The opposition has tried to rewrite it, but it's a flawed bill. Canada now has a Turning the Corner plan. And this plan will achieve what the committee wants, which is absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

If the committee supports Bill C-377, they obviously are not aware of the good plan that Canada now has. And that's why I was providing some of the highlights of it for the committee.

The government is also taking other action. In the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed to take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Back in 2006, the budget allocated $1.9 billion to initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the air Canadians breath. It included a 15.5% tax credit for the purchase of monthly public transit passes. This was meant to encourage individual Canadians and their families to leave their cars at home and take more environmentally sustainable modes of transportation. There was also $1.3 billion for public transit and capital investments.

It's unfortunate that in the last two budgets the Bloc and the NDP voted against providing billions of dollars for public transit, which was quite surprising. I would have thought that they would support those wonderful environmental incentives. But no, they voted against it.

In December 2006, the government announced two key environmental measures. The first was the new chemicals management plan. I was there when we launched it. It was a very exciting day. The plan takes immediate action to regulate chemicals that are harmful to human health or the environment.

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

The government also announced that it would require fuel producers and importers, by 2010, to have an average annual renewable content of at least 5% of the volume of gasolines that they produce or import. There are already gas stations that sell an ethanol content in their fuels, and it helps protect the environment. I encourage people to look for gas stations that sell gasoline with ethanol in it.

Upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under Canadian conditions, the government will require an average 2% renewable fuel content in diesel fuel and heating oil by no later than 2012. That's only four years away.

The government also announced funding of $365 million to bolster the development of biofuels and other bio-products. Unfortunately, the Bloc and the NDP voted against this.

These actions will significantly reduce air emissions from the fuel Canadians use to travel, transport goods, and heat their homes. To complement the clean air regulatory agenda, the government will also use targeted incentives and programs that will allow industry and consumers to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The ecoENERGY initiatives are there to help Canadians use energy and fuels more efficiently, to boost renewable energy supplies, and to develop cleaner energy technologies. These include programs to offer support and information on retrofits to homeowners and small businesses and organizations--good news--to encourage the construction and retrofit of more energy-efficient buildings and houses, and to accelerate energy savings investments within Canada's industrial sector.

In addition, the Minister of Natural Resources and Alberta's--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

That's on page 8 of the evidence. My first question is, have you costed your plan? The response from Mr. Layton is that this is a set of targets, and that it will be up to the government of the day. That's this government. Bill C-377 is being considered right now. It's up to the government of the day to advance plans and figure out how we achieve those targets. He's saying it's up to the government to cost it. So it's absolutely accurate.

This is the question that keeps coming up: has it been costed? Mr. Layton said to cost it. It needs to be costed by the government. Mr. Bramley said it needs to be costed.

I went to the testimony of Vicki Pollard from the EU and Mr. James Hughes from the U.K. They recommended that an impact assessment be done before Bill C-377 move forward.

We've heard from every witness group, even the sponsor of the bill, even the person who helped write the bill. I think the question Canadians have is, what has changed? Mr. Layton is saying to do an impact analysis, a costing. And now Mr. Cullen is getting different directions from Mr. Layton. Mr. Layton began by saying to do a costing, and now he's telling Mr. Cullen to tell this committee not to do one. He's telling us not to do one now, to move forward with this bill without knowing what it's going to cost. Well, that's not the way to do things. You need to know whether it's feasible, whether it's been costed. It's very important. This is what we've been advised even from the EU, even from the U.K. Both have recommended an impact analysis.

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

The Liberals have provided a number of amendments, as have the Bloc and the NDP. I trust they made those motions in good faith, but we have to get the witnesses back to find out if they came up with a bill that's going to be effective. We don't know that. They want us to move forward without all the information. That's very dangerous.

We have right now Canada's Turning the Corner plan, the regulatory framework on emissions. It is a plan that has been costed. It's a plan that will be effective. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

We also have absolute reductions in the Turning the Corner plan—60% to 70% by 2050. These are definitely the toughest targets in Canadian history and one of the toughest in the world.

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

Commissioner Ron Thompson was here a couple of weeks ago, and the NDP made the startling admission that the opposition's focus has been on trying to make sure the government fails. A comment was made by the NDP, admitting that this is what they've been trying to do, to cause the government to fail. But this government is not failing. The government is moving forward with absolute reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Why? Because it needs to happen. We cannot permit greenhouse gas emissions to continue to climb in Canada or any other country in the world, and that's why we've taken strong leadership and have a plan that has been costed, that has policy, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada's new government launched an ambitious and realistic agenda to protect the health of Canadians, to improve environmental quality, and to position Canada as a clean energy superpower. The proposed framework is comprehensive and includes mandatory and enforceable reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants. It also engages all Canadians to take significant measurable action at home in Canada.

The reason we focus on both greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants is that pollutants are the cause of death of one in twelve Canadians. Poor air quality has a major impact on the health of Canadians, costing billions of health care dollars and causing a reduction in quality of life, but also one Canadian in twelve dies. That's why our plan includes greenhouse gas reductions but also aims to clean up the air Canadians are breathing.

Climate change is a global issue of major concern to Canadians. Human activities continue to increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, producing changes in the climate that are already apparent. And they are. Being from British Columbia, I've seen the mountain pine beetle kill.

Very serious problems are being caused already in Canada by climate change. These changes include altered wind and precipitation patterns and the increased incidence of extreme weather events, droughts, and forest fires. In addition, glacier melt and warmer oceans could lead to significant rises in sea levels. The changes could imperil the way of life in vulnerable communities around the world and here in Canada. The changes would also result in significant economic costs.

It is critical that Canada do its part to address its own contribution to global climate change, and we are doing that. After many years of our not doing what we should be doing—and the Commissioner of the Environment sadly said there were a lot of announcements made but very little action, and we saw our emissions continue to climb, and climb, and climb, which was very embarrassing to Canada internationally—those days are over. We've now moved from voluntary action to mandatory regulatory action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

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

We've recently had the report Turning the Corner—An action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. The report was just released. It says:

Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. Canadians have long known that serious action is required. Previous Governments set ambitious goals for reducing greenhouse gases, [yet] emissions increased year after year.

Why was that, Chair? Members of the opposition have admitted that when they were government, they really did not have the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But that's different. Things have changed, and this government is committed to seeing those reductions, but with a realistic plan, a concrete plan that will see those reductions come. They are dramatic, Chair: 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050.

Today our greenhouse gas emissions are more than 25% higher than they were in 1990, putting Canada more than 32% above its Kyoto target. That's today. Without immediate action, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are projected to grow a further 24% by 2020 to reach about 940 megatonnes or 55% above the 1990 levels. That is unacceptable, and that's why we said it is time to turn the corner, and we are turning that corner.

Our government is committed to stopping the increase of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and dramatically reducing them. I was reading a little out of our Turning the Corner plan. Last April we released the high level framework of our Turning the Corner action plan for reducing emissions. It's a real plan. It's a plan that will achieve the results of absolute reductions in greenhouse gases, a plan that was costed, a plan that will reduce greenhouse gases.

Since then we have consulted with the provinces. We've consulted with environmental groups and industry to develop the details of our plan, which include forcing industry to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Forcing industry is huge. That's because we've moved from voluntary to mandatory.

Our plan includes setting up a carbon emissions trading market, including a carbon offset system, to provide incentives for Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We're providing industry with the tools it needs, the tools of a domestic carbon market, and we're also establishing the market price of carbon. We've heard from industry, we've heard from environmental groups, and we've heard from our international partners that these are necessary parts of the plan, and they are now part of a plan.

Our plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in Canada is a responsible plan. It's a responsible path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to address the global threat of climate change. The Government of Canada has established the national target of an absolute reduction of 20% of greenhouse gas emissions from the 2006 levels by the year of 2020. That's a reduction of 330 megatonnes from projected levels. That's huge. The previous plan was that emissions were going up and were going to continue to go up. We are now seeing a dramatic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions--330 megatonnes. This is equal to eliminating the combined greenhouse gas emissions of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a huge accomplishment.

With the Turning the Corner plan, the government is taking action and putting into place, for the first time in Canadian history, one of the toughest regulatory regimes in the world to cut greenhouse gases. Our Turning the Corner plan requires reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases by big industry. Greenhouse gas emissions by the industrial sector will be reduced by 165 megatonnes from projected levels by 2020, an amount greater than the combined emissions by the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island. Existing facilities in all industrial sectors will face tough requirements to improve their emissions performance every year. Plants that began operating in 2004 will face even tougher requirements to force them to use cleaner fuels and greener technology.

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

The Government of Canada will require that all oil sand plants meet a tough new emission standard. Plants that began operation in 2004 or after will face even tougher standards based on the use of cleaner fuels. Plants starting operations in 2012 will be required to meet the toughest targets that will effectively put action into place for a new carbon capture and storage technology. It's a wonderful new technology.

When I was in Berlin, Germany, for the G8+5 conference--and Chair, you were there with me--it was wonderful to hear that the world is counting on carbon capture and storage. We also know that the biggest carbon capture and storage facility in the world is in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. What they do is this. In North Dakota, about 300 kilometres south, you have a synthetic coal gasification plant where they create natural gas out of gasifying coal, and from that they create electricity. The carbon dioxide from that plant is shipped 300 kilometres north to Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and it's pumped into the ground for enhanced oil recovery. An oil field that wasn't producing anymore now is because of that technology.

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

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

It's expensive technology, but that is what the world is counting on, and that's the leadership that Canada is providing. The leadership is requiring that the Canadian oil sands will have to use that.

Also, Canada must reduce emissions from the dirty coal-fired electricity generation--carbon capture and storage again. The new coal plants that are going to be built in Canada have to use carbon capture and storage.

So it's a very good-news story. I'm sure, Chair, it's something that excites you, because you've been aware of it for a number of years, and it's good news for Canada, but it's also good news for the world.

Many Canadians are not aware that in many provinces much of the electricity we use at home and at work is generated by coal-fired power plants. The Government of Canada believes it is simply irresponsible to keep building dirty coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired plants will have to meet a tough new emission standard. We'll also bring in regulations that will effectively end the construction of dirty coal-fired plants starting in 2012. This is all part of our regulatory Turning the Corner plan. Utilities that want to build coal-fired plants in the future will be required to meet targets based on the use of clean technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

These tough regulatory requirements will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands and electricity sectors by about 90 megatonnes, or 55% of the total expected reductions of the 165 megatonnes from industry, by 2020. This will be challenging for those sectors, but the government is confident they will step up and meet the challenge. It will happen.

All together, our government's industrial regulations will achieve half the reductions required to meet our national target of 20% reduction by 2020. These regulations will change how Canada produces and uses energy and will impose a price on carbon that will rise over time, and they will impact the entire economy. As such, they will provide important new incentives for innovation and new opportunities to develop Canadian green technologies.

Chair, I was at the GLOBE conference two weeks ago. At the trade show, it was wonderful to see what was happening in the technologies here in Canada.

We saw Iogen, a company that creates ethanol from waste product, from straw. They break it down using an enzyme to create alcohol, and it's 100% alcohol. It's like a big still. They mix gasoline with the alcohol to create ethanol, and it's called E85. Minister Baird arrived at the GLOBE conference in an E85-powered vehicle.

When I fuel up, there are gas stations already in British Columbia where you can buy ethanol. It's rated up to 10%.

But this is where the government, through a mandatory regulation--no longer voluntary--is moving forward with cleaner fuels and cleaner technology. In the end, we end up with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020. And we set a good example. We also end up with cleaner air for healthier Canadians.

The Government of Canada is taking further action that will cut greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and from buildings. These actions include mandatory renewable fuel content in gasoline, diesel, and heating oils. A moment ago, I mentioned what we saw at the GLOBE conference. It was very interesting.

For the first time in Canadian history we will have tough new fuel consumption standards for cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles. These are some of the toughest targets in the world and definitely in Canadian history. The vehicles--cars, light trucks, and sport utility vehicles--will have to burn less fuel and become more energy efficient.

New energy efficiency requirements for a wide range of commercial and consumer products such as dishwashers and commercial boilers and new national performance standards that'll ban inefficient incandescent light bulbs are actions the government is requiring with our Turning the Corner plan.

But we can already do that. We already have that technology and we are moving forward. These are minimum standards--20% reduction by 2020--but Canadians can already start doing that.

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

We are implementing ways of reducing our carbon footprint and cleaning up the environment.

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

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As I was listening to my colleagues, who share a similar concern that I have, I was going over the need for an impact analysis or a cost analysis. The first person who was asking for that was Mr. Layton. When Mr. Layton came on December 11, he said he wanted the government to do an impact analysis. He also went on to say that “Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”. He also shared that Mr. Bramley had been consulted and helped write Bill C-377.

Mr. Bramley was asked about whether or not it had been costed. It was actually Mr. Vellacott who asked him this, and he said:

Mr. Bramley, does your report do any economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada? In your report, “The Case for Deep Reductions”, do you have any economic modelling that focuses on Canada?

It was a very clear question. Mr. Bramley's answer was:

We cite a number of economic modelling studies but none that relate specifically to meeting the target we advocate for Canada in 2050. To my knowledge, that hasn't been done, and it needs to be done.

So what we have here, right at the beginning, on December 11, is Mr. Layton and Mr. Bramley--

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

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

I am disappointed by the government's attitude. I felt that in the days leading up to our Easter break, we had extended an olive branch to the government by inviting the parliamentary secretary to sit on the steering committee, so that we could get off on the right foot, and work and plan our agenda for the sake of greater efficiency.

We were also acting in good faith during the discussion that just took place. I was surprised to see that the government is prepared to schedule an additional meeting tomorrow to dispense with this bill as quickly as possible. As I see it, the government is stalling to disrupt the committee's business, when in fact we have other matters to attend to.

The government still has 45 minutes to refocus on the basic principles at issue her so that we can move forward and improve the bill. If it has any amendments to propose, then it should do so, by all means. I had some reservations about the bill. I acted as a parliamentarian and proposed these amendments. We debated them and voted on them.

Mr. Chairman, I therefore invite the government to show a little more civility, to stop resorting to stalling tactics and to focus instead on studying the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm replying to the point of order.

I asked Mr. Cullen if he would be willing to have his plan costed or have an impact analysis done, and he said no. We also asked if he would be willing to have some of the witnesses come back to deal with just the jurisdictional issue, because the bill was severely criticized for that. Amendments were made, presented by him and others, and we have a poorly written bill.

I'm not going to fix up his poorly written bill, but he's refusing to have it critiqued. We have a number of members speaking, and we have some serious concerns about the bill.

As for his wanting to move forward, we want to move forward with Bill C-377. I hope we can finish with this amendment, vote on it, and go to the main motion. But he's refusing to have his bill critiqued. Those are the facts.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we have from Mr. Cullen--or I guess more indirectly on Bill C-377 it's from Mr. Layton, his leader--in asking the implication basically.... I think our main concern with the amendment, if he's not quite understood that yet, is that by way of what he has here, measured progress would be tied to a projection based on a set of assumptions that have quite an impact on the actual level of greenhouse gas emissions projected.

What this is doing is working off projections rather than what we would suggest, which is that they should be measured against actual emissions recorded in the national inventory report. Our plan uses the 2006 baseline. The international standard is 1990. Ours is different. The fact is that there really is, in some sense, no international standard, because some countries have used 1990, others have used 2000, others use 2003, others use 2005. So there's no agreed-upon baseline there.

When our government, the Conservative government, came into office back in 2006, we were really not able to take responsibility for the inaction and failure of the previous government, the Liberals, to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the previous regime. But we have to take responsibility from this point on, so that means using an actual baseline as opposed to the projections that are included in the clause we have before us now.

I know some have criticized us and have chastised us, so to speak, for talking about an intensity-based plan, this kind of rhetoric, that it allows emissions to grow forever. But we made very clear our commitment to Canadians to cut those greenhouse gases and to do it by an absolute 20% by the year 2020. Those are absolute targets based on the baseline of 2006. It's not something rather vague; they're actual targets, not intensity based, and regulations that actually—as in fact Mr. Cullenwould know—will force industries to massively reduce the greenhouse gases they release for each unit of production. That's part of the plan for meeting that goal, and our plan forces industry to get more efficient each year, as the years go on, so that greenhouse gases go down even as the economy grows.

As opposed to this particular baseline requested here, our plan actually forces industry to get more efficient each year, so that those greenhouse gases go down, and it will even, at the same time as the economy is allowed to grow, require industry to get significantly more efficient: 18% more by the year 2010 and then 2% more efficient each and every year after that.

So the math is really pretty straightforward. The math is quite simple here. The Canadian economy, in terms of a pattern here, grows by 2% to 3% a year. If we require industry to get 18% more efficient, total emissions will go down even as the economy grows. That's just how the math works out. As Mr. Cullen would know, Canada's total emissions under our plan will go down as early as 2010 and no later than 2012, even as the economy grows.

So we don't believe that our country, our environment, is well served by simply closing factories down and by shipping jobs off to countries like China and India that have lower environmental standards than we do. That would actually mean that Canadians would lose jobs and that we would end up importing products, bringing products in from abroad, produced in dirtier factories that pollute the world with even more greenhouse gases. So the kind of baseline here, where we're actually measuring against projections instead of actual solid figures as reported in the national inventory report there, is the concern we have.

Our plan is actually going to do something fairly significant in terms of the oil sands projects. It will allow some 38 new oil sands projects to proceed. They're really one of Canada's greatest resources out in provinces in the west, but they're a major engine for our economy, and as a government we do have a great responsibility to the generations ahead to ensure that they are developed in an environmentally sound way.

We have that plan. We have that tougher regime for the existing oil sands projects and for oil sands projects under construction, as was clear in our budget--tough measures for planned oil sands projects as well. They'll have some very tough regulations. Existing ones will have tough regulations to reduce their emissions by 18% by 2020 with an additional improvement of 2% every year after that.

Oil sands projects under construction between 2004 and 2011 will not only have to meet the tough standard of 18% and 2%, but additional tougher emission standards to drive adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies. Those new oil sands projects will have the toughest standards of all. Oil sands projects built in 2012 and later will have to use carbon capture and storage or other green technology to cut their emissions.

Those three measures are some of the toughest regulations in the industrial world. We're basing it on actual figures, as opposed to the projected baseline Mr. Cullen is suggesting in the clause that's before us now.

We don't believe, as some appear to, in a moratorium on new construction. We believe it would be possible, and that it's irresponsible to shut the door on the creation of more good jobs in Canada.

We have made that commitment to Canadians to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020, and the Turning the Corner plan is very specific in terms of how we go about doing that, using tough measures to put us on a path to meet those commitments.

Also, I think what's important to know--and members across the way would be somewhat aware of this, or should be--is that we believe in the polluter-pay principle. Our plan recognizes that all Canadians have to fight climate change and that industry has to do its part; and it will, as things stand.

Our regulations will apply to all big industry, as we said, the oil sands and any of the other oil projects as well, in terms of a solid baseline from 2006. All the way from smelters to pulp and paper mills, all industry has to do its fair share, because oil sands and dirty coal are two of the biggest emitting industries.

Electricity plants have requirements to meet. They're going to carry the brunt of this. That plan requires, as we said, banning the construction of new dirty-coal electricity plants and requires all those new ones to use carbon capture and storage or other green technology. And that's happening in my own province.

So again, using the 2006 baseline, by these means and by carbon sequestration, we will meet those goals and we will maintain very tough regulations with respect to that.

Companies will have to choose. They'll have to find the most cost-effective way to meet their emission reduction targets from a whole range of options. These include in-house reductions. They can make contributions to a technology fund or domestic emissions trading. Companies that have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions prior to 2006 will have access to a limited one-time credit for early action.

But we have to keep coming back and emphasizing the point of using 2006 as a baseline. I think it's much more realistic to start there, and we will press forward on that basis, unlike the failed approach of the previous government.

We're taking a more balanced approach. I think that's what the economy requires, and it's what the Canadian public requires, because making the reductions is practical and gets the job done.

It's a focused approach toward an absolute reduction in greenhouse gases of 20% by the year 2020. It protects our environment while growing our economy at the same time. It moves Canadians forward on a low-carbon economy, using a proper baseline instead of the one that's proposed here, where we've got these projections instead.

It's a challenge, admittedly. Canadians have to share, and there will be a cost, but we believe that together, as we partner and join hands on that, the cost is manageable. Industry will do a significant part of it, but as individuals, we can as well.

What is significant, and what we should all note today and have on the record in respect of this bill, in respect of this clause, is that our plan includes some real tools--practical tools, I might add--to help Canada cut its greenhouse gas emissions. These include more than $9 billion in ecoACTION initiatives for home retrofit grants, for renewable power, for biofuels, and for public transit. We've also delivered other means, such as a carbon market, an offset system, and most importantly, some tough regulations to force industry to cut its emissions, again based not on projections, as in clause 10, but on using 2006 as the baseline.

We know that Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party didn't get it done when it came to cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. But we really are moving forward with some practical plans here.

Some people have said that our plan gives a free pass to some of these areas. Some have said that our plan would hurt the economy. Actually, by cutting emissions to the extent we are, our plan is in fact going to impose some real costs on Canadians. We believe, however, in the commitment, the ingenuity, and the willingness of Canadians and Canadian industry to tackle that climate change challenge.

Our plan works by getting industry cleaner and more efficient so we release less greenhouse gas for every item we produce down the road. It's realistic. Again, using that 2006 baseline, it'll allow us to cut by an absolute 20% by 2020. This is not intensity-based so much as it is absolute, and that's what I think Canadians want.

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

We're already into the target period of 2008 to 2012. Meeting those targets by 2012, something virtually every Liberal environment minister admitted we could not do, would take Canada into a pretty deep recession, with major job losses and a significant decline in incomes for Canadians. Taking that kind of drastic reaction, using the wrong baselines, would create some real problems for our country. It would be irresponsible at the best of times. In the uncertain economic times in which we live--we're all watching it carefully and seeing what the subprime real estate stuff does to Canada--we have to be prudent about it.

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

We hope to get industry to be significantly more efficient, as we said: 18% more efficient by 2010 and 2% more efficient each and every year after that. We will, as a result--you do the math, you do the calculation--become 18% more efficient. Thereafter, total emissions will be going down, even as the economy is growing at its average rate. In fact, Canada's total emissions, using the 2006 baseline and the practical parts of Turning the Corner, will go down as early as 2010 and no later than 2012, even as the economy grows for us.

Our plan, make no mistake--Mr. Cullen will possibly be pleased to hear this--will impose real costs on the Canadian economy. But we believe that as Canadians together, we can jointly do that.

I guess there are some other myths that come up over time. I know this because out in my part of the country, in Saskatchewan, on the border and over toward Alberta, and so on, some people are clearly negative. They use the rhetoric in terms of the oil sands projects out there. But surely some creativity, innovativeness, and new technology can take care of that, get at that, and help us to actually get some good results in that area.

Some have said that our plan gives a free pass to the oil sands by allowing emissions to double, but that's absolutely not true. If we did not take action, emissions from the oil sands would quadruple by 2020, and that's not acceptable. We cannot allow that to occur.

Our plan imposes the toughest environmental regulations for the oil sands in our history. New oil sands facilities will be required to use carbon capture and storage, or other green technology as well, to massively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. So you use that 2006 baseline as opposed to--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I have a follow-up question for Mr. Cullen. I wish he would answer the question, because again, he's suggesting that Bill C-377 proceed without the impact analysis, which is against every bit of advice we've been hearing.

We heard from witnesses some serious concerns about the constitutionality of Bill C-377. The bill would give sweeping and unlimited powers over the provinces. There were these jurisdictional issues. They said there was no meat on the bones, so to speak. There were targets set without any costing, without any plan.

I believe it was a Bloc member who said that Bill C-377 needed to be rewritten. If wasn't the Bloc, then it was some member of the opposition who said, when we were hearing from the witnesses on, I believe, the jurisdictional issues, that Bill C-377 basically needed to be totally rewritten.

Now, if the sweeping amendments that we're seeing are all passed and we have a new, rewritten Bill C-377, would Mr. Cullen be willing to have the witnesses come back and share with this committee whether or not Bill C-377 addresses their concerns, particularly on the jurisdictional issues? The NDP is resisting doing any costing or impact analysis, but would they be willing to have the constitutional experts come back and say whether or not, with the amendments being proposed, their concerns with regard to jurisdictional issues have been dealt with? Would he accept that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Unfortunately, Mr. Cullen didn't answer my question. I'll change the terminology and maybe we can get an answer from Mr. Cullen.

Every group was asked if the plan should be costed, and every witness group, and Mr. Layton, said yes. Maybe now Mr. Layton is reconsidering. The last group of witnesses we heard from used the term “impact analysis”, and they said, yes, Bill C-377 should have an impact analysis. They recommended that Bill C-377 not go forward until an impact analysis is done.

I'm looking for a report that I had here, or actually a statement, from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas. She was referring to previous failures on the environment and she was referring to the Kyoto target. She said:

We expected that the federal Liberal government would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 [...] we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

This is the Commissioner of the Environment, and she is warning indirectly in her words, if we heed her wise words, that it didn't work before. What Mr. Cullen is proposing didn't work before, and it won't work with Bill C-377. We've heard every witness group say that Bill C-377 needs to have this impact analysis, just as the former Commissioner of the Environment recommended should have happened before but didn't.

My question again, through you, Chair, to Mr. Cullen, is why is the NDP resisting what the witness groups are saying, that we need to have an impact analysis? If he doesn't want to use the term “cost analysis”, the term “impact analysis” is much greater, much more in-depth.

Why is he resisting having that done?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to belabour the point on this one, but I'm looking at clause 10. The mention of “spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry”--I think I know where that comes from. I think it comes from a Canadian Labour Congress proposal. But there's not a lot there that discusses what the just transition fund in fact will be, what it will look like, how it will be used. I do recall that it was a just transition fund for workers, not for industry specifically as well, so the language is exclusive to that.

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

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

I just want a clarification. Is the just transition fund intended to address income replacement? Is it for capital investment? I'm not entirely sure what he means by “just transition fund”. It's the only one of the fiscal incentives that's actually specifically mentioned. I'd like him to be specific about what that would entail with respect to the government. It's more of a question than a....

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I believe the NDP had six amendments. Basically what we have seen in the amendments is a rewriting of the bill. It reads:

(c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I think it's important that we focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We heard from the witnesses that there's not enough policy attached to this that will actually see reductions. There's no mechanism to make sure this is happening, and I don't believe Bill C-377--and this is just one part of it--will accomplish this. In the end, Canada needs a plan that will actually see reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

We also need to cost the plan. We have that in Canada's Turning the Corner plan. We don't see that in Bill C-377, and we heard that from witness after witness.

So that will end my comments on this amendment. Again, I have some serious concerns about Bill C-377. Canada has a plan, and Bill C-377 will not accomplish anything. We heard that from the witnesses too.

I will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We will proceed with Bill C-377. Just to bring us up to date, I believe we are on clause 10.

Mr. Cullen, I think you moved NDP amendment 5 on page 16.

Is there any further debate on Mr. Cullen's motion, NDP-5?

Mr. Cullen.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I too found the meeting very productive, which was a pleasant surprise. I appreciated the willingness of everyone at that meeting to work together to come up with an agenda.

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

We could possibly have April 2 also for clause-by-clause on Bill C-377 and then, starting April 7, beginning the process of Bill C-474. So that would just be moving everything back one meeting, and I hope there would be agreement by committee to do that. We'd just delay everything by one meeting, so we would start Bill C-474 on April 7, and today and on April 2 we would have clause-by-clause for Bill C-377.

That's my suggestion, and I hope there will be acceptance of that.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[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--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It is not a good bill. Only the Liberals would think Bill C-377 is a good bill. The bill is not good, and we've heard from all the witnesses. So the only way to deal with Bill C-377 is to send it back, rewrite it, bring it back in its new written form, and have it re-critiqued, have the witnesses called back, and then maybe we can decide intellectually whether or not Bill C-377 is good.

But what we see to this point is not good. To limit our discussion to five minutes is unbelievably poor. I'm very disappointed in a motion like that, Mr. Cullen.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It appears they are in a hurry to get nowhere with a bad bill, and that's probably why Madame Gélinas said that she expected the federal government would have conducted economic, social, and environmental risk analyses in support of its decision to sign Kyoto in 1998. We found that little economic analysis had been completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, and risk analyses.

No wonder they didn't get it done. No wonder Bill C-377 will never accomplish what they're saying it will accomplish, because it's an empty bill. They only want us to talk for five minutes and then cut us off. They want to change the rules, as we've just seen, and have a recorded vote showing they are voting against the Standing Orders. They're voting against Marleau and Montpetit, and it has to be done in five minutes.

Chair, it's not democratic. It's not right. It's caused a huge problem within this committee, and each of us on this committee, as Mr. Cullen rightly pointed out, is sent here to represent our community. In my community the environment is very important. I've been very disappointed with the tactics of the opposition in changing the rules. Now their latest tactic is to limit debate. It's not right.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I probably will be making some amendments, Chair, but what we've seen is a tactic by the opposition, led by the NDP, on Bill C-377, a poorly written bill. They have tried to cut off any critique, any opportunity to improve the bill and then have witnesses come back and critique the amended bill.

As I said right from the beginning, Madam Gélinas' commented on how important it is to have ingredients in the bill for it to be successful. So the tactic now is to limit the amount of time we have to five minutes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I appreciate the comments from Mr. Cullen. The problems we've seen over the last few days at committee have been because Bill C-377 is such a poorly written bill. If it were a good bill this committee would be united in supporting it, but we heard not just a few witnesses, Chair, we heard from witness after witness after witness that Bill C-377 is a poorly written bill.

We've seen tactics from the opposition to try to stop input, Chair, and share our concern--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the Criminal Code is a classic case of criminal law in which the act itself contains prohibitions of various kinds of conduct. Those include theft, assault, murder, and so on.

This is in the brief of Dr. Peter Hogg to the environment committee:

These prohibitions can be self-applied by citizens who, if they offend, will then be subject to punishment by the criminal courts. For the great bulk of offences, there is no role for an administrative body or official to make regulations or to exercise discretion. A regulatory law, on the other hand, is one that achieves its purposes by more sophisticated means than a simple prohibition and penalty, typically vesting discretionary powers in an administrative body or official and often relying on regulations made by the executive.

I think you can see the relevance that Peter Hogg is making here.

Even if the regulatory scheme is ultimately subject to the sanction of a prohibition and penalty (as is the case with most laws), those are not the leading characteristics of the law: the prohibition and penalty originate in a regulatory scheme. On this basis, federal laws attempting to regulate competition through an administrative body and to regulate the insurance industry through a licensing scheme have been struck down as falling outside the criminal law power.

Again, that is further evidence that clause 10 is not relevant.

Chair, I want to just read his conclusion. It's quite a lengthy document, and in the spirit of cooperation I do not want to bore the committee, but he did give an example. I'll quickly skip through....

Actually, there was a very interesting case that he referred to, R. v. Hydro-Québec. My colleague to my right would remember that case quite well:

...the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (a 1988 version of the current federal statute) as criminal law, despite the fact that the Act's prohibition of the emission of “toxic” substances was preceded by an administrative process to determine whether a particular substance should be classified as “toxic”. The Court split five-four on the issue with the dissenting judges saying that “it would be an odd crime whose definition was made entirely dependent on the discretion of the executive”, and holding that “the Act's true nature is regulatory, not criminal”. But the majority held that the intervention of some administrative discretion did not rob the law of its criminal character. At the end of the day, there was a prohibition and a penalty for the release of toxic substances.

Speaking for the majority, Judge La Forest said:

What Parliament is doing...is making provision for carefully tailoring the prohibited action to specified substances used or dealt with in specific circumstances. This type of tailoring is obviously necessary in defining the scope of a criminal prohibition, and is, of course, within Parliament's power.

Chair, again I mention the importance for the process for meeting targets to be measured against the actual emissions reported in the National Inventory Report, rather than what's being proposed in Bill C-377.

Chair, it is very important that we have something that's going to work. What we have now in the Turning the Corner plan is a program that absolutely does work.

We heard from Professor John Stone. This is what he said, and I think it's also relevant to clause 10. He said:

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

He is referring to the targets and how they will be determined. He went on to say:

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.

Now, this is again very relevant to clause 10. Again, it's very relevant to the importance of using targets based on the actual reported emissions in the National Inventory Report.

Dr. Stone went on to say that of course you need to cost whatever plans they have. We heard also that Bill C-377 was not costed. Chair, that was the common theme with Bill C-377. It has to be based on science and it has to be based on targets that are real. It has to be based on impact statements. He went on to say we need the cost; whatever party we have needs to cost them. He said he didn't see that in Bill C-377, and that, I'm sure, raised a concern with everybody in this room.

He said:

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 the 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.

Well, Chair, when we're talking about targets based on a National Inventory Report, this is what I'm talking about. It's our Turning the Corner plan. Our Turning the Corner plan, as I shared, has the toughest targets in Canadian history. They are some of the toughest in the world.

Chair, Canada's new government launched a concrete and realistic agenda to protect the health of Canadians, to improve the environmental quality, and to position Canada as a clean energy superpower. Canada has historically relied on a variety of non-compulsory measures to reduce emissions. That was what the Liberals did. It was voluntary. It didn't work. However, those have not proven sufficient to reduce the--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Just so we have this in context, I would like to read clause 10:

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

(a) the measures taken by the Government of Canada to ensure that its commitment under section 5 and the targets set out in the target plan are being met, including measures taken in respect of

(i) regulated emission limits and performance standards,

(ii) market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets,

(iii) spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry, and

(iv) cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments; and

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

Then we have this amendment from Mr. Cullen:

(c) the level of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions in each of the following ten years to be used as a baseline to quantify the reductions referred to in paragraph (b).

We've seen, Chair, eight amendments from the NDP, three from the Bloc, and six from the Liberals. I reckon back to a comment made by the Bloc. When we heard the testimony of, I think, the last group of witnesses, I think it was Mr. Bigras--he can correct me if I'm wrong--who said that maybe this bill should be rewritten.

We heard testimony from Mr. Layton that basically he had help writing the bill, but he was basically setting targets. We heard clearly that there was no policy attached to it, that there was no plan, no costing; it was just wishful thinking to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

What we've seen resulting from that is witnesses testifying that there are some very serious constitutional issues with Bill C-377 and that it wouldn't stand up. We've heard that it would not achieve anything. Mr. Layton equated it to the impossible dream. He didn't break into song, but I was ready to join him if he did.

In all seriousness, through all the groups of witnesses we heard a common theme: the necessity of an impact analysis. What I shared at our last meeting was the commissioner's statement about how important it is--that in order to have successful action by government, you need to have conducted an economic, social, environmental, and risk analysis. That's all missing.

What I wish we would have heard from the NDP is an admission of what we heard through all the testimony from every group of witnesses, and from what I believe was the vast majority of the witnesses: that Bill C-377 is not going to accomplish what it says it would like to see, which is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

What I was hoping I would hear from Mr. Cullen is that he would.... With all these amendments--eight of them from the NDP--the bill is basically being rewritten. We don't know the results of the end product that we'll have. It doesn't have any critique other than debate around this table. I think it's important that it be critiqued.

I was hoping the bill would have been withdrawn, rewritten, and presented again to Parliament, because it was so badly written and so faulty. Now the same people who wrote the first draft are writing the second draft of amendments, with the assistance of the Bloc and the Liberals. I don't mean any disrespect, but neither one of those groups has a tremendous history in providing good action on the environment. We heard that also.

The committee has a responsibility to make sure the legislation that leaves here is good and that it's been critiqued. I don't want to repeat myself, but as I've mentioned, we've heard time and time again that it's very important that we have legislation that will take action.

The Government of Canada, with its Turning the Corner plan, has the toughest targets in Canadian history. It calls for 20% in absolute reductions by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. Those are the toughest in Canadian history. What I particularly like about the Turning the Corner plan is that for the health of Canadians it also includes the quality of air that we breathe, both inside and outside. One Canadian death in 12 is directly related to the environment, to environmental causes, so we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure the air we breathe is of good quality; otherwise, it means billions of dollars in health care costs. We also have a responsibility as parliamentarians to make sure we are doing our part globally to attack the issue of a warming climate, and this government is very committed to that.

That's why I take it so passionately that we need to have legislation coming out of this committee and going back to the House that is good. And Chair, because of the testimony we heard, I don't believe Bill C-377 is good.

I had just begun to share some of the concerns that I heard during the testimony yesterday. One of the people who shared at the committee was Mr. Peter Hogg. He was sharing with the committee the importance of the constitutional legitimacy of Bill C-377 and whether it would stand up to a challenge. He shared that he didn't believe it would. He shared that the Constitution Act of 1867 confers on the Parliament of Canada the power to make laws in relation to criminal law. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that a law will be classified as a criminal law if it has a valid criminal purpose backed by a prohibition and a penalty. As far as the valid criminal purpose is concerned, the court has held that the protection of the environment counts as a valid criminal purpose.

The purpose of Bill C-377 therefore qualifies as a valid criminal purpose. As far as the prohibition and a penalty are concerned, the question is whether Bill C-377 contains a prohibition and a penalty as those terms have been understood in the case of law. The courts have traditionally distinguished between criminal law and regulatory law, and the Criminal Code is a classic case of criminal law in that the act itself contains--

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The committee requests an extension of 30 sitting days under Standing Order 97.1 to consider Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, the interruption from the member shows the seriousness. He said this meeting has something to do with carbon dioxide. Well, Chair, I'm not sure what committee he's just come from, but this is the environment committee. We're talking about Bill C-377, and that's exactly what this is about. It's reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide is one of those.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I appreciate the patience of the committee and I will try to conclude as quickly as I can.

A point of privilege is very important, and I want to share a couple more quotes before I conclude. James Hughes said:

We think there needs to be an international agreement that includes all countries, including all the major emitters as well.

We heard, Chair, how important it is that we have all the major emitters involved, and we heard that right now under the Kyoto agreement we have 30% of the emitters who are part of the solution. We were told how important it is to have everybody involved, and particularly with the G-8 plus five--remember that?--the idea was, if we had the G-8 plus five committing to accept those reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we'd have 80% of the major emitters involved with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Without having a commitment from all the major emitters, we will not have a solution of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

We advocate an important role for municipalities, provincial governments, and the federal government. We do our work in that way because different scales of effort matter in different issues. This is certainly one of those areas where that is true, where efforts by some of Canada's big municipalities are important, as well as the efforts of provincial and federal governments.

Chair, I want to take this opportunity to share with the committee what's happening in my riding. I've tried to share that before, but it's very important. In my riding of Langley we have two local governments--the Langley city and the Langley township. The township bought a new building, and it was a building that was only half or three-quarters completed. They put geothermal heating into it. The operational cost for heating and lighting this beautiful new municipal building is incredible.

Each of us can do that. I've made that commitment personally, Chair, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases our riding office uses, and it's quite interesting. We have fluorescent lighting that we see in this office here, but these are 40-watt light bulbs. You can reduce energy dramatically by changing four light bulbs into the 32-watt--the new technology. And it's been a wonderful privilege to reduce my carbon footprint. Also, the electricity bill for my riding office has dropped dramatically; it costs fewer taxpayers' dollars to heat and light that office. So it's exciting.

We also heard the constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions solely to the regulation-making power vested in the executive. That is a big concern. The only direction given to the Governor in Council as to the nature of the regulations is that they must be to carry out the purpose and provisions of this act and to ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under section 5 targets for 2020, and there are later targets as well.

This extraordinarily broad and sweeping regulation-making power purports to authorize any regulation that would have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations could potentially reach into every area of Canadian economic and social life. The bill enacts no restrictions as to the kinds of laws that are contemplated or the kinds of activities that can be regulated. Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime and should be a matter of political concern quite apart from the constitutional issues. Who said that? That was Professor Peter Hogg. I was very, very surprised that this privilege of sharing with the committee, how concerned I was that the Bloc--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, on page 896 we have the private members' bills broken into two categories, both public and private, and it goes on. And it gives the process. As we move through Marleau and Montpetit, it has to provide guidance on private members' bills, as referenced on page 896—breaking them into two categories. It then follows in giving the process to deal with the private bills. Under private members' bills, there are public bills and private bills, and it gives guidance. What I was referring to on page 948 was how the private private members' bills are dealt with—the procedure. So what I had read into the record is referring to the private private members' bills. It's going to be one or the other.

So the process I'm reading is relevant, and it is a relevant point of order, Chair.

It happened previously in the choices of the witnesses. The government was not given an opportunity to speak and choose the witnesses. We've had a tactic of trying to keep the government from having an opportunity. We've now seen the NDP trying to cut out any criticism, and the end result is C-377. They're trying to move it forward and come up at the end of the day with an empty, hollow, phony bill that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard that from every witness.

So that's my point of order, Chair. I would ask, through you, for the clerk to just comment on that connect on page 896, how that process that is mentioned on page 948.... I think it is relevant.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm looking at page 948 of my Marleau and Montpetit. And the point of order I'm going to be making is a true point of order, not an interruption as we saw just previously. The record will show that I was on topic, and the NDP tried to keep the truth from coming out.

Page 948 addresses the point that “All persons or bodies affected by a private bill should be heard and the need for the bill demonstrated”. This is exactly what I was speaking about. It says that “Since a private bill makes certain assertions which are put forth in support of the request for legislation, they should be proven before” court “agrees to enact the legislation being sought”. It also says that “The legislative function of Parliament demands that each measure be given due deliberation and orderly consideration”. I'm sure that didn't happen. The paragraph ends with, “The judicial-like proceedings surrounding private bill practice demands, in addition, that those concerned be heard, or at the very least be given the opportunity to be heard.” And that just did not happen.

I'll quote further from Marleau and Montpetit:

The decision of the House to give second reading to a private bill does not mean that the House has approved the principle of the bill as is the case for a public bill. Rather, the House has given the bill a second reading conditional upon a committee's finding that the assertions contained in the petition and repeated in the bill's preamble have been proven.

Now, we haven't heard that. It has not been proven. Again, we heard time and time again that Bill C-377 is a hollow, empty, hypocritical, phony bill.

The quote continues:

While a preamble is optional in a public bill, it is essential in all private bills. The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

We have a number of members over there who just cut off people being heard and who did not listen to that, so I'll repeat this:

The procedure thus requires that a private bill be sent to committee so that opponents of the bill may be heard.

Well, that just ended a moment ago, Chair.

The quote continues:

Another reason why it is sent to committee is so that Parliament can satisfy itself that the matters raised in the preamble of the bill are true and that the provisions of the bill are a proper response to those assertions. The bill as reported from the committee, with or without amendments, may be said to be the committee's decision on a petitioner's request.

What we have seen on pages 948 and 949, Chair, is the importance--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm attempting to speak specifically to this motion and not go off topic. I'm sharing how important it is that we have a commitment to the petitioner of this bill, the NDP, that we are committed to a conclusion that will be good for the environment globally and for the environment in Canada. His motion is taking us down a pathway to nowhere by continuing to use Bill C-377 with no impact analysis. The NDP's plan is to continue with Bill C-377 as we see it being presented to this point. If it does not have what the witnesses say needs to be part of it, then whether we go through clause-by-clause and end today or end after a 30-day extension, the result will be the same: we will have a bill that will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will not have the positive effect Canadians want.

I've made comments before about how important it is that our commitments, projects, products, and bills really address the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We've heard that Bill C-377 won't do that. So I'm encouraging the NDP, represented by Mr. Cullen, to provide clarity to this committee that Bill C-377 is a good bill.

We've heard from witnesses that it's not a good bill; it's missing what it needs to have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in the end. It's so vague that it's meaningless. That was in my beginning comments, when I shared what the commissioner shared. The commissioner said in a report to Parliament how important it was to have those parts of a bill. She said we need to conduct the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses. Without that it will not be successful.

Just by the House of Commons passing Bill C-377 and moving to the House and then on to the Senate does not mean it will be successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whether we have this extension or not--again speaking to the motion. What is critical for the success of Parliament and the environment is that Bill C-377 is dramatically improved so that during the extension period--if that's the will of the committee--we end up with a product that will do something.

At this point, our Turning the Corner plan gives that direction to Parliament. It includes the economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses the commissioner is recommending. So at the end of the day you already have in place the Turning the Corner plan that goes through the process of becoming a regulation. It's good and has what the commissioner is recommending; Bill C-377 doesn't.

So the extension that's being asked for by the NDP will not give us the end result. We heard very clearly from the witnesses that even with this extension, it will not give the results that Parliament wants and that the international community wants.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I find it interesting that we had dealt with this motion. I spoke in good faith and presented this motion a few meetings ago, sharing with this committee that we needed more time. We heard from every witness group that we needed to have an impact analysis on this. I asked every group, and every group said, yes, we needed to have it.

Just thinking back to when Mr. Layton came...and I paraphrased him, I didn't give an exact quote, but if Mr. Cullen would like me to provide an exact quote, I will, because I have that in my package here.

At any rate, I was quite shocked when Mr. Layton said that Bill C-377 was presented to this committee as a dream but with no substance. It was a dream. He used the analogy of the railway, that they didn't know how they were going to build it but somehow, hopefully, they'd have it. He had no idea about the costing of this, about the impact analysis that we heard every witness group recommend.

What I did, Mr. Chair, was to recommend that we extend this. The committee said, no, they were quite sure they could ram Bill C-377 through with bare bones.

We heard that the federal government would receive these unlimited, unprecedented powers over all the provinces, and I was quite shocked to see that the Bloc supported that. We as a government respect provincial jurisdiction; no, they wanted to force Bill C-377 through as quickly as possible, without further consultation, when we were advised by these witnesses that there should be an impact analysis.

What I have to share in speaking to this motion will hopefully be quite thorough and will provide some direction to the committee in terms of where I'm coming from. I'm speaking to this motion to extend in frustration that this was not dealt with properly in the first place.

Mr. Chair, I was doing some research earlier today. I have a quote here from the Commissioner of the Environment, Madame Gélinas, referring to the Kyoto targets on climate change:

We expected that the federal government

—referring to the then Liberal government—

would have conducted economic, social, environmental, and risk analyses in support of its decision to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1998...

Then she went on to say:

...we found that little economic analysis was completed, and the government was unable to provide evidence of detailed social, environmental, or risk analyses.

We all know what happened to the previous government's commitment to Kyoto. They signed on to 6% below 1990 levels. Did we achieve that as a country? No, we did not.

I believe the commissioner gave us some really clear direction on what we need to do as the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We need to provide that analysis; otherwise, we're doomed to repeat the same mistake made by the previous Liberal government. You have these lofty ideas...and I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt that the motives were right, but without a plan, without knowing what it's going to cost, without a policy attached, whether it's done in a very short period of time or a long period of time, you will not be successful.

I take the issue of climate change and I take the issue of a warming climate very seriously, as I know the minister and the Prime Minister do. We have to present research. A costing, an impact analysis, has to be part of the equation.

By extending this for another few weeks, with no commitment from the NDP to provide the proper economic, social, and environmental risk analyses of Bill C-377, I'm concerned that we're going down the path to nowhere—with “nowhere” referring to where we will be at the end of the day.

We already have a very good plan, the Turning the Corner plan, from the government, which I'll share and elaborate on in a minute. Again, I just want to share with the committee how important it is that if we do extend it, that it be done with a plan, a commitment, that we are going to make sure that we have this analysis done that we heard about from every group.

Without it, as I said earlier, we're doomed to failure, as we saw with the Liberal Party. Their commitment was to 6% below 1990 levels, and we ended up being 33% above that target—not even close to the target. We see the same thing with Bill C-377. We have no bones; we have no policy, no costing, no impact. They want to move forward with an extension of a few weeks, but they do not want to consider the facts. They do not want to consider where this is going to take Canada and even if it is achievable.

We know that the plan the government has, with a target of a 20% reduction—an absolute reduction—by 2020, is achievable. It's been costed, it's planned, and there is a notice of intent and a gazetting coming. With the Turning the Corner plan we have a realistic plan and a further commitment of 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

Mr. Chairman, that is one of the toughest targets in Canadian history; it is the toughest target, and it's one of the toughest in the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I think we can request that. It's a whole big issue, but now I'd like to deal with the amendments to Bill C-377. Certainly at some future date we can request that information. Every member has the right to ask for that.

What we're looking at now is NDP-4. We have had a discussion on it. Are there any other comments? No.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you. I understand where you're coming from, and the point I've made is that it's valid. It's nice to be wishful, but you have to be realistic.

Of course, my critique of Bill C-377 is that it is empty, hollow, and not realistic. If Mr. Cullen wants to go ahead with a date of December at the end of this year to have regulation in place, that is not realistic. To present this bill with some credibility, I recommend you change the date.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, it wasn't, and I have a further question.

Thank you for answering. It provides a very general context. Your answer was that it depends on what's being considered as regulations.

What we're considering here is a huge form of consultation with industry at setting targets that are going to be stringent greenhouse gas targets to deal with on an international stage, but affecting Canadian industry. Do you see that as a three-month process? I don't, and I'm thinking this is quite complex, to be setting these international 2050 targets that are going to affect every sector of industry in Canada. To do it properly would take a while.

Your answer was very general: three months to two years. Do you have a feeling of how long it may take for what's being proposed in Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I remind Mr. Cullen that is already happening. There is a certainty with the Turning the Corner plan by regulation, and what he's proposing is to provide a great deal of uncertainty for industry and moving forward.

My question refers to his date. He has a date of December 31, 2008. I remind him we are in March 2008. Our Liberal members know how long it takes to move a regulation. Our Turning the Corner plan is a regulatory framework--and it takes time.

I think Bill C-377 is a very poorly written bill, and we're having to basically rewrite it. We already have a good plan in place, and so I'm not particularly interested in helping Mr. Cullen try to make a very bad bill palatable.

This is a very important point. In his amendment is a proposed date of December 31. It's not realistic. It's a bad bill, but you still have to have some realistic targets and dates set.

I guess my question for Mr. Cullen is whether he honestly thinks you can legally get a regulation in place in that short period of time. The answer, I could tell him, is absolutely not. It's not realistic. What magic is he imagining here?

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my NDP colleague for opting for a more consensual approach, one that is respectful of provincial jurisdictions.

I would like to move a friendly amendment to amendment NDP-2. Immediately following “this or any other act ”, I would add “within the limits of federal constitutional authority”. Basically, I would move the portion of text in subsection (b) which reads “within the limits of federal constitutional authority” to the beginning of the provision. Subsection (b) would then start with “limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released”.

The amendment would then read as follows:

regulations under this or any other Act, within the limits of federal constitutional authority

(a) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released into the environment;

(b) limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province the commitment made under section 5 [...]

And so on.

Mr. Chairman, there is no guarantee that the territorial approach will be applied by the federal government. However, there are aspects of this amendment found in Bill C-288. They make Bill C-377 somewhat more asymmetrical than we initially considered it to be.

If this friendly amendment is deemed in order, I think members would agree to it. In any event, it seems clear to me that BQ-2 will be defeated.

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

Thank you, Chair.

These amendments come directly out of the testimony we heard from a number of the constitutional experts we brought before us.

I will be brief, yet I will ask for the committee's indulgence in some ways, because this is one of the more substantial pieces we're looking at today.

There are three specific concerns that we were able to find in the testimony. We've looked through the testimony significantly. The first piece of change is a reference to CEPA, particularly section 93 of CEPA.

Under the current writing of the bill, the regulation was deemed to be too broad in its authority. As committee members know--since we've referenced it many times at other hearings--section 93 allows us to focus in on the intention of the bill. It focuses on the government's power and the limits of the government's power to make regulations. It's referenced upon CEPA, which has already passed a challenge at the Supreme Court, and it is also what we borrowed from when we went through a similar exercise on Bill C-288. That's the main piece in limiting government regulatory power.

The second piece--again, we got this from the constitutional lawyers who came in front of us--was the specific legal wording to suggest that using the words “regulations under this or any other Act” anchors this legislation, which is a criticism that was first put to other standing pieces of legislation. This is not a stand-alone piece. It fits in with things that have already gone through--a constitutional challenge like CEPA and other things.

Third and equally important, to allow for greater certainty in subclause 7(2)--if committee members are following--around provincial and federal jurisdictions, the bill required greater clarity around what the provincial and federal governments were allowed to do, particularly, obviously, the federal government. The language we put into it, “any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions”, is again very similar to Bill C-288. This would move the current subclause 7(2) completely out. It will later come up for the committee's reference in clause 9.

We think these amendments are strong, obviously, and speak directly to where some of the concerns were raised. This is the essence and the role of committee, to make sure that bills are as constitutionally sound as possible and reference current law.

The last thing I'll say before I relinquish the floor is that the very first portion of this title under NDP-2, the very first quotation that we come across, “regulations under this or any other Act”, acknowledges a government power that exists already. We're being in a sense overly explicit to say that the regulations the government may come forward with....

The government members of this panel have often said that the plan could be too wide-scoping, could be too this, that, and the other thing. Bill C-377 never purported to outline the exact plan and the exact measures. We've all seen the charts of solutions. Bill C-377 was never intended to do that but rather to set the general direction for the government and allow the government to use the powers it has, be that a cap and trade system, be that auto emission regulations, or be that the various tools that are at the government's disposal. All of these amendments clarify those tools.

The government will find some comfort in this amendment, and we look forward to their support of it as well.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My previous comments were in reference to the poorly written context of Bill C-377. This government strongly supports the good work of the UNFCCC, and the best way to honour that agreement is to take action, and that is what our government has done with the Turning the Corner plan. Bill C-377 does not have the action plan, and as I said, it's very poorly written. To show the world we care about climate change, we need to take action. Bill C-377 won't do that, so I won't be supporting this amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, Bill C-377 proposes to add the qualification that the government has an obligation to ensure that greenhouse gases are reduced to specific targets, and it's subject to these targets identified in the UNFCCC.

The amendment would bind future Canadian governments to accepting targets agreed to under the UNFCCC. These targets may not be consistent with Canada's Turning the Corner plan and the UNFCCC may not be able to come up to an agreement that involves all the major emitters. We heard from the witnesses how important it is for Canada to take leadership, and Canada is taking leadership now with the Turning the Corner plan.

We have, historically, the toughest targets in Canadian history, but we have also taken strong leadership in asking that all the major emitters be involved. And we heard time and time again, particularly from the last set of witnesses, how important it is that we have all the major emitters part of the solution, not just 30%, but we have all the developing world's nations. G8+5 was mentioned, and we need to have 80% to 100% of the countries involved with reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, not just 30%. So this has some problems with the wording.

I'm unclear as to the focus of the amendment that Mr. Bigras has proposed. However, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change does not itself include any specific targets, which has been mentioned. I'd like to remind Mr. Bigras that the ultimate objective of that convention is the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system. This objective applies to all countries, all the major emitters, and it should be.

Furthermore, we're not in a position to speculate on what will be the exact nature of any new agreement, as has been mentioned, since all parties are about to begin negotiations. They began in Bali.

So I have great difficulty with this proposed amendment, as I do with Bill C-377.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I have just a quick comment here. Clause 3 reads as follows:

The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

It sounds lofty, and it's actually what we need to do. That's why Canada has the Turning the Corner plan.

Clause 3 is saying that the purpose of this act is to “ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization”. We've heard from witnesses that it's an empty, hollow bill with no policy. It won't accomplish anything. There has been no costing on it, so we don't know what its impacts will be.

We were advised that it needed to have the impact studied. The fact is that the bill came from Mr. Layton, and he said it should be costed. These points have been made at length.

I think if this bill, Bill C-377, had been presented by the government--if you look at this 180 degrees differently--then nobody around would be supporting this. But because it's from the opposition, even though it's a terribly flawed bill that constitutionally will be struck down and will accomplish nothing, the opposition is stubbornly moving forward to support this.

We know that what clause 3 is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish what Canada needs. The Turning the Corner plan will accomplish what Canada needs to do.

So I can't be supporting this, but I just want to make those quick comments, that what this clause is saying is not the truth. It will not accomplish that, and that's what we've heard from the witnesses.

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

I have no objections to that happening at the second meeting. However, I want things to be different than they were for Bill C-377, when we had to bring in some major amendments and had very little time to do so. Although I said that I agreed with the principle of Bill C-474, the legislation has several flaws that will probably need to be corrected. I wouldn't want us to be caught short at the last minute. It's clear to me that in the case of Bill C-377, the testimony provided by constitutional experts was conclusive in terms of the amendments that were presented.

I would prefer to deal with this as quickly as possible.

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

I think he's attempting to be good-natured about it, so I'm not really bothered much at this time. I'll carry on.

When you look at Bill C-288, some things Bill C-377 should be doing are the kinds of things we see our government doing—the things it has projected ahead in Bill C-288 and the costing for them. The purpose of Bill C-288 is to examine the economic implications. We don't have any proper costing in Bill C-377 as it stands, and that's the difference. We have something of a costing document here in Bill C-288, looking at the economic implications of it. My colleague Mr. Warawa, right at the top of the meeting here, wants this to be properly costed. It's the big rub here; it's the big problem with the bill before us now. That was done in Bill C-288. We don't find that in Bill C-377. But if we could get something like that with its thoroughness, it is the kind of thing necessary as a prelude to moving or making any kind of progress on any bills before this committee.

The objective of the act requiring us to meet our Kyoto obligations over our commitment period from 2008-12 is real and creditable. In December 1997, Canada and 160 other countries that are members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Kyoto to conclude a protocol on the convention to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, or GHGs. The resulting agreement, as regular members of this committee know.... Mr. Pearson doesn't sit here regularly, but I think he follows these issues or attempts to keep on top of them as well. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. It was signed by Canada on April 29, 1998, and ratified in 2002.

Under the terms of that Kyoto Protocol, 38 industrialized countries, known as annex 1 countries, committed to cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases, between 2008-12, to levels that were at least 5% below 1990 levels.

In terms of individual country targets, Canada is required to reduce emissions to a level 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-12. As a group, the European Union has a target of 8% reduction from its 1990 levels. The United States, which did not ratify the protocol, had a target of 7% reduction from the 1990 levels, while several other countries, one of them being Australia, which also did not ratify, was permitted to let its emissions continue to grow above 1990 levels, but at a reduced rate of growth.

China and India—and we've made much of that in this committee—two of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, both ratified the Kyoto Protocol. They're not required to reduce their emissions under that current agreement.

So that's the global context.

The science underlying climate change tells us that there are human-caused emissions in GHGs. I think that's what members around this table like Mr. Cullen want to get at. I think the good intent of all the members is to get at this issue and do what we can about human-caused emissions of GHGs, resulting primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy. That's a significant driver or escalator of global warming.

Global energy use trends are therefore at the centre of the issue of climate change and are tied to global economic growth projections. In fact, according to world energy outlook 2006 of the International Energy Agency, world energy demand will increase by 53%—and this is important—from 2004 levels by 2030, with 70% of the increase coming from these developing countries. Similar energy and emissions growth projections are made in the IEO 2006 by the energy information administration.

There are charts of that kind of stuff that we can provide for the committee if they so wish.

According to the EIA, fossil fuels remain the dominant source of world energy, accounting for about 83%.

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

That's fair. I don't want to offend members here. Far be it from me to do that on something so crucial as this issue.

I think it's true that Canadians want some practical solutions. To have something kind of vague, and again, as we said, we've repeated that, and that's for emphasis here, of course the ambiguity of Bill C-377....

I think we want the balanced kinds of solutions to environmental protection and economic growth. It means that those economic decisions are environmentally responsible. They absolutely have to be.

Back on February 14, 2007, the House of Commons passed Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Section 3 of that bill stated that the purpose of that act is to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and help address the problem of global climate change.

If Bill C-288 is approved by the Senate, subsection 7(1) requires that within 180 days of the act coming into force, the Governor in Council will ensure that Canada fully meets those obligations under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol, by making, amending, or repealing—

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

You bet. Absolutely. For sure. That's crucial, Mr. Chair, and I endeavour to do that. I've got some pretty crucial key things, new insights for all of us here, in the remaining minutes that we have.

Budget 2008—again, we're contrasting this, the practical, pragmatic kind of approach that we're taking as a Conservative government, with Bill C-377, which Mr. Layton got together quickly and which needs some significant amendment.

The measured, thought-through kind of plan, the progress that can be made with new measures to strengthen and to ensure effective implementation of Canada's eco-action plan, provides funding actually to implementing regulations that will lead to those significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in air quality, and proposes additional incentives that will advance progress in cleaner energy generation and use.

It also improves Canada's capacity to enforce—

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

Thank you.

Again, that cooperative approach is far and away the better approach, instead of just mandating things and hitting from the top down provinces like Quebec, or whatever province it has to be. I think the approach our government is attempting to take in respect of the provinces and in respect of their authority is the better approach.

My province is going to benefit in a significant way from clean air, and from the climate change funding announced by Prime Minister Harper.

Under the trust fund initiative, Saskatchewan will receive something like $44 million to support provincial projects. That results in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants in the province. So money is being spent, as opposed to not knowing exactly what the costs will be and the dollars spent in Mr. Layton's bill, Bill C-377.

Some of the activities planned in our regulatory approach include continuing development of near-zero carbon dioxide emission electrical generation projects, and implementing measures to improve energy efficiency and conservation, including promotion and support for energy reduction by homeowners, businesses, farms, and communities. All of that is very commendable.

I was quite excited to hear the chair relate to me last week the good stuff he's done with solar power just recently, and how, I think, he now puts power back into the grid in Alberta as a result of that. So in his retirement years, I guess he has a little business going there and will do very well. In a significant way he is contributing to cleaning up the environment across the country, but particularly in his own home province.

So I think that developing and utilizing renewable and alternative energy sources, as he's doing, and as I want to do with geothermal--including biofuels, solar energy technologies that some others are doing, and doing effectively as well....

The regulations would continue to encourage us to lead efforts in carbon capture, including sequestration, which we talked about here, and particularly through the international test centre for carbon dioxide capture.

So the clean air and the climate change funding for Saskatchewan is part of a national $1.5 billion initiative to protect Canadians from the consequences of climate change and air pollution. Those initiatives will ensure that we protect our environment, that we clean up our air, and that we make real progress toward reducing greenhouse gases.

I believe in this different approach, as opposed to the one in Mr. Layton's Bill C-377, which is going to punish our province very significantly and very adversely affect us. If we take the approach our Conservative government is proposing, the regulations and regulatory approach we have indicated, we will implement this plan in a way that ensures our economy can continue to grow and prosper. In fact, these measures will bring economic benefits to some sectors. For example, Saskatchewan's forestry and agricultural sectors will benefit from the reduced impact of acid rain and smog. New industries, such as those that produce energy from renewable resources like the wind and sun, will also benefit and create jobs. So there is also something in terms of the economic opportunity there.

So I think this means, not only for Saskatchewan residents but beyond them as well, that tough regulations will have real and tangible health and environmental benefits for everyone, as well as positive economic benefits.

In Saskatchewan, my home province, where I advocate from and advocate for, these benefits are invaluable. They include cleaner communities and natural spaces; healthier children; fewer emergency room visits and fewer hospital admissions and premature deaths; and also, obviously, more sustainable natural resources.

So for the first time since Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol nearly a decade ago, Canada is going to be making meaningful contributions to the global effort to control greenhouse gas emissions. But strong actions like these, as opposed to the vagueness and the ambiguity of Bill C-377, come at a cost, and those costs, while manageable, will be borne, at least in part, by individual Canadians and their families.

We must all be prepared to do our part to bear that responsibility to get the job done for the generations ahead, but we have to make a start now. So we have that important role to play, and we can take significant measurable action in our own backyard, in my province of Saskatchewan. I think the citizenry is prepared to do that.

Climate change is a global issue. It requires federal leadership. However, the burden must be shared by everyone, including provinces, territories, industry, and individual Canadians from coast to coast.

I want to refer again, in terms of the contrast that we have in Bill C-377, to some of the very practical things we're doing. I want to refer as well to some of the Hansard records that somebody just took away from me bit ago, some of the good stuff on the record there in terms of the questions, in a few places, to Mr. Hogg, questions raised by Mr. Bigras and Mr. Godfrey, who is not here today, who had raised some issues. Maybe, in fact, I'll turn back to that in a moment as well.

Again, when you look at the suspect constitutionality of the bill before us and then you move on to something substantive, solid, and practical, as recent as yesterday in terms of some of the effect that we have here.... I just refer to a couple of places here.

Mr. Hogg was pretty plain. I think he was pretty clear in terms of the comments he made. Mr. Bigras had some good questions.

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

It was getting a bit distracting, but I'll do my best to carry on here in the midst of that.

We need to take pretty seriously the air emissions in our province and our country and the effects of climate change. If we don't get ahead of that and deal with it in practical ways, it could be pretty serious for our province.

A warming climate is expected to increase both the number and the severity of thunder storms, heat waves, and drought that would cause damage to our crops and endanger life and property as well.

Going back to our plan, our regulatory framework, Bill C-288 I think would have been a much superior approach to be taking. We should have had some pretty good cooperation with that, instead of this Bill C-377, which wasn't properly costed and is constitutionally suspect. Others around the table are aware of that as well.

In our approach--as opposed to this Bill C-377, again--there were mandatory targets, real results. We don't see that here. And Mr. Hogg has pointed that out, the vagueness and the ambiguity of it.

In our approach, which would have been the better one to go with, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, air pollution.... It's not a matter of choice for industry. You can't leave it up to them to decide if they want in or not. It is compulsory. It has to be. Our plan, our regulatory framework, would set that kind of compulsion, the mandatory targets for reduction of industrial greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Those targets were stringent and were going to be tightened every single year, so as a result we would start to see those absolute reductions. Again, with Bill C-377 we don't have that, we don't have the preciseness. It's vague, it's ambiguous, and it gives far too much power and too much reach in respect to its constitutional intrusion, as well, whereas these industrial emission targets, the ones from our plan, combined with other actions, practical actions announced to date to fight climate change, would put us on track for that 20% absolute reduction of Canada's greenhouse gases compared to 2006 levels by the year 2020.

I appeal to Mr. Cullen to look in terms of the seriousness and the practicality and pragmatism of those kinds of regulations. That would reduce the emissions of pollutants that cause smog and acid rain by up to 55% as soon as 2012--compared to 2006 levels. As well, I think when you're looking at a plan—and that's not at all anywhere here in Bill C-377—you need to have flexible tools for compliance. You don't get there overnight, but you need to make it mandatory, compulsory, and allow the kinds of creativity--I guess I would say--and the flexibility in terms of the tools of compliance to get the job done.

There's no doubt that in any of these measures, and in terms of our regulatory measures, as well, there would be a period of adjustment for industry, because this is pretty hard stuff, it's tough stuff, but it's required. You need then an achievable plan that does not sacrifice jobs in Saskatchewan.

The concern with this particular Bill C-377 is that in fact we will have significant economic hurt and impact. Counter-intuitively, if you will, we'll hurt the economy such that we won't be able to do the good things in terms of the environment, the clean up, and the good clean water, land, and air that we need.

By way of the regulatory regime that we were proposing, giving industry the flexible tools to meet their targets, companies being able to choose the most cost-effective way to comply--which includes making real reductions in their own facilities, taking advantage of emissions trading, and investing in new technologies--all of those things are within the basket of what they can do to get the job done and to meet their targets.

Companies will also be able to invest in a technology fund that will deliver greenhouse gas reductions, now and in the future. I think technology is pretty crucial to ensure that we make the progress against climate change, and the confirmed guiding principle of that fund is that it will not be used as a mechanism for the inter-regional transfer of wealth and resources. That's a big concern to us in our province.

Moreover, the provincial technology fund may be accredited as compliant as long as they meet the federal requirements. That fund will be used to finance further research on carbon capture and storage technologies that show a lot of promise in Saskatchewan.

I was very pleased about the progress we're going to be able to make as a result of the budget announcement yesterday of some $240 million for carbon sequestration. For my province, that was a major, significant step forward, not only for us but for our country. The benefits will accrue to elsewhere across this nation. Some critics might complain about the cost of these measures for Saskatchewan's industry, but they are more forward-looking measures. Some see the glass as half full and some as half empty, but we need to be looking for and recognizing those new opportunities in Saskatchewan. And it's come our way already in terms of the $240 million for carbon sequestration.

In some sectors, it's going to mean that industry will have to seize the opportunity to improve competitiveness by becoming more innovative. For Saskatchewan's oil and gas sector, that's the case. It will mean their developing and adopting cleaner technologies, and so be it. They do it, and the job gets done. The oil and gas industry--or as Mr. Layton likes to refer to it, big oil and big “ass”, I think that's what he calls it—in my province has thrived on competition. The entrepreneurial spirit along our border with Alberta, down in the south of the province in the Estevan and Weyburn area and across through Swift Current, as well, has driven its growth and has responded to challenges by finding those necessary innovative solutions.

In our regulatory regime, as opposed, again, to Bill C-377, Saskatchewan's electricity generating industry will also have to make changes, which we acknowledge, to achieve the required reductions by adopting cleaner technology to improve its competitiveness. And we'll probably be able to market that abroad, as well.

We've already seen those two sectors cooperate on an exciting and innovative project in Weyburn, where the carbon dioxide emissions from an electricity generating station that uses clean-coal technology are injected back into the ground. And as I said, with some $240 million in the budget yesterday, they can explore that and develop that even more. That's one of the largest climate change research projects in the world. It will help us understand how we can use underground storage of greenhouse gases to address climate change for our nation.

Some of the other measures that I think are significant and that, again, are omitted and not referenced in any way in Bill C-377, we're taking action on. Our approach is to reduce the emissions causing air pollution from cars, recreational vehicles, trucks, trains, and marine engines. We are taking action to use products, such as light bulbs, dishwashers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and commercial boilers, that use energy much more efficiently. We want to have efficient energy, because as a result, we'll have less wasted energy and less air pollution. I think we need to, without question, for any and all and for those that suffer allergies and those that have other air-related ailments.

We need to work to improve that, especially, as well, for indoor air. Saskatchewan is a cold enough province that a good many months of the year we spend inside. Consequently, for the air we breathe inside our homes, our places of work, our businesses, the malls, and so on, it's crucial that we also deal with that and have the regulations that will address that issue. In Saskatchewan we spend a lot more time indoors than they do, maybe, even in some other provinces. So actions to improve indoor air quality are very important for us. Again, this bill has nothing specific in respect of that.

I think the federal government needs to be doing that careful collaborative work with the provinces, recognizing the significant actions the provinces and territories are taking. They need to be acknowledged and credited or applauded for all they do to promote clean air and to address climate change. Those efforts and initiatives need to be encouraged.

Again, from the federal point of view, there is nothing referenced to this in Bill C-377; but we need to have that kind of partnership, that working together, with the provinces and territories to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure we get maximum environmental benefits with minimum administrative and cost burdens for the industry.

Mr. Chair, I think the noise level is getting up a little bit. I'm finding it a bit uncomfortable again.

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

Exactly.

It is an issue in terms of the provinces, for sure. He says that the matter has to be “sufficiently distinct to distinguish it from matters of provincial concern”. In his view, it does not.

So, “the vagueness and breadth of Bill C-377 has the potential to reach deeply into many fields of provincial authority”. That's a concern for Saskatchewan. It's a concern for every province. It's obviously very much a concern, I would think, for Quebec, as well. It reaches into no end of areas of provincial authority.

“Without more careful definition of the kinds of regulations that are contemplated,” he says, “the bill is outside the national concern branch of peace, order, and good government.” His conclusion is that “the Parliament of Canada lacks the power”, clearly lacks the power “to enact Bill C-377, and if Parliament were to enact the bill it would be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada”.

That was the respectful submission of Peter W. Hogg, a distinguished legal authority in our country.

I'll come back to that a little bit later, in terms of the constitutionality, because I think it's a big one. It's probably reason enough to do some further study of this and to get this thing right. But in its present form, even with many amendments, it needs to be started all over from scratch. I think that would be the better approach.

As a member of Parliament for just about eleven years now from the province of Saskatchewan, I saw the impact that this particular bill would have in a disproportionate way on my home province. It's a province that for the first time is coming out of the have-not status, coming to a point where we're doing well, and we will do so in more significant ways.

Compared even to places like Alberta, we have a greater breadth, if you will. We have uranium, we have diamonds, we have the potash there, and we've got fairly diversified. We could have a much more diversified economy than some of the other provinces. So that stands us in pretty good stead.

But I'm speaking of the impact of Mr. Layton's bill, and as I said once before in a meeting here, I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Layton has against that province, the birthplace of the NDP or CCF. The only thing I can figure is that it's because they've turned the NDP out on its heels just recently. As of last fall, we have a Saskatchewan Party government in place.

Typically, in our province of Saskatchewan, it's kind of ironic. Whenever things are looking up, looking a little better, we don't figure we can trust the NDP, the socialists, to carry it from there, so we turf them out. If we get down on our luck and things go unfortunate, then sometimes we'll allow them back for a short period of time.

That's the typical and historic pattern in the province of Saskatchewan. If things are looking up and looking good, we don't trust the NDP to steward that economy and steward things for the days ahead. We've just had to evict them, I guess, for the present, and they've been relinquished by a fairly significant majority.

Rather than the bill before us, we should go back to C-377, the common-sense approach that our government was taking, which is far superior and supercedes all of the attempt of the bill here by the leader of the NDP and advocated by Mr. Cullen here in this committee on his behalf. I think anybody who is fair and objective would want to admit that this government is serious about tackling climate change and about doing it in practical ways, in terms of clean water, clean land, clean air.

It's been in our budgets, it's gained significantly in the budget 2008. For my province, there is a big impact in terms of what we can do now by way of carbon sequestration.

The government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting our environment, cleaning up the air Canadians breathe today and down the road, as well as looking to the future, for my children, for my soon to be six grandchildren. We need that kind of thing, and we want to do that in Saskatchewan.

This Bill C-377 will simply not do that. In fact, as opposed to this bill before us, back in October 2006 we were already moving to regulate greenhouse gases that caused climate change, as well as air pollution. We've proceeded on that with the necessary implementation.

Some of the effects of climate change in Saskatchewan are pretty serious, pretty severe. That's why we need to move on it. I think all of us around this table would be agreed on that.

We're not immune as a province to the effects of climate change. Environmental impacts of climate change on Saskatchewan include challenges for agriculture. That's a big thing in our province. It's not as much a percentage of the gross domestic product for our province, but it's still significant. It's still a huge percentage. It will impact pretty significantly on agriculture.

My province of Saskatchewan is a fairly cold place sometimes, but too warm a climate would create droughts. We've faced some of that in the past and could in the future. It would also produce the kinds of conditions for weeds and insects, which would reduce crop yields, and cause some summer heat stress in livestock as well.

So that's a concern for those who farm, for my constituents, and for me. We've just bought a little farm there outside of Saskatoon, so we'll be directly involved in experiencing that, and hopefully not too many of the serious adverse effects of that.

The severe weather is something we need to take seriously in our province. A warming—

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

Mr. Laforest said:

What Parliament is doing...is making provision for carefully tailoring the prohibited action to specified substances used or dealt with in specific circumstances. This type of tailoring is obviously necessary in defining the scope of a criminal prohibition, and is, of course, within Parliament’s power.

This passage makes it clear that, in a complex area like the environment, there can be some administrative discretion in the creation of criminal offences, but the role of the discretion has to be “carefully tailored” by Parliament, meaning that has to be defined and limited by the act.

He goes on to say:

Based on this ruling, it is my opinion that the provisions of Bill C-377 are not carefully tailored in a fashion that could be upheld as a criminal law.

This is where we're getting to the unconstitutionality of it.

It is true that the Bill, by s. 12, provides that the contravention of a regulation is an offence punishable by fine or imprisonment. But the regulation-making power is so broad and vague that any prohibition in the regulations is left by the Act to be designed by the executive within the ill-defined limits set by s. 7 (described earlier in this opinion). The range of conduct that contributes directly or indirectly to the emission of greenhouse gases is vast. Under Bill C-377, it is all subject to regulation, depending entirely on the discretion of the federal cabinet. From the Act it is impossible to discern what conduct the federal cabinet will actually decide to prohibit. Indeed, even the amount of any penalty is left to the federal cabinet: by 12, any fine or imprisonment for breach of the regulations is “as prescribed by the regulations”.

Then he says:

In my opinion, Bill C-377 does not contain a “carefully tailored” prohibition or penalty of a kind that would qualify as an exercise of Parliament’s criminal law power. The Bill would not be upheld by the Supreme Court as a criminal law.

Then under the section of peace, order, and good government he says:

The Constitution Act, 1867, by the opening words of s. 91, confers on the Parliament of Canada the power to make laws for the “peace, order, and good government of Canada” (pogg). The branch of that power that can authorize environmental legislation is the “national concern” branch, under which Parliament has authority to make laws on topics of national concern.

He then says, as Mr. McGuinty will remember:

In R. v. Crown Zellerbach (1988), the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the federal Ocean Dumping Control Act under the national concern branch of pogg. The law in issue prohibited ships from dumping any substance into the sea without a permit. The Court upheld the law, taking the view that marine pollution was a matter of national concern that was distinct from matters of provincial jurisdiction and beyond the capacity of the provinces to control. But, as in Québec Hydro, the Court was narrowly split, in this case four-three. The split was over the requirement of the national concern branch that any matter of national concern had to have “a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern”. For Le Dain J. speaking for the majority, the topic of marine pollution did have sufficiently ascertainable limits to meet this requirement of distinctness. For La Forest J. speaking for the dissenting minority, the topic of marine pollution was not sufficiently distinct, because it could lead to federal regulation of industrial and municipal activity, resource development, construction, recreation and other matters that contribute to marine pollution but are within provincial jurisdiction.

In Crown Zellerbach, the majority upheld the law, but the issue of difficulty was the requirement of distinctness. Although the law merely prohibited dumping at sea, the split of the Court made clear how close the decision was. In the case of Bill C-377, no attempt has been made to place limits on what Parliament can do to reduce greenhouse gases; the Bill appears to authorize any regulation that would have the effect, direct or indirect, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On the face of it, the Bill represents an assertion of federal authority (coupled with a massive delegation to the executive) over a huge range of matters that are now within provincial jurisdiction. While there can be no doubt that the reduction of greenhouse gases is a matter of national concern, legislation has to be drafted that focuses on a distinct matter, such as industrial air emissions, to have any prospect of being upheld by the Court under the national concern branch of pogg.

Of course, “pogg” is peace, order, and good government.

In my opinion, Bill C-377, while clearly directed to a matter of national concern, is too broad and sweeping to satisfy the requirement of distinctness that the Court has imposed as a limitation on the national concern branch of pogg. The Bill would not be upheld by the Court under that head of federal power.

He then gives his conclusion with respect to his perception of the unconstitutionality of Bill C-377:

The constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions solely to a regulation-making power vested in the executive. The only direction given to the Governor in Council as to the nature of the regulations is that they must be “to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act” and “to ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under section 5 [to achieve the targets for reduction of emissions]”. This extraordinarily broad and sweeping regulation-making power purports to authorize any regulation that would have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations could reach into every area of Canadian economic (and even social) life. The Bill enacts no restrictions as to the kinds of laws that are contemplated or the kinds of activities that can be regulated. Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime—and should be a matter of grave political concern quite apart from constitutional issues. However, the constitutional issues are enough by themselves to defeat the legislation. Bill C-377 is outside Parliament’s power over criminal law, because that head of power, in addition to a criminal purpose, requires a prohibition and a penalty. If the prohibition and penalty are to be delegated to the executive to design and enact, the delegation must be “carefully tailored” so that Parliament at least provides the guidelines for the creation of the new criminal offences. Bill C-377 provides no guidelines of any kind. Bill C-377 is outside Parliament’s power over criminal law, because that head of power, in addition to a criminal purpose, requires a prohibition and a penalty. If the prohibition and penalty are to be delegated to the executive to design and enact, the delegation must be “carefully tailored” so that Parliament at least provides the guidelines for the creation of the new criminal offences. Bill C-377 provides no guidelines of any kind. Bill C-377 is also outside Parliament’s power over peace, order, and good government, because the national concern branch of that power authorizes laws relating to a matter of national concern only if the matter is sufficiently distinct to distinguish it from matters of provincial concern

So I would think that my Quebec colleagues, Mr. Lussier and Mr. Bigras, would be particularly concerned about this, and particularly that last part, where he judges it to be....

Pardon?

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

We are talking about the possibility of sending industrial production out of Canada. When we invite witnesses here, it is not just to give them a free trip and a lunch. We are politicians, not scientific experts. We bring the most competent people we can to discuss these matters. Unless we are bringing witnesses here just to pass the time, I think that we should be more aware of what is going on and, above all, of what they are telling us.

The "blues" tell us that we are going to cause ourselves problems if all we do is export our manufacturing, that is, Canada's industrial production, without protecting it or knowing the true costs. If we ship our manufacturing out of the country, not only do we just move the problem somewhere else, we make it worse. Nor will we have solved the greenhouse gas emissions problem because, after all, emissions from outside Canada affect the climate inside Canada. They play a significant role.

It seems to me that Bill C-377 causes problems both constitutionally and in application. We presently have a law that seeks a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. Not only has this been tabled, it has been passed and costs have been calculated for manufacturing, for all Canadian production and for industry as a whole. The calculations were thorough.

I find it hard to believe that Mr. Jack Layton came here to the committee to table Bill C-377 and blithely told us that he had no idea what it would cost. For someone who aspires to be prime minister, that is beyond disrespectful. Earlier, Mark used the word hypocrisy. I am disappointed that someone who wants to become prime minister can table a bill with so little regard for its effects on the Canadian economy. Honestly, it makes me sad. He went so far as to say that it was the government who should be calculating the impact of his bill.

Then, Ms. Donnelly tells us about the costs reaching 25% of the gross domestic product, using present economic models. I have talked with economists, that is to say, to officials who are responsible for budget projections, about what effect a bill should have. It seems that the financial models used by Ms. Donnelly are well recognized and they show that 25% of gross domestic product should be calculated as the effect of meeting the objectives of Bill C-377.

At a cost of 25% of gross domestic product, Saskatchewan would have to assign 99% of its gross domestic product to BillC-377. The NDP should have the sense to wait until at least one economic study has been conducted. I am not saying that we should conduct that study. If we did, you would want no part of it. We should find an economic study that everyone recognizes and accepts in order to determine whether it is or is not valid.

During question period, one of the things that people wanted was a budget for families, money for everyone, especially to protect the manufacturing industry. You still brought up a number of matters related to the budget today. As to Bill C-377, I am not saying that we should accept what Ms. Donnelly said lock, stock and barrel, but I am in favour of finding an acceptable way to calculate its impact.

Passing a bill that requires us to reduce our greenhouse gases by 25% below 1990 levels, or, in other words, to reduce our present emissions by 50% by 2020, in 12 short years, that is, is simply not reasonable. I ask that we agree to find someone who can calculate the precise costs of Bill C-377, so that we are in a position to make an informed decision.

We asked witnesses to come before this committee. We also asked for advice, and the most significant advice that we received was to calculate the costs that would be incurred. I think that everyone would benefit from that. This document we have here has been published. We are aware what a reduction of 20% by 2020 means because of the act now in force. As to health, we know that it costs $6 billion annually to care for people with respiratory problems due to greenhouse gases, smog, and other things like that.

I would ask Mr. Cullen to move that we officially ask an outside, independent group to cost out this bill before we go any further. I am not talking about whether it is constitutional; that is another issue. At least we would have some answers. I think that everyone is looking for answers. The Liberals have come here today with a list that exceeds Kyoto targets by 33%. They are no more stupid or more intelligent than anyone else; this is a pretty difficult topic. The challenge is not just Canada's, it is worldwide. So it affects Europe just as much as it affects the other countries of the world. The challenge is significant.

When our Liberal friends signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, I do not believe that they expected that, about ten years down the road, we would be so far from meeting the protocol's objectives. Setting objectives means incurring costs. We know that the world economy is undergoing major changes. There is talk of a significant global recession spreading both from the United States and from Europe. At the moment, we are all going through an economic slowdown that is not only major, but it is also predictable. Since the mortgage crisis, in fact, everyone has been expecting problems in industrial production and manufacturing. All this should be quantified. I believe that it would be wise, and would constitute due diligence for the members of Parliament around this table.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[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.

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

Perhaps you are aware of the bill that has been tabled on that issue. It is Bill C-377, which asks for a 53% reduction by 2020. We asked Mr. Layton whether he had done any financial feasibility studies.

What do you think of that?

[Andre Turmel, Secretary, National Environmental, Energy and Resources Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and all members.

My name is Andre Turmel. I'm a partner at the law firm of Fasken Martineau in Montreal. I'm going to address you in French in the following presentation.

Bill C-377 addresses Canada's non-compliance in implementing international treaty obligations, specifically in regard to climate change. The CBA Section is certainly concerned about the serious consequences of climate change, and about Canada's failure to implement the Kyoto Protocol as a breach of Canada's international obligations. However, we believe that Bill C-377 should not be passed in its current form. Rather than the proposed legislated targets, the CBA Section urges the government to take immediate steps to meet Canada's international environmental legal obligations to address climate change.

International treaties are the primary tool used by the international community to promote collective action on global environmental problems. Canada is a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which provides in article 26 that, “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.” International customary legal norms from as long ago as 1938 recognize a duty among nations to prevent transboundary pollution and environmental harm.

More recently, there was the Teck Cominco case which was decided by a U.S. court of appeal. It ruled that the United States had administrative responsibilities with respect to a Canadian company that was emitting on American soil.

At this time, Canada is entering into an increasing number of international agreements addressing environmental issues. The CBA has urged federal, provincial and territorial governments to cooperate to implement these international agreements in a timely and complete manner, according to their respective areas of jurisdiction. Implementation of international conventions and obligations under international law is a matter of support for the rule of law.

I would now like to make a few comments about Bill C-377. This bill is intended to rectify Canada's non-compliance with the Protocol. It would introduce ambitious, and on the basis of current experience, likely unattainable, deferred targets. If legislated targets are to be adopted, they should be linked to, and coherent with current targets in international law. The existence of two, unrelated and incommensurate standards would likely create confusion as to the role of international law in domestic environmental law, and would downplay the importance of Canada's legal obligations under the protocol and other international treaties.

I would now like to list some of the legal consequences should Canada fail to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

The protocol's Marrakesh Accords address non-compliance with article 3.1. The accord provides, in particular, that the enforcement branch of the compliance committee—that is how it is called—which is responsible for compliance, must ensure that Canada fulfils its obligations.

It must declare Canada to be non-compliant if it deducts from Canada's assigned amount for the second commitment period a number of tonnes equal to 1.3 times the amount in tonnes of excess emissions. It will require Canada to develop a compliance action plan including information provided in the letter that we sent to you. Finally, it can suspend Canada's eligibility to make emissions trading transfers under article 17 of the protocol.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol dictating Canada's international environmental obligations and subsequent negotiated instruments within the framework of the framework convention are likely to remain the primary international legal structures to address climate change, including climate change impacts in Canada, after 2012.

While recourse by a country against Canada before the International Court of Justice is unlikely, domestic litigation against the federal government can be expected. Already, the Friends of the Earth have launched two cases against the Government of Canada with the Federal Court, one under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the other under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act adopted in 2007.

To conclude, Bill C-377 deals with a subject of profound concern to Canadians and to the international community. However, it would require an 80% target by 2050, a significantly higher target than is currently adopted by most countries, which generally require around 50 or 60% reduction targets by 2050. While high standards are desirable, if attainable, they should be linked to and coherent with target set out in existing international law. The targets in Bill C-377 are not.

We urge the federal government to take immediate steps to honour Canada's international agreements to address climate change before considering the legislated targets proposed in Bill C-377.

Thank you.

[Tamra Thomson, Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

I will start for the Canadian Bar Association and then Mr. Turmel will conclude.

I'd like to thank the committee for inviting the Canadian Bar Association to appear with respect to Bill C-377. We appear today on behalf of our national environmental, energy, and resources law section, the members of whom represent a broad range of interests related to environmental law from every part of Canada.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 37,000 jurists across Canada. Amongst our objectives are improvement of the law and improvement in the administration of justice. It's in that optic that the section has assessed this bill.

Mr. Turmel is the secretary of that section, and as a lawyer from Montreal, he specializes in energy and climate change law.

You have received a copy of our letter analyzing the bill, and I'm going to ask Mr. Turmel to address that in greater detail.

[Professor Peter Hogg, Scholar in Residence, Blake, Cassels and Graydon LLP]

The constitutional problem with Bill C-377 is that it leaves the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions solely to the regulation-making power vested in the executive. The only direction given to the Governor in Council as to the nature of the regulations is that they must be “to carry out the purposes and provisions of this Act” and “to ensure that Canada fully meets its commitment under Section 5”—the section on the targets for 2020—and there is a later target as well.

This extraordinarily broad and sweeping regulation-making power purports to authorize any regulation that would have the effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such regulations could potentially reach into every area of Canadian economic—and even social—life. The bill enacts no restrictions as to the kinds of laws that are contemplated or the kinds of activities that can be regulated. Such a sweeping grant of authority to the executive is unprecedented outside of wartime and should be a matter of political concern, quite apart from the constitutional issues. However, the constitutional issues are all that I'm concerned with, and they are, in my view, enough to defeat the legislation.

First of all, to take the two heads of power identified by Mr. Castrilli, Bill C-377 is outside Parliament's power over criminal law because that head of power—in addition to a criminal purpose, which it has, being the prevention of global warming and the protection of the environment—also requires a prohibition and a penalty. What the Hydro-Québec case said was that if any part of the prohibition and penalty is to be delegated to the executive to design and enact, the delegation must be “carefully tailored” so that Parliament at least provides the guidelines for the creation of the new criminal offences. Bill C-377 provides no guidelines whatsoever as to the criminal offences that would emerge from the regulation-making power of the Governor in Council.

To take the second head of power identified by Mr. Castrilli, Bill C-377 is also outside Parliament's power over peace, order, and good government because the national concern branch of that power authorizes laws relating to a matter of national concern—and of course the reduction of greenhouse gases is a matter of national concern—only if the matter is sufficiently distinct to distinguish it from matters of provincial concern. The vagueness—and this is basically the exact same point again—and the breadth of Bill C-377 have the potential to reach deeply into many fields of provincial authority. Obviously, the bill can deal with almost all human activity that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

So without more careful definition of the kinds of regulations that are contemplated, so as to make a distinct matter that the bill addresses, the bill is outside the national concern branch of peace, order, and good government.

My conclusion is that unless the bill is changed in the ways that Mr. Castrilli suggested in his closing phrases—and these would need to be quite radical changes—the Parliament of Canada simply lacks the power to enact Bill C-377. If Parliament were to enact the bill, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada.

That concludes my submission, Mr. Chair.

[Joseph Castrilli, Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

As we noted in our pre-filed written submissions, the subject matter of Bill C-377 can be characterized as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions so as to contribute to the protection of the global climate system and to curb the threats posed to it in Canada. The methods by which Bill C-377 proposes to address that subject matter are a combination of regulatory, economic, fiscal, and cooperative measures.

In the time available for our opening comments, I'm just going to focus on two heads of power: peace, order, and good government, and the criminal law power. I will also address briefly certain constitutional questions related to Bill C-377 arising from existing federal and environmental legislation.

With respect to peace, order, and good government, this, as the committee knows, is a residual power reserved to Parliament when a matter does not come explicitly within the classes of subjects assigned to provincial legislatures, or otherwise to Parliament. Therefore, reliance on it to uphold the regulatory limits or emissions trading authorities that are not really spelled out in Bill C-377 could have a major impact on provincial jurisdiction to act in this area, and therefore might not find favour with the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, peace, order, and good government would appear to be the best head of power to rely upon to uphold a more explicit emissions trading and offsets authority than exists in Bill C-377 at the moment, because such a regime might be better capable of being clearly ascertainable through the application, for example, of sector-by-sector measures, and therefore be potentially least intrusive of provincial jurisdiction. Peace, order, and good government would appear to be less likely to find favour with the Supreme Court as a basis for upholding the constitutionality of the regulatory limits authority of Bill C-377 under any circumstances because of the potential for major impact on provincial jurisdiction to act in a host of areas.

With respect to the criminal law power, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hydro-Québec, the criminal law power would be the head of power most likely to uphold the constitutionality of the regulatory provisions of Bill C-377. This would appear to be the case even if the regime were complex so long as the bill was amended to make it clear that, like the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the constitutionality of which was upheld in the Hydro-Québec decision, it is only addressing a limited number of substances--in this context, greenhouse gases.

Moreover, greater particulars would be necessary in Bill C-377 in order to determine whether, or the extent to which, the regime of regulatory limits--or emissions trading, for that matter--could be placed squarely within the line of cases decided by the Supreme Court since the mid-1990s that have upheld complex federal regulatory regimes under the criminal law power.

The last matter I wish to deal with very briefly is constitutional questions in light of existing federal environmental law. Bill C-377 is meant to be a stand-alone law and is silent on any relationship that might exist between it and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, relating to substances causing or contributing to climate change. However, whereas CEPA 1999 lists in schedule 1 of that act--that list is known as “List of toxic substances”--the six greenhouse gases that are identified in the Kyoto Protocol, Bill C-377 is silent on which greenhouse gases it might apply to and how these substances are to be characterized.

In the circumstances, some reconciliation of Bill C-377 and CEPA 1999 should or could be considered. This could include making Bill C-377 a series of amendments to CEPA 1999 rather than a stand-alone statute. This would allow Bill C-377 to take advantage of the constitutional testing to which CEPA has already been subjected. This reconciliation also could avoid some of the jurisdictional confusion that might otherwise ensue if Bill C-377 were enacted as is, in light of the fact that greenhouse gases are already identified as toxic substances under CEPA 1999.

In the alternative--lawyers always like to have an alternative--and as we've suggested above, greater particulars should be considered in Bill C-377 itself if the preference of Parliament is to keep the bill as a stand-alone law. In this regard, I'd suggest three broad areas, and I suspect that in the questions that follow I will have a chance to elaborate: first, identify the greenhouse gases the bill applies to; second, define precisely the situations or activities where emissions are to be controlled or prohibited; and third, make the prohibitions subject to penal consequences.

I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee might have at the appropriate time. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just off the top, I need to correct the record from Mr. Cullen here because our party's position was alleged incorrectly there. We have in fact committed to absolute reductions of 20% by 2020, just so our witnesses are well aware of that. But we do need to get everybody involved if global emissions are to go down. It's just so that we have the record corrected there.

I'd like to ask the question first to Vicki and then to James as well with respect to their particular spheres in their countries.

If a bill came to your parliaments, the European and the British, a bill like C-377 that we have before us today, a bill like that which was not costed, had no economic analysis, what would you as an adviser be recommending your parliament do with that bill?

Bill C-474--National Sustainable Development Act--Speaker's Ruling

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we deal with the issue of having sustainable development. If Canada continues in the way it has been proceeding in the last 30 years, the climate change and greenhouse gas emissions will go sky high.

In the last 20 to 30 years there has been a dramatic increase of greenhouse gas emissions. We have heard a lot of empty promises. I recall in 1993 in the former Liberal government's road map, the red book, there was a promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2000. Of course, that did not happen. They went up by 25% instead of going down by 20%. We have lost a lot of time. However, that does not mean we should not take action on the environmental file.

We absolutely have to deal with the oil sands development. We have to look at putting a moratorium on oil sands development so that we can control our greenhouse gas emissions.

It would be totally unfair if our generation and the Conservative government did not take action on the environmental file, because we would leave a terrible environmental legacy for future generations. It would not be fair to our young people in Canada and elsewhere on the planet.

We have to deal with the oil sands development, because the majority of greenhouse gas emissions comes from that development, but we also have to deal with the whole question of the building code.

For years many provinces have been saying that it is really important for Canada to take a leadership role and define what is sustainable development.

In my riding in downtown Toronto a lot of condominiums are being built. Often ordinary Canadians, the folks downtown, ask why these new developments are not state of the art, and energy efficient. They want to know why are we continuing to build buildings that are not energy efficient and why we are not putting in solar panels or wind devices to capture solar and wind energy. The building code is a provincial jurisdiction. If we were to raise the point of energy efficient buildings with the territorial and provincial governments, they would say it is not being done because the federal government has not determined the guidelines for a green building, a building that is energy efficient.

There is a tremendous amount of buck passing between different levels of government. As a result any of the new housing that is being built is not necessarily energy efficient. There is a great deal of concern and desire among ordinary Canadians to live in buildings that are energy efficient.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding targets and goals. Instead of focusing on this bill, I want to talk about how we can lock the Bali targets into what the government does.

We need to have 80% reduction below the 1990 levels by 2050. We have to develop medium term targets of 25% below the 2020 targets. The world came together at the Bali conference and said that has to be done. We have to find ways to lock the government in, but this bill does not do that, unfortunately.

There is another private member's bill, Bill C-377. I hope the House will debate that bill because it certainly would lock in the government with specific targets.

With respect to targets and transparency, it is important to have a reporting mechanism. A progress report is needed every five years on how the government is performing. Within six months of a bill being passed it is really important that a road map be established. Also, if the government does not meet the targets we have to ensure there are offences and penalties in place. The other aspect that is very important is that there be regular reviews. There need to be independent outside coordinators to say that the government is performing and is on the right track so that the people of Canada know that the government is taking the right route to deal with greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to talk briefly about the importance of sustainable development. I certainly hope that the government focuses on the environment as one of its prime priorities.

[David Sawyer]

Thank you. One of the observations was that the targets in Turning the Corner and Bill C-377 are not that far off. One is 35% off BAU in 2020, and one is 50% off BAU.

So my quick observation is that if someone is saying that the one target is going to reduce GDP by 50%, while the other plan is going to reduce it by 36%, I don't think those are credible numbers. I think most numbers indicate that at these deep targets, you're talking about an annual growth. You're dropping annual growth down in half or by three-quarters of a point or something. So it's sort of in the range of 1%, certainly well within the growth rate.

Again, that masks sectoral and regional implications, and there are issues there. But 45% seems crazy.

[David Sawyer]

That's a very good question.

The regional implications will depend on the emission intensity of the electricity. Quebec, then, being a low-emitting generator of electricity, would benefit greatly, one would think, with an increased rise in the price of electricity, because they're supplying into the grid at very low prices, and as price goes up there's more profit to be made.

So the growth in the electricity sector under either of these targets—again, minus 35% under Turning the Corner, or Bill C-377, minus 50%. You're talking about a significant expansion in the electricity sector--more renewables, more hydro power, and so on--so yes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all. This has been a good panel. I think it's been interestingly balanced.

I have a comment on Turning the Corner, the plan of the government.

Now, the question was put to you, “Was Bill C-377 costed?” The question I'd put back to the government is, “Was Turning the Corner costed?” The answer clearly, from Mr. Sawyer's remarks, is no. The only way in which you could achieve Turning the Corner was if emissions were priced at $100 a tonne. The government plan calls for them to be priced at $15 a tonne.

Clearly a factor of six is not a costing; it's a gross error. I just would make that observation.

I think the overall thrust of several of your remarks is that we've been a bit too leisurely in our approach. We haven't gotten our act together, and there are many things we could do. The purpose of Bill C-377 is not to provide a full plan that is going to answer what you ask for. It is simply to set an ambitious target that lines us up with the scientific reality of where we are and what we need to do as a planet and as a country.

So let me ask you this. If we accept everything that particularly the Council of Chief Executives has called for, and the Gas Association as well, which is a total plan covering the entire Canadian economy—not the industrial half but the part that deals with the built environment, the transportation sector and the bio-sector, which is agriculture, forestry, urban waste—then surely what we would need as our metaphor is a World War II mobilization of the economy metaphor, not a leisurely 100-year metaphor where we need to get all the targets up in place. We didn't know that in 1940; we just knew we had to win the war. You couldn't know when you would complete the Sarnia rubber plant; you just knew you had to do it.

I guess what I'm saying is that we don't have a complete road map. We do know the direction. We want to win the war on climate change just as much as we wanted to win the war last time.

Don't we really need a plan that covers the whole economy and all parts of the emissions spectrum but that also is far more ambitious, far more urgent than anything we've seen to date?

[Dr. Shahrzad Rahbar]

As I said, I think Bill C-377 implicitly focuses on the large final emitter side. I have no issues with a regulatory framework. It's not clear on how the other 50% should be addressed, and in my estimation, the other 50% matters. Our own emissions matter. Regulate us; I'm not disputing that. But we need to get a lot smarter on how we deal with the other 50%, and I'd like to see some focus and leadership in that.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm sorry for cutting you off. I have only a minute left.

How does Bill C-377, as you see it today, need to be improved?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The ultimate goal—and I appreciate your comments—with Bill C-377 is to provide leadership. I believe Canada is providing leadership internationally to get all the major emitters participating. There has been a focus on the other 50% in Canada, and I believe our Turning the Corner plan does that. But I appreciate your challenge to do more on that.

How can we get Canadians involved in picking the low-hanging fruit? But also, over the next twelve years, which goes very quickly, by 2020, you see an absolute reduction of 20%, as it is in our Turning the Corner plan.

Ms. Rahbar, how do you see Canadians actually lowering the amount of energy they're using, those who use natural gas, which you represent? How can we reduce that, both at the large final emitters but also for the average homeowner?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

For Bill C-377, for instance...?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Was it $200 for the Turning the Corner plan and $300 for Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

While I have your attention, I'm going to ask some specific questions. Of course, you're not going to be able to give specifics, but maybe you can give a general comment regarding the cost.

You were suggesting that by 2020 with Bill C-377, your analysis was about $300--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I sure will. I was just addressing the topic that Mr. McGuinty had brought up.

In terms of this policy crisis that was spoken of by Mr. d'Aquino, maybe it's a lot of political rhetoric—which I am guilty of, at times, maybe by the comments I've just made—but I would think that if we all pulled in that same direction, as you're suggesting, maybe we could start moving forward on this. I think there is a willingness when you deal one on one, but when you get in this political environment, sometimes there are different agendas at work here.

The government has provided a very clear, focused agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020.

Mr. Sawyer, I have some questions on those numbers. What will that mean in 2020? What will it mean for gasoline prices and whatnot?

So the agenda is ambitious. The notices of intent to regulate were issued. The negotiation and consultation time is almost at the end now. The meat on the bones of that regulatory framework will be seen very soon. I look forward to your analysis on that as we see that policy and those regulations developing.

On Bill C-377, I have asked every one of the group of witnesses so far this question: should it be costed? I asked Mr. Layton when he was here, and he said it hadn't been costed. He was hoping the government would cost it. But he suggested that I ask Mr. Matthew Bramley from Pembina, who was also a witness that day. Mr. Bramley also said that they were consulted. Actually, their report—from the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina—is what Bill C-377 was based on.

So Matthew Bramley said no, and he also was hoping that the government would cost Bill C-377. I also asked Dr. Stone, and he said yes, it should be costed. Every time we've heard from the witnesses—I forget who else there was—we've heard yes, it should be costed.

Mr. Sawyer, you're the first person I've actually heard cost it somewhat. Does there need to be an additional evaluation on the cost of Bill C-377—to put some meat on the bones, so to speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, could you just get on to Bill C-377?

[John Dillon]

And I'm very excited to answer you, Mr. Cullen.

I have two points.

First of all, the suggestion that I took in your premise is that right now pollution happens at no cost whatsoever. Clearly that is not true. We have scads of regulation at municipal, provincial, and federal levels that impose requirements on pollution. In fact, we have permitting processes in several provinces that require companies to deal with greenhouse gases, so the suggestion that it's not priced at all is not accurate. Whether we've got the right price or not, of course, is what we're all here to discuss.

The other point is on your suggestion that setting national targets in Bill C-377 gives clarity to industry. No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. At the end of the day, we need to understand what industry's obligations are. A national target--this is the debate we've been having for 15 years, and I'm sorry to see we haven't gotten any further, because at the end of the day you need to know what the requirements are for industry. We're never going to get to a national target unless every part of the economy and every part of society knows what its obligations are. That's what we don't have. That's what we'd like to get onto, and not a continual debate on more targets.

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

It's a rather rudimentary question, but as it is right now, the receptacle of waste, the atmosphere, is not being given any due course. Mr. Stern used the notion of the greatest market failure in history—our inability, as the free market is working right now, to capture the cost of the pollution we are creating through the generation of our economy.

No one has actually said it, but I get a sense that they don't like the targets in Bill C-377, yet the measurement and the management—the metric we need to use—is what any business must do. In every quarterly profit, they don't use the number of staplers they happen to own; they use profitability. If they are off those targets, then they have either compensation to pay to their stakeholders or a big problem within the board. The Government of Canada, as the board of directors setting the policy, must set targets based on the amount of emissions that we seek to have as a nation. To base any plan on any other metric seems to us to be foolhardy.

To suggest that the notions you've put forward are too ambitious...I just did a quick look and played some graphs and looked at what's happening in the U.S. Congress. They're right in line with the Lieberman-McCain bill, so if Mr. McCain needs to be accused of attempting to destroy the Canadian economy with his plan and his targets, then perhaps we can apply the same measure onto our own, and now Republicans and New Democrats are hanging out together and making the same economic models, which I suggest is not true.

If the cost of pollution is not captured as it is, it must be captured, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that these externalized costs that we've been enjoying for so many years—and I'd suggest the energy sector in particular has been enjoying these externalizations of cost—must be captured.

I have a question on the baseline. Ms. Rahbar, you didn't like the 1990 baseline. You suggest it was going backwards in time to look at it. I would suggest to you that the market uses an index to measure whether the market is up or down. Picking a target in time is essentially what is required in order to have an ambition and a goal. Is that true?

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

Certainly. Let's talk about some of those measures.

I'm just curious. Mr. Sawyer, you did some speculation and prognostication. I'm reminded a bit of the old saying that economists have predicted ten out of the last five recessions.

On the use of carbon tax in your modelling or your projection, I looked through the bill again just to remind myself. Is carbon tax put forward as one of those mechanisms in Bill C-377?

[Dr. Shahrzad Rahbar]

No, I didn't say that.

There's a graph somewhere in my presentation. I'm not an economist. For my sins, I'm an engineer, actually. So I had one of our economist colleagues draw me the graphs. I wanted to see what the National Round Table targets suggest the economy should do, what Bill C-377 is proposing, and what we said we would do in 1990 and didn't act on.

The history speaks for itself. We had a bunch of lofty ambitions that we didn't meet. The National Round Table suggests that the path we should be following is a slightly slower path--to slow down, stop, and reverse.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, folks, for being here this afternoon.

There are so many questions to ask. I'd like to start, Mr. Chair, by following up the line of questioning I put yesterday, which I think speaks to the whole question of the need for Bill C-377. I think it's important for Canadians to understand we're debating a bill that is going to shift targets, a bill that is going to guide Parliament based on science. I think that's the import of what Mr. Layton is trying to put through here, but I think it's also important for Canadians to know that it's impossible to know where we want to get to unless we actually know where we are now. In that sense, I want to link Bill C-377 to the government's plan. These are important questions for us to know in order to understand just how far off the government's plan may or may not be in relation to Bill C-377 and the aspirations and the objectives therein.

I'd like to ask a couple of core questions, first to Mr. Dillon and to Mr. d'Aquino. Will the government's plan achieve what it sets out to achieve? Will we see 20% absolute reductions in greenhouse gases by 2020? If you could help the committee, we've been looking for months now for any kind of evidence or analysis that was performed by the government to substantiate that claim and those numbers. Have you come across these numbers? Will the government achieve what it sets out to achieve?

[David Sawyer, Economist, EnviroEconomics]

Mr. Chairman, members, and guests, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the economic implications of Bill C-377.

My name is Dave Sawyer. I'm an Ottawa-based economist working on issues of climate policy.

I am here neither to support nor to contend Bill C-377, but rather to discuss the economic implications of the bill.

What are the economic implications of the bill? Well, not surprisingly, it depends. More specifically, it depends on how it's designed and implemented, but since the bill is not specific on this point, and since you have asked me to come here and comment on the possible implications, I basically need to identify a policy package from which to provide some judgments or some information for you. I'll do that now.

The key elements of a policy package that I use and that I think are required to assess any sort of deep GHG reductions like this—i.e., good principles to basically design effective policy for GHG mitigation—include the main points that follow.

First, not surprisingly, to attain substantial reductions in 2020 while minimizing costs, we need economy-wide carbon pricing. This means, as others have said, cap and trade, a carbon tax, or some combination of the two. Recognizing, however, that cap and trade is the dominant policy for large final emitters and that cap and trade is difficult to implement for smaller emitters like you and me—our houses and our cars—the preferred and maybe most expedient approach is to have a revenue-neutral carbon tax for the remaining emissions. While I recognize a carbon tax does not resonate politically, the alternatives have higher costs, and frankly, Canadians may dislike income taxes even more than they dislike carbon taxes.

Second, an effective policy package would provide subsidies to low-emitting technologies such as carbon capture storage and renewables—renewable electricity or renewable transportation fuel. Targeted regulations for buildings, transportation, and other difficult-to-get-at emissions would also be required.

Third, there would be significant financial flows with carbon pricing, and we must decide how these are distributed, or at least I must think about these in my assessment for providing information to you. Some revenue from cap and trade is transferred among industry through trading markets, but some could also accrue to the public through auctioning, because there is value in allocating permits free—significant value, in fact, as the European system is demonstrating. A carbon tax shift could then have income taxes on households reduced or targeted to address adverse competitiveness impacts in disproportionately impacted industries, so there are income effects that carbon revenue can be used to mitigate.

For now, let us look at domestic action only, but later on I will revisit this.

I will also focus on 2020, because if we don't hit the 2020 targets laid out in Bill C-377—or Turning the Corner, for that matter—we'll not likely be able to achieve longer-term targets by mid-century, at least not without significant economic dislocations. Again, the round table talked about this quite a bit, but technology lock-in is the issue where you have high-emitting technology rolling forward if you don't address it early on.

So with this policy package in place—I gave you a vision of a policy package—I now need to specify what the economy and the emissions will look like in 2020. With an economy growing at about 2% annually between now and then, Canada's GDP will grow from current levels of about $1.3 trillion to $1.7 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Again, a somewhat uncertain number, but the economy is growing at some sort of rate around 2% or 2.5%. This growth will then increase emissions by roughly 15% from current levels, from about 750 megatonnes currently to something around 850 to 900 megatonnes. These are publicly available estimates from Natural Resources Canada. This means that to hit the Bill C-377 targets of minus 25% below 1990, forecasted emissions will have to drop by about 50% in 2020—drop by 50% in 2020.

This compares to a 34% decrease under Turning the Corner. So we basically can bracket the types of reductions that we as a nation are contemplating in 2020: 34% to 50% below business as usual.

So now to get on to the interesting bits. To assess the economic implications of this stylized policy package, I employed two models that are routinely used to assess mitigation targets. CIMS is an integrated energy and emissions model of the Canadian economy, and it's widely used by governments, industry, and NGOs alike. Complementing CIMS is a model called C-GEEM, which is a macroeconomic model suited to questions of macroeconomic impact in public finance.

What do the models have to say about the costs of these different targets? Essentially, applying an economy-wide carbon price, having subsidies for renewables, having targeted regulations and some smart tax shifting, the models imply carbon prices in the order of about $100 per tonne in 2020 for the Turning the Corner targets and about $200 a tonne for Bill C-377. They are somewhat uncertain numbers, but they give you an idea, a rough range.

Now the question is, what do these numbers mean? The economic impact of these carbon prices on GDP, on growth, could then range between about 0.6% of 2020 GDP for Turning the Corner and 1.2% for Bill C-377. We're looking at basically reductions in future GDP less than the forecast growth rate. So we're not talking about wrecking the economy, although there are some underlying assumptions here about early action, getting moving, and stringent policy. You must also recognize that there is a significant level of uncertainty in these numbers, as there is in all modelling, but this gives you a flavour for what you're looking at.

These conclusions assume efficient policies, and indeed the models can show that a lower target with poorly designed policy could be more expensive than a higher target with efficient carbon pricing. We could go on and on about these numbers, but simply, maybe the more important point is that policy design matters much more than the targets themselves.

So the policy package I have outlined will raise prices, with increases of about 25% in electricity, 15% in petroleum products, and about 10% in natural gas. Again, this is the order of magnitude and the numbers for you to get your head around, what this means, what's the “so what”.

The impact on oil production is not so clear, given the variable of carbon capture and storage. If carbon capture and storage is widely available, the cost impacts on that sector will be much lower. If it's not available, then there are larger, larger hits. Again, poor policy design would change these price impacts entirely.

This national picture masks some sectoral and regional variations. While I can't comment on the regional variation, I can say something about the sectoral impacts. While national GDP impacts seem relatively small, sector output for the energy-intensive sectors will fall, especially in sectors like petroleum refining and coal. The extent of this drop is dependent on what is happening in the rest of the world. If Canada acts more or less in concert with the OECD, the trade impacts will likely not be as large, with drops in exports but also in imports, because prices will be rising for foreign goods.

Still, competitiveness impacts will be real and significant for some segments of the economy, so the smooth macroeconomic picture nationally is not borne out at the sector level. This is not to say, however, that we don't or shouldn't seek reductions from these sectors—you have asked for some specific targets, so you need reductions from all sectors—but rather that we should design complementary policies to address disproportionate income effects; that is, we separate a carbon signal from an income effect.

As for the notion that manufacturing will move to China, I would submit that other factors are also influencing this business decision and probably need some closer scrutiny.

I'd now like to visit the importance of obtaining low-cost reductions internationally. At domestic reductions above 20% below 2020 BAUs—the two targets I mentioned are greater than that—domestic mitigation costs rise exponentially. This means that at the targets contemplated, costs are rising much faster than reductions, so to minimize economic impacts, a strategy to access low-cost international abatement opportunities is probably a good thing, assuming they're real and verifiable.

I'd like to conclude with a short discussion of the cost of inaction, shifting basically from discussion about costs to discussion of what we get, discussion of the benefits. In thinking about designing effective climate policy, at least from an economist's narrow efficiency lens, the economist would prefer cost-effective reductions at a level where the costs and benefits are balanced, but information on the scope and scale of the possible benefits of action is too uncertain to lead to recommending targets that balance costs and benefits, so we're not in a great place.

As a result, our national climate debate continues to be informed by only a conceptual understanding of the benefits of abatement or adaptation, while we have a very acute understanding of the costs. Because of this asymmetry in information, it is likely that we will continue to be locked into a cycle of questioning the appropriateness of action on targets, regardless of their stringency. Indeed, without a balanced view of what we get for what we spend, we will continue to argue about targets, discuss policy options, reveal the associated costs, and ultimately question affordability. I call this “Globe and Mail economics”. This focus on costs and affordability is one-sided and will ultimately lead to poor national outcomes.

Oh, yes—in conclusion, a little more focus on action and a little less on targets would be nice.

Thank you.

[Dr. Shahrzad Rahbar, Vice-President, Strategy and Operations, Canadian Gas Association]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee as you deliberate Bill C-377.

The Canadian Gas Association represents natural gas distributors across Canada who deliver gas to around six million customers—individual homes as well as businesses and institutions.

I will touch upon three points in my remarks. I'll give you a brief overview of how we situate in the economy, give you specific comments on Bill C-377, and then wrap up by speaking to the opportunity to move forward and make real, meaningful, and quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gases.

Quickly, around natural gas and the economy, although in most public policy discourse you hear nothing about natural gas, we are a significant part of the economy: 26% of the energy end use—the numbers are in front of you—and something bigger when you look at individual homes for heating and businesses.

It's interesting. When looking at natural gas, as with any other fossil fuel, you look at where our emissions come from. The entire upstream delivery, transmission, and distribution account for a quarter of the emissions for our sector; 75% of the emissions occur at the end-use point, the six million homes and businesses whom we deal with. Our particular part of the emissions is actually fairly insignificant, less than 1%.

So where do we stand as an industry? We do believe in and are committed to being part of the solution to get Canada toward a carbon-lean future, as we would like to call it. We worked on our piece and our own emissions reductions. Our numbers are publicly available. We have reduced our own emissions, and we've been part and parcel of the conversations initially with Natural Resources, and subsequently with Environment Canada, to develop a regulatory framework for large industrial emitters. We think you need that framework. However, we also believe that without turning our attention to the other 50% of the economy, we cannot meet our obligations and our aspirations of actually getting to a carbon-lean future.

So what have we been doing with our customers? In addition to our own operations, we have been working with customers on conserving energy and on a variety of demand-side issues. We have seen progress, with the intensity of use and average use per customer declining in the past decade or so.

In my estimation, we have reached the point where we need to do something more than we have been doing. For the past two, almost three decades since the seventies, we have been focusing on discrete component improvements, meaning higher efficiency standards for discrete appliances and turning our attention to buildings. In our minds, the only way to actually meet the challenge of substantially reduced carbon in the long term is to have an integrated strategy for managing the energy demand in our communities.

I have specific comments on Bill C-377, and then I'll come back to the communities agenda and what I think is lacking in our current perspective and perhaps warrants some attention from you, ladies and gentlemen.

On Bill C-377, we agree with the need for federal leadership. The intent is laudable. We think we need federal signals that we are serious about reducing the carbon footprint of the economy. We'd like to see this issue transcend partisan discourse around whether this is real or not—we'd rather focus our energies collectively on getting ourselves there.

I don't quite think the bill makes the intent. I have a couple of reasons and some general comments.

Legislation is not the place, in our estimation, for this level of detail. The more detail you have of the nature that we see in Bill C-377, the less stable a platform you have for long-term action. Also, we look at the bill and wonder whether it's trying to afford the framework and the authorities where they already exist, and if they already exist, why do we need to set the legislation again?

Although it's not explicitly stated, the bill has definitely the flavour of again focusing on the large industrials alone. I said already that we believe the large industrials need a framework, but we also need a more economy-wide signal and a focus on the other 50%.

With respect to specific issues with the bill, the short-term targets are problematic. The various analyses done by the provinces recently in the National Round Table report would suggest the 2020 target of minus 25% is not actually doable, given where we stand today. Having us revisit the conversation on baselines we've been having for the past 10 years and trying to determine what happened 17 years ago, I think, is a bit of a distraction from focusing on what can be done on moving forward.

Not to repeat myself—but I will repeat myself—we do believe the large final emitters need to have a regulatory framework, but we also do believe that you need to focus on the other 50%. How you turn your attention to the other 50% matters. For the past 15 years, we've focused the discourse in this country entirely on the large final emitters. I'm not encouraged by the level of sophistication I see on the other 50%. We tend to flip-flop between thinking that good thoughts will get us there, or we absolutely need to be draconian and regulate lifestyle. I don't believe either of those are feasible options or ones that we should pursue. There's ample experience and enough evidence to suggest that a systems-integrated approach to our communities is what we need.

We need to look at our energy system as an integral part of the environmental question, not as a problem. The upstream energy sector exists to meet the demand for energy at our communities and businesses. So without focusing on the demand side, we're not going to get very far because that demand, as evidenced by the track record of the past 20 years, will continue to grow. So look at energy and environment as an integral whole; look at the community space.

Municipal governments have done very interesting experiments across Canada. The City of London did a model of an integrated plan versus business as usual. In their estimation, they can achieve up to 55% energy reductions within the community. Not only that, they bring in on-site renewables at a price-competitive range. They take advantage of the existing energy infrastructure, both gas and electric. They bring their on-site renewables. They look at waste in water and harness the energy from that. There are innovative, interesting solutions that need to happen. So why aren't they happening?

We don't have a price signal for carbon throughout the economy, and we need to have a consistent price signal throughout the economy, close enough to the point of consumption so that people who make decisions can see the impact of their choices and their decisions.

We are very encouraged by the recent focus of the National Round Table's report on the other 50% of the economy and would very much support paying a lot more attention to that space. It's an interesting space. It's diffuse. It has a large number of players, and it will require three levels of government working closely with one another, but it's doable. We're seeing examples appearing all across Canada, and we would like to see price signals that would allow us to replicate the demonstrations and actually move along with it.

In conclusion, I repeat that we support the need for an articulated vision and target to reduce the environmental footprint of economic growth, or both of them will deteriorate. Serious action, in our estimation, requires more than, but includes, the regulatory framework for large industries. It needs a price signal for carbon throughout the economy. Policy initiatives should reflect the need for an integrated approach to all our systems: water, waste, energy, land use. Bill C-377, although laudable, falls short of achieving that.

Thank you.

[Thomas d'Aquino, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

good afternoon. It is my great pleasure to be here today representing

Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Chair, I will present a brief introductory statement, stick to seven minutes, and then my colleague, John Dillon, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

As representatives of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, we're very pleased to address the issue of environmental policy, an issue to which my organization and my fellow CEOs have accorded the highest priority.

I have reviewed Bill C-377, introduced by the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, Mr. Jack Layton, and while the sentiments expressed in the bill are noble, I fear that Mr. Layton's approach would divert us from the real task at hand.

The bill would set up a process to legislate a series of greenhouse gas targets from 2015 to 2050, but unfortunately, it provides no clue as to how these targets are to be achieved. It would be comforting to think that a simple act of government could get us to where we need to be, but if the past several years have shown anything, it is that setting ambitious targets is meaningless without the will to act by all segments of society and a solid consensus among all players on what needs to be done.

Now, let there be no doubt that turning around our growing greenhouse gas emissions is going to take time and enormous effort, and there is no silver bullet, nor is there any substitute for practical policies, sound analysis, and meaningful engagement about what changes we actually are prepared to make as businesses, governments, communities, and individual Canadians. We should be realistic about what is required, but also ambitious and creative about the kinds of policies that can make a real difference.

The latest initiative of my council to address the climate change issue was the creation last year of our task force on environmental leadership, which I co-chair along with Richard Evans, the chief executive officer of Rio Tinto Alcan, and Rick George, the chief executive of Suncor Energy. The task force, comprised of 33 chief executives from across Canada and drawn from a wide range of leading industries, forged an unprecedented consensus among Canada's business leaders.

In October of last year, we published what we call a policy declaration, in which we laid out five critical elements for an effective, sustainable, long-term plan, one that we believe will not only be successful in reducing Canadian greenhouse gas emissions but can also make a significant contribution to a global plan. It is called “Clean Growth: Building a Canadian Environmental Superpower”, and I have made copies available for all members of this committee in both official languages.

I was pleased to see that a number of our principles were echoed by the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy in its report last month setting out its recommendations for a climate change plan for Canada.

First and foremost, what the country needs is a more cohesive Canada-wide plan on climate change and air pollution, one that can make the most of the tremendous opportunity that we believe we as Canadians have to foster sustainable economic growth and superior environmental performance.

I want to commend the leadership shown by the Government of Canada in setting challenging greenhouse gas targets for Canadian industry, while at the same time recognizing the need to foster economic growth and technology enhancement.

In addition, a number of provinces have come forward with innovative ideas on how to address this complex issue, but what we lack, however, is sufficient convergence and cohesion around a Canada-wide approach involving all parties in Parliament and all levels of government—federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal. We need one set of targets and timetables for industry and, in our view, greater clarity about responsibility and accountability, in order to make the most effective use of public and private funds.

Such a plan must apply to everyone, and here I underscore the word “everyone”: large and small businesses, consumers, farmers, building owners, and public institutions, all of whom will have to do their part if Canada is to meet its ambitious targets regarding reductions in greenhouse gases.

Another key element of our proposal is to recognize the absolutely fundamental role of technology. There is simply no way to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without massive investments in new technologies. Business leaders in the council see this as a tremendous opportunity, since Canada has the natural resources and the technical, financial, and skills capability to be a leader in next-generation technologies such as clean coal, carbon capture and storage, nuclear, hydro, wind, biofuels, and other alternative energies.

A third element of our paper recognizes the importance of targets as a spur to environmental progress. We support the ultimate goal of achieving a substantial, absolute reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases, both in Canada and globally. At the same time, it is important that any target applied to Canadian industry recognize competitive realities and be set within an overall policy framework that allows profitable firms to increase their investment in new technologies.

A fourth necessity is to ensure that globally we have an effective and long-term plan that commits all major emitting countries to do more to constrain the growth of emissions around the world.

I believe that Canada can be a model to the world in demonstrating how to align public policy to strengthen economic and environmental performance. That brings me to one of the most critical elements of our paper, our policy declaration, and here I note our agreement with the recent report of the national round table.

I believe it's time to establish policy mechanisms around the appropriate pricing of carbon. I would tell the ladies and gentlemen of this committee that my organization said publicly that we supported the idea of putting a price on carbon as early as 1990. Appropriately set price signals encourage both business and consumers to change behaviour, and this can be done through emissions trading or environmental taxation, or some combination of the two.

Business accepts that there is a price to pay for our greenhouse gas emissions, and we have said so for a long time. But we have to be smart about how we design a price mechanism so that it accomplishes our environmental objectives and builds competitive advantage in Canada. Both emissions trading and environmental taxation have their advantages and disadvantages.

Cap and trade schemes have the advantage of a defined limit on emissions, but experience, especially in Europe, suggests there can be significant price volatility and difficult questions about fair allocation and emission rights.

Environmental taxation provides a clearer price signal and can be easier to design and administer. Relying solely on taxation, however, does not guarantee any particular quantity of emissions reductions. Any such tax must not discriminate against any particular sector or region and should be implemented only as part, in our view, of broader tax reform that is revenue-neutral and that aims to enhance our country's economic as well as environmental performance.

Increased revenues from environmental taxation could be offset by reductions in corporate and personal income tax, so that Canada can continue to attract the capital, innovation, and people to foster the technology shift that is critical to tackling climate change.

Governments also will need to think about their spending priorities. A strategy for climate change will require significant new public spending in areas such as public transit, clean energy infrastructure, and development of new technologies. This will require governments to change fundamentally how they spend, not just how they tax. Climate change must not become simply an excuse for governments to tax more and spend more.

Mr. Chairman, putting a price on carbon will mean real and potentially very costly obligations for everyone. There are ways to design our policies so that they do not place unfair burdens on vulnerable regions, sectors, or individuals, but we should not pretend that the cost is insignificant or that the policies need to focus on only driving reductions in Canadian industry.

I'll conclude with this. The reality is that we've been talking about this issue for 20 years, and it's long past time to get on with the job. Business has done a great deal already and is willing to make fundamental changes and the significant new investments that will produce a strong economy and a cleaner environment. We need to have a true Canada-wide consensus on the key policy elements and get everyone, including individual Canadians, pulling in the same direction.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of this committee, the ambition of Canada's business leaders in this regard is truly vast. We have stated, and I will repeat again today, that Canada has the natural resources and the technical, financial, and skills capability to justly aspire to environmental superpower status. I believe that you as parliamentarians have a critical role to play in moving Canada decidedly in this direction.

Thank you for your time and interest. Mr. Dillon and I very much look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Thank you very much indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to begin by reminding members that today is our panel of economists. All of you have been itching to ask questions about the economics of Bill C-377, so this is your chance to go after the economics.

I would ask you to try to stay on subject. That's what the witnesses are here for.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. Most of you have been here at one time or another, and we certainly are pleased to have you here again. Thank you for coming.

We'll begin with a brief presentation. Try to hold it to seven minutes or thereabouts, and then the members will have more time for questions.

We'll go in the order that's here, with Mr. d'Aquino kicking it off, please.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Bill C-377 sets some very aggressive targets. These targets are coming from the IPCC report. Pembina and the David Suzuki Foundation have then provided a case for deep reductions.

There was mention of the government's bill, Turning the Corner, and that was costed. There was some debate on whether or not that will be achievable and what the costs of that plan will be to the GDP, to Canadians, and maybe some questions on whether or not those targets will be reached.

I think there was comment that the targets aren't tough enough from an environmental perspective, and from industry they're too tough, which we're also hearing from some provinces. So we're sort of in the middle.

In terms of costing, what will it cost the Canadian economy? That seems to be a bit of a benchmark to compare perspectives and plans. The government has a clear plan, an absolute reduction by 2020, and deep reductions of 60% to 70% by 2050. That was costed.

Has Bill C-377 been costed? As I said, Mr. Layton said no, Mr. Bramley said no, and Dr. Stone said no, but each has said it should be costed so that we're not just setting arbitrary numbers but getting a full picture of what this means in Canada.

So that was my preface: what will Canada look like? What is urban development going to look like? What kinds of cars will we be driving? Where's the energy coming from? What are the costs? There is that balance, but what are the costs for Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today. I'm going to be focusing my questions on Bill C-377 and solutions. Your perspective is an environmental perspective, and I'm going to be looking for your wisdom in providing good direction on where you see Canada if we do accept these targets.

Now, you've suggested that we set these targets, that we entrench them into law, and then we achieve those targets. What would you see Canada looking like in 2050 and in 2020? How would this transition affect each and every Canadian? So there's how we achieve that but also what it will look like.

I'd like to begin by asking you, as I have with the other witnesses, about the importance of having this bill costed. I asked Mr. Layton if it was costed, because in sustainable development, part of that equation is that it has to protect the environment but you cannot destroy the economy. Each witness has addressed that briefly. On Wednesday we are going to have economists who will be presenting.

So Mr. Layton said yes, it had not been costed, and he'd like the government to cost it. I asked Mr. Bramley if it had been costed. He said no, and he also expected it to be costed. I asked Dr. Stone a week ago if it should be costed, and he said yes, he thought so.

Ms. Langer, you said you did your calculations, as provided in the deck you handed out. Has any costing been done by any of you three on Bill C-377?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses.

Thankfully, I've read many of these documents already, so missing your presentations, although I'm sure they were excellent.... I apologize for a late flight in.

The place I'd like to start is with the impacts on the economic side of not doing things that are prescribed in Bill C-377. There was much news made in the past year or so with the Stern report and others, seeking to understand what the implications of inaction mean, because oftentimes governments, like our own currently, that are resistant to bringing in some of the measures that are contained here will talk about the cost to the economy and focus on that and do the doom-and-gloom scenario.

What understanding have you seen that the Conservative federal government has in terms of the implications of not acting? Have any of you seen a study, a panel, an understanding within the federal government as to the impacts of climate change on our economy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Stoffer, that's why I'm trying to leave it as far as we can go. I would like it to ultimately end up with an analysis by our witnesses of Bill C-377, because we will be doing clause-by-clause on it; we'll be saying yes or no to it. I would constantly like to remind members to try to stay with that focus, because that's where we can move ahead.

We have limited time with these witnesses. It was the same last time. We have economists coming, so let's not ask economic questions on this. Let's try to evaluate Bill C-377 and show whether it's an improvement on what we had--without dwelling too much on the past--and go on with the future. I think everybody would agree with that.

Mr. McGuinty, let's continue. I will add an extra couple of minutes to your time.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

My apologies to the witnesses for interrupting, but as you pointed out and as was brought to your attention, Mr. Chair, we're talking about Bill C-377. Mr. McGuinty is taking the witnesses off topic. We're supposed to be asking questions about Bill C-377. Is Bill C-377 a good bill? How can it be improved? It's not helpful to keep taking the witnesses off topic. I'd encourage the questioning to be about Bill C-377, because that's why we're here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would remind you that we are dealing with Bill C-377. I'm trying to give everybody as much leeway as possible, but please try to stick to Bill C-377, in fairness to our witnesses who appeared here to talk about Bill C-377.

[Julia Langer, Director, Global Threats, Conservation, World Wildlife Fund Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the invitation.

My name is Julia Langer. I'm director of the climate change program at World Wildlife Fund Canada.

World Wildlife Fund's mission is to build a future in which humans can live in harmony with nature. We work at conserving the world's biological diversity, ensuring that renewable resources are used sustainably, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption. But our 40 years of work in Canada to protect and manage and restore biodiversity could well be for naught if we don't avert the über-threat posed by global warming and climate chaos. It is with this perspective in mind that WWF is speaking in favour of Bill C-377.

We feel that Bill C-377 reflects the science, and the science calls for immediate action to achieve deep reductions. The reduction targets outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not arbitrary; they reflect the work of thousands of scientists over many, many years. They tell us we must reduce global warming pollution by at least 25% by 2020 and 80% by mid-century against the internationally referenced baseline of 1990. I am repeating and endorsing what Mr. Marshall has said. That is our reference point. There is no other way to look at this picture. I would also note that it means “at least”, because these are the bottom end of targets that are considered appropriate for industrialized countries like Canada.

Calling global warming a “hypothesis”, as the Prime Minister did less than four years ago, is now considered irrational. Governments of all political stripes around the world, including ours, are starting to reflect climate change science in policy. But accepting the science is only the first step. It is absolutely necessary and appropriate at this stage of the game to entrench targets and implementation requirements in law, because the current government's approach is a public relations ploy. It has to be brought into a management system.

I say it's a ploy because it's out of line with the science by virtue of having moved the baseline. It is ineffective because emissions will continue to explode--with more pronouncements than actions so far--and it's provoking some federal-provincial battles, which are not helpful toward getting on with the solution.

By way of looking at some of the targets we need, I want to focus on the tar sands as a prime example of how the government's proposed greenhouse gas rules for large final emitters would give a free pass to pollute and perpetuate the biggest source of emission contributions in Canada.

An important point to focus on when we're setting targets is what it is going to affect. Consider that emissions from the major emitters constitute 47% of the national total. The proposed targets call for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced 23% against a unit of production basis by 2020, with a 6% exemption for fixed process emissions. This might sound like reduction, but it's not.

I'm not going to do a PowerPoint presentation, but maybe you can follow those charts. That graph is NEB's projections of tar sands growth, which has unmitigated emissions on a very steep climb. That's the blue line. Industry has already said it would continue to reduce emissions per barrel, and in fact it has set some targets for that. That dampens growth, but it doesn't reduce it overall. That's the green line. The proposed large final emitter rules, which is the red line, more or less matches these existing commitments and technically feasible mitigation options. This is a free pass. Further, more aggressive improvements have been targeted by some companies. That's the purple line.

The gap there, this excess reduction, can be turned into credits and sold within the LFE emission trading system. When you multiply that by $15 a tonne, that will generate millions in profit for an already profitable industry. The real bottom line is that emissions will double or triple by 2020. This elephant in the room cannot be ignored, and it has to be factored into our target setting.

It would be impossible to act in keeping with the science and with the proposed purpose of Bill C-377, or to deliver expected reductions as set out in the bill, without addressing the exploding emissions from tar sands operations. Uncontrolled, they will undermine action by other jurisdictions and other sectors and Canada's international reputation. How is Alberta's 14% reduction from 2005 levels by 2050 consistent or justified?

Parliament needs to set extremely clear rules that will work in the real world of the Canadian federation. So-called equivalency agreements, without a firm national cap, which needs to be set in this bill, will further undermine the objective.

With many, many provinces starting to make commitments and moving ahead, we need to ensure that the efforts of leading provinces are not cancelled out. Requiring the minister to demonstrate measures taken to meet the targets, including cooperation or agreements with some national governments, may not be clear or an ample enough mandate to allocate and distribute expected reductions among regions or sectors.

To help with this dilemma--I'm not suggesting this is an easy one to tackle--lessons can be taken from Europe for achieving fairness in a national climate action plan. As a federation, the EU's approach is to set the clear, binding targets, to divide up the responsibility on a transparent basis--they call it burden sharing, and it's not easy but it has to be done--and they create regulatory, market-based, and fiscal tools for implementation. And they require accountability--for instance, the ability to approve or reject plans, with repercussions for non-compliance.

There is a lot of moaning about the difficulties Canada faces. No one can really pretend that we have an easy road to hoe. But as numerous analysts have highlighted, there are significant costs of inaction. Canada is falling further and further behind on energy productivity and will suffer under high fossil fuel costs. With oil pushing $100 and more and government's refusal to go ahead on sustainable energy, our economy, our businesses, and consumers will be left exposed, not to mention the risks associated with extreme weather and warming itself.

Europe, on the other hand, is leaping ahead with a low carbon economy as a centre point. Last week the EU adopted a new package of climate and energy measures, including a 20% target. They said they would go to 30% if other countries came on board. What a bonus it would be if we set a target commensurate with the 25% or 30%. I think that would motivate Europe to go even further.

Renewable electricity and biofuels commitment is in their bill, as well as a new emissions trading system and very, very aggressive efficiency requirements, as Ken has put forward.

People like to complain about China and India, but they are very noteworthy because they are growing in an energy-constrained world that is forcing them to be super efficient, a claim that Canada cannot make, as we have the highest per capita energy consumption and the second-highest energy consumption per GDP.

In closing, WWF urges Parliament to get on with meeting the climate change challenge. It is essential to have a national law that entrenches the science, that positions Canada as a good-faith international player, and that reflects public expectations for avoiding dangerous climate change. The government has accepted the science and is a party to UN climate agreements, yet targets and proposed measures are inadequate. Emissions will continue to burgeon without appropriate binding targets and requirement for implementation.

As we enter Kyoto's first period and look to the next phase of multilateral collaboration, clear direction and expectations are essential. Bill C-377 fits the bill, and that's why we're supporting it. We urge all the parties to endorse the greenhouse gas reduction targets and timelines, and the government's obligations, as set out in the bill, in the spirit of creating a low-carbon society. We can't afford any other excuses and delay. Let's just get on with it.

Thank you.

[Kenneth Ogilvie, Executive Director, Pollution Probe]

I'll try not to repeat and will focus a little more on the solutions, but not in any great depth.

Dale pretty well said what I would want to say about the fact that the threat of global climate change is real and the cost of inaction is great. We have good references for all of these. I did make a submission and I've provided references, so I don't really want to get into detail on that.

The reason we need to think about supporting a bill such as Bill C-377 is that Canada has failed to take aggressive policy measures to control greenhouse gases in line with some of the leaders around the world. We all know the European Union is setting aggressive targets. We know that some states like California are moving, as are some provinces in Canada. We need to be with the leaders on this, in my opinion.

Also, industry has been calling for stable policy direction. Different numbers occur in different people's minds, but we're talking about the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, or, internationally, something called the three-C group, Combat Climate Change. It has four Canadian multinational companies represented on it. They're saying that we need to set targets.

The three-C group, in particular, endorsed the 80% by 2050 target. They're less resolute about exactly what can be accomplished by 2020 or 2030, but they believe we have to go with the science, set the long-term targets, and then set some short-term goals to get there. So industry is calling for stable policy direction.

And the public is concerned. We've seen various polls and so on about where the public is at.

I think the argument for a bill that requires us to move forward is pretty clear, because in the absence of it, we're not going to move forward. We're going to just keep fighting over what we can't do as opposed to what we can. I think the rationale is strong.

The question then, of course, is this. How do we get there and what do we do? We do have lots of studies showing the different ways in which we might get there. I know it's been a question more of equity and more of fairness as to how one gets there, as opposed to the fact that there are technologies and ways to get there.

I'd like to segment things very simply into infrastructure, technology, and prices, which I think are the three huge drivers of progress. If we don't invest in infrastructure, and the right infrastructure, it lasts a long time. We have to do that. If we don't push technologies to be consistent with climate change goals and with that infrastructure, then we're going to be locking in the wrong technologies. Of course, we all know that prices, especially in a market economy, are what move both individuals and companies.

On infrastructure, it's very clear that we have to think very, very large-scale about roads, rail, air, public transit, water and sewage, electricity, pipelines. These are infrastructure. A lot of that is paid for by public money, one way or the other, so politicians have a great deal of influence through planning processes, budget processes, and so on to shape the way that goes. We need a vision of where that has to be in 2050, and that vision has to tie into some notion of the hard numbers we have to achieve.

On the technology side, again, governments have a great deal of influence, both through the infrastructure that's put in place and the technology that has to match to it, but also in terms of regulations and other incentives. Industry is very largely a technology developer and has to feed into something that provides a return on investment and so on. We need the technology. It has to be very much a society-wide effort, with industry fully involved to develop the technologies we need, and we need prices that help make all of that fit together.

All three of these things interrelate, so as the national round table put it, without an economy-wide price signal, we're going to have trouble convincing consumers to be part of the solution. Without signals through either emissions trading or taxes and other mechanisms, we're going to have a hard time making the business case for business.

I think it's all a package and can't be seen as one or the other. I don't think we get there just simply by putting a price on the system. I don't think we get there simply by incenting technologies and hoping they'll get applied. I don't think we get there just by building one form of infrastructure and letting the rest of the system fall in place.

All of that requires a great deal of vision--ideally, a great deal of cooperation. That would be the best way to get forward, particularly in a country like Canada with its various economies and different circumstances. We need to look toward the leaders in the world as to how far and how fast they're going, and how far and how fast they're committed to go.

We do need a national vision.

I was reading in the Globe and Mail about the carbon capture storage report that's just come out. It's asking for $2 billion for initial work on carbon capture and storage. The second part of the bill wasn't even disclosed, but it could be quite a bit more. So why don't we have something of that scale and more on energy efficiency in renewables? We need that scale and much more on urban form and infrastructure, and recapitalizing the electricity grid to tap into the two technologies that will get us to the 80% reductions.

Why aren't we retooling our auto sector so that it's more vibrant and building the right kinds of efficient vehicles, rather than a sector that's trying to hold onto building the wrong kinds of vehicles that will eventually go the way of the dinosaur, taking our economy with it if we're not careful?

In closing, I think we need a bill that makes it very clear to industry, the public, and everybody that we have a long-term target and we are going to require plans to get there. We need a vision of what we're going to do with these big policy levers of infrastructure, technology, and prices in a whole pile of areas. We need investment across the board in a kind of recapitalization of the Canadian economy and social structures so that we have the kind of future that I think is totally there for us. There are tremendous hurdles along the way, but I think it's there if we set out to do it. I encourage you to consider that in your deliberations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I would like to call the meeting to order and welcome our guests. Thank you very much for appearing.

I would like to remind members that this is an environmental panel and that we're looking at the scope of the bill, greenhouse gas reductions and targets, and that should be the main emphasis of our questioning and of our presentations to deal with the environmental aspects of Bill C-377.

I would like to welcome you. We'll go in the order that you appear on our agenda. I would ask you to take approximately 10 minutes and then we will have the maximum time for our MPs to ask questions.

I would like to report to the members as well that we have had acceptance from Mr. Johnson and Mr. Morton to appear on February 27 for our other look at Bali. Ms. Simon is in Finland and Ms. Dowdeswell is in Vienna, so they would not be available on that date. My suggestion is that we go ahead. We have two people, and I think we're going to constantly have date problems. With your permission, we will send a letter confirming that with them, and we'll ask them to appear on February 27.

We'll start with Mr. Marshall for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

After Bill C-377 is complete.

Those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This is just a question. I'm clarifying that this will be after Bill C-377 is sent to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Wonderful words, “non-partisan”, about an issue like this.... I like those words too. I think if we take this subamendment, if it's accepted by you, then that adds.... We can work on that list, as we did with Bill C-377, rather than discuss this ad nauseam.

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

No, I don't.

I'm not saying that at some point I wouldn't like to visit the oil sands, but I honestly do not understand how viewing the oil sands in person would add important information. I'm looking for technical information from people like David Schindler, who spent a long time studying the impact of the oil sands on the water. These people can bring the information to us.

Maybe in the future we could visit the oil sands, but I'd really like to get on with this study after we've dealt with Bill C-377. I don't think we need to incur those expenses to get the kind of information I'm seeking out of this process.

[Prof. John Stone]

Just very briefly, 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.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

I think Bill C-377 is consistent with the moves that are being made internationally. I think what is interesting is that it sets, specifically, the two-degree target in the policy; it sets a framework to get there. I'm not going to argue for the 80% versus 70% versus 90% because, frankly, we need to move to zero emissions. It's the right framework, and it is consistent with international efforts in this area.

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

I guess my next question would then be, if we don't find that the current government's targets, based on a 2006 baseline, are amongst the toughest in the world and may not get us to where we need to go, do you feel a greater level of comfort with Bill C-377, at least in terms of the kinds of mechanisms it sets out to help us get to a more stringent target? Do you think this is a helpful addition to the policy arsenal or the legal framework for moving ahead?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. We've heard from each other on numerous occasions, so it's good to see each of you again.

To be able to move forward you need to look at where you are and at a bit of your past, but keep your focus on moving forward and on the goal. We're well past the debate on the science of climate change. Globally there is an agreement that we have a problem, and a big problem.

This government became government two years ago, and I'm not going to dwell on the past, but we found ourselves in a situation where we were going in a direction we didn't want to go in. So we've set some targets in Canada that are some of the toughest targets in the world. Each country is unique in its own situation, where it is beginning. When you have a government that's actually serious about doing something.... In Canada this government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions: absolute reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% absolute reductions by 2050.

What we are dealing with today is providing the science on Bill C-377. Bill C-377, I'm sure you're aware, is a post-2012, post-Kyoto Protocol bill. Over the next two years there will be negotiations ongoing as to what that post-2012 agreement is going to look like.

The presenter of Bill C-377 is the leader of the NDP, Mr. Jack Layton, and he was here a week ago and shared his vision for the bill with us. I'd like to share that in a minute, but with your focus as scientists, I'd like your critique on Bill C-377.

I'd also like your critique on adaptation. Many of you said in your presentations that we are already experiencing impacts from climate change, and will continue to, and they will increase; that's going to happen. What we need to do as citizens of this world is together reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have to do that. We agree with that, but in Canada what do we need to do in preparation for adaptation?

We have all just come back from a break, and I've had numerous discussions with numerous constituents. One of the comments stuck out in my mind. It sounded like a comment that I read before Christmas break from Rex Murphy. This constituent said how important it was and agreed with the message that Canada was taking to all these international conferences and meetings of the mind that everybody has to participate in. You can't have 30% of the people trying to solve the problem; everybody needs to participate and do their part. Canada has a unique situation, as does every country, and everybody needs to do their part.

Mr. Rutherford, I heard your same comments, and I asked those same questions of myself. Should somebody in India be able to have electricity? Absolutely. Your comment was “I've had my cake and you can't have yours”. I agree, that is a moral question, and people in India, China, or Africa need to be able to improve themselves and have a quality of life, yet protect the environment. This constituent said, “Mark, the way I see it, it is like a big pail of water with hundreds of holes in it and water is squirting out in every direction, and you as a government are plugging one of those holes. And it's lofty, it's good, it needs to happen, but we need everybody plugging their hole so that we can save that pail of water or save this globe.”

I thought it was a somewhat interesting analogy. That did remind me of what Rex Murphy said. He said:

...there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring the flood.

That's a very similar analogy.

When Mr. Layton came and spoke on Bill C-377—I want to get specifically to the bill now—he made his presentation. The targets, the objectives, he set out in Bill C-377 would be an 80% reduction by 2050. We've identified some benchmarks along the way: a 25% reduction in 2020 and interim targets at five-year intervals.

He then went on to say those targets are based on The Case for Deep Reductions, a report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation. He also said, “I know that Matthew Bramley will be your next witness...and he will be describing his research and this report”.

When I had an opportunity to—

[Dr. David Sauchyn, Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual]

In fact, it was minus 37 degrees Celsius this morning when I called for a cab and minus 52 degrees Celsius with the wind chill. So I'm enjoying the balmy weather in Ottawa; therefore I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to visit Ottawa again and to have some other meetings at the same time.

I represent an organization called the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, which was created to inform decision-makers in the prairie provinces about the consequences of climate change.

The previous speakers have provided the strong scientific arguments for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. I will speak to the other scientific underpinnings of Bill C-377; that is, the statements in the preamble that refer to the scientific evidence for the impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases and for the threats to the economic well-being, public health, and natural resources and environment of Canada.

A large number of facts and figures are available in the fourth assessment report of Working Group II of the IPCC in support of these scientific underpinnings. However, this IPCC report defines the scope and severity of the global problem; for a Canadian perspective, Natural Resources Canada has led, for the past two to three years, a major national scientific assessment of climate change impacts and adaptation. Within weeks, the Government of Canada will release this major scientific report that presents the synthesis and interpretation of more than 3,000 studies by more than 110 authors.

As the lead author of this report, and with the knowledge of the secretariat in Natural Resources Canada, I am able to report today that this assessment report makes it clear that significant impacts are occurring in all regions of Canada and that the number and severity of the impacts will continue to increase.

In addition to the urgent action required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the rate of climate change, the national assessment notes the critical importance of adaptation.

Allow me to give just two examples, from the prairie provinces, of the consequences of climate change for two fundamental Canadian natural resources: trees and water.

With the recent and inevitable warming, Canada's boreal forest will change dramatically as a result of increased disturbance and moisture stress. In fact, as a result of global warming, the boreal forest has begun to change, impacting the communities and economies that depend upon it.

It's likely that the institutions of Canada have enough capacity to manage a forest that has undergone moderate change; however, without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, scientific studies indicate that we will entirely lose the southern boreal forest. It will disappear, along with the economies that depend on it.

But the major concern for western Canadians is the threat of global warming to water supplies. With recent warming, water supplies in the summertime have begun to decline as runoff from snow melt has declined and shifted earlier into the spring and as summers have become longer and warmer.

Once again, some change is manageable. In fact, in some parts of western Canada where there are reliable water supplies, farmers have begun to capitalize on the longer, warmer summers. However, rising greenhouse gas emissions will cause regional warming and impacts on water resources that quickly create major challenges for sustaining the economies and communities of western Canada.

With the projected and recent increase in population and industry, especially in Alberta, the demand for water will soon exceed supplies from the conventional source of water, which is snow melt runoff from the eastern slopes of the Alberta Rockies.

The tipping point is very close. Climate change is closing the gap between water supply and water demand. In fact, in some river basins in southern Alberta, the water supplies are now fully allocated.

The most costly natural hazard in Canada is prairie drought. Of the five most damaging climate events in Canadian history, four are prairie droughts. The other is the ice storm of 1998. The most threatening scenario for people, especially on the prairies, is a prolonged drought, and as the climate warms, this scenario becomes increasingly probable.

Some government and industry leaders believe or have stated that taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gases will devastate economies. In fact, we heard just a couple of days ago from Premier Stelmach that reducing emissions in Alberta will shut down the oil sands. I would like for once to see the scientific evidence of this. I would like to see the factual support for this argument. It seems to be lacking.

In fact, careful studies have derived estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Credible studies estimate the cost of stabilizing greenhouse gases is something on the order of one half to one and a half per cent of global GDP per year. I can refer you to one such study entitled A cost curve for greenhouse gas reduction, a global study of the size and cost of measures to reduce greenhouse gases by some consultants from Norway whose clients include 70% of Fortune magazine's most admired companies.

Although deep emission cuts will have economic, social, and perhaps political costs, the actions proposed in Bill C-377 are critical in terms of preventing a possibly devastating degree of climate change. Climate change and its consequences will almost certainly accelerate through the coming decades. We urgently need your leadership and federal policy to enable individuals, institutions, and communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change because already we are locked in to increasingly serious impacts in the immediate future.

A comprehensive climate change strategy is required to avoid the adverse consequences of climate change and to address the influence of human activities on the climate of Canada, the impacts, the risks and opportunities, and the necessary adjustments to public policy, resource management, engineering practices, and infrastructure design.

Public policies must be developed to enable adaptation, to discourage maladaptation, and to build adaptive capacity. Already the provinces are developing and releasing climate change plans and announcing targets. Yesterday in Vancouver, I read today, the western premiers signed an agreement for collective action to deal with climate change impacts on Canada's water and forests.

Also, some local governments, and industry and communities, are taking aggressive action. The federal government must play a crucial coordinating and enabling role. Without decisive national action and policy, there is the risk that federal politicians will lag far behind. Federal policy-makers are at risk of failing us at every level, regional, national, and on the world stage, and in the meantime the provincial governments are taking action.

I speak for many scientists when I conclude that Canada can and must take action now on climate change. Thank you.

[Dr. Andrew Weaver]

Wonderful.

Thank you very much for inviting me to provide some testimony here. What I would like to do is provide a bit of background with respect to a declaration that was put forward by scientists to Bali at the meeting that was held between December 3 and 14, 2007. This is a 2007 Bali climate declaration by scientists. I'll read it to you. It says:

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction.

The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty--within the 1992 UNFCCC process--needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2ºC above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries.

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilized at a level well below 450 parts per million, measured in CO2-equivalent concentration. In order to stay below 2ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose.

As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement.

In my years as a climate scientist, since the 1980s, I have never before witnessed such a spontaneous coming together of scientists around the world. This declaration was put forward by a number of scientists at the University of New South Wales in Australia and was signed by between 200 and 250 of the world's top climate scientists. This is not something that was driven politically. It was not something that was driven by special interest groups. It was driven by the scientific community to try to feed into the Bali process--a process that seems to be ignoring what the scientific community is telling the world's leaders, including those leaders in Canada.

I'm speaking to you as the lead author of the IPCC's second, third, and fourth assessments, back in 1995, 2001, and more lately 2007. I'm also the chief editor of the Journal of Climate, which is the premier journal for publishing new scientific research in all aspects of climate science.

When we talk about Bill C-377, one of the key things you'll ask is whether 80% is the right number or whether 70% is the right number. I'm not going to speak to a particular number. What I can say is that any stabilization of greenhouse gases at any level requires global emissions to go to zero. There is no other option. To stabilize the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at any concentration that is relevant to human existence on the planet, we must go to zero emissions. The reason is that the only natural mechanisms for the draw-down of carbon dioxide on longer time scales occur through weathering of rocks, which happens on hundreds of thousands of year time scales, and the dissolution of carbon carbonates from the sediment of the ocean, which happens on tens of thousands of year time scales.

Things like the terrestrial biosphere saturate out this century and can no longer take up any more carbon dioxide. The ocean, as it warms, also begins to lose its effectiveness at taking out carbon dioxide.

So in order to stabilize, we must have global emissions go to zero. That's a big task, and it requires leadership. I'm hoping, as a Canadian, that we in Canada can show such leadership.

Another way of looking at this is that there has been a lot of focus in terms of emissions and a lot of focus in terms of stabilizing at a level of greenhouse gases. The climate system doesn't care about the emissions today or yesterday; what it cares about is accumulative emissions of carbon dioxide since pre-industrial times. We've put out about 458 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere since that time, and it turns out if you want to not break the two-degree threshold with a 66% probability, we only have another 484 billion tonnes we can put out, and that's from now until eternity. We're putting it out at more than 10 billion tonnes a year, so you can see the challenge is large.

I'll end there and urge you to take this bill seriously and move toward implementing policies in Canada that will show leadership internationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I call the meeting to order. We have a piece of business just before....

Mr. Regan, you'll be particularly interested in my first announcement. I have talked to members of the Liberal Party and Conservative members about getting our esteemed people who were at the Bali meeting to come here. Everyone wants them to come. I'm proposing that we ask our clerk to send a letter inviting them here. I would suggest this be right after our last scheduled meeting—I think it's on the 11th—and that they be asked to appear at the meeting following that. I trust that meets with everybody's approval. We will wait and see our response and if we need to do anything further, but I think this will certainly satisfy the requests I've had.

I've met with our speakers, and I certainly want to welcome you to this session on Bill C-377. The order we'll go will be: Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Stone, Mr. Weaver, and then Mr. Sauchyn. By their agreement, they've asked that that be the order we follow.

My intention is that at 5:15 p.m. we then deal with the motion of Mr. Scarpaleggia. That would give us 15 minutes, and then I think members are aware we have a vote when the bells start at 5:30.

That would be our procedure.

I would ask our guests to be as brief as possible. I do have a little grey box that most of you are certainly familiar with, so I will know how long you have been. Certainly I'd ask you to keep it to within five, seven, eight minutes, or thereabouts, so that we have maximum time for questions.

We'll start with Mr. Rutherford, please.

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

Exactly. So it's not really that responsible for Canada to be silent on the part it intends to play post-2012, I would suggest to you, and I do suggest as well that the Liberals, it would appear, seemed rather interested in your report subsequently, but during that time when they were at the helm or at the rudder, there was not a great deal of interest in your plan.

I guess this question is for both of you at this time. Your plan, and this plan here, which I guess is the mirror of that, Bill C-377, has no action in it. It gives the government no authority to spend money to meet the bill. So what's your understanding of exactly what this private member's bill is, and how do you expect the government to be able to achieve anything in it without spending a dime?

[Matthew Bramley]

First of all, I think it's extremely misleading what you said in your preamble, because Bill C-377 says nothing about how the efforts would be distributed between provinces. So it is absolutely false.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the record here, my name is Maurice Vellacott. I'm a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, and in the words of Stéphane Dion, the Liberal leader, I think it's just not fair what Mr. Layton's Bill C-377 will do to Saskatchewan, as I look at the numbers here in Madam Donnelly's WDA Consulting brief, at ten times the burden of Ontario, twice Alberta's, twelve times Quebec's, and seven or eight times as much as Manitoba, and so on.

I don't know why Jack wants to get back at Saskatchewan, my fair province, whether it's because we've rejected the NDP in that province recently or what the deal is, why he would be trying to place a particularly unfair burden on my province of Saskatchewan.

I have a question first for Mr. Bramley in terms of his report, The Case for Deep Reductions, done along with the David Suzuki Foundation. Mr. Bramley, with respect to this report of yours, do you do any economic modelling that specifically focuses on Canada?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I will repeat my question to Ms. Donnelly.

Your table provides a breakdown by province of greenhouse gas and CO2 production, with 2005 as the reference year.

Why did you choose 2005, and not 1990, which is the base year for Bill C-377?

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Bramley, welcome.

My first question is for Ms. Donnelly. Your table on page 2 shows a breakdown of greenhouse gas emissions by province for the year 2005.

What did you have in mind when you proposed the year 2005, given the fact that Bill C-377 consistently refers to 1990?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Bramley, have you seen any analysis or econometric modelling—anything done by the Department of Finance, anything contracted out to consulting firms—that would backstop the government's domestic plan, and of course the plan underlying our negotiating position in Bali? It is linked to Bill C-377, of course, because Bill C-377 speaks directly to the question of science. Have you seen a shred of analysis anywhere by the government, in any line department, that helps us understand how the government arrives at its purported cuts by 2020?

[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?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Was this report prepared for this committee in specific response to Bill C-377?

[Matthew Bramley, Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for having me again.

I'd like to start by congratulating Mr. Layton for his leadership and his vision in introducing this bill. To my knowledge, it's the first attempt to ensure that Canada is legally required to do its fair share toward the prevention of dangerous climate change, which is the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has been ratified by almost every country in the world.

A little over two years ago, the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation decided we needed to understand the greenhouse gas emission reductions Canada would have to achieve to play a full part in meeting the UN framework convention's objective. The result was our report entitled The Case for Deep Reductions: Canada’s Role in Preventing Dangerous Climate Change, of which you should have copies.

Our analysis in that report followed a logical sequence of questions: Number one, based on scientists' projections of global impact, how much warming would be dangerous? Number two, to avert that amount of warming, at what level would atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases need to be stabilized? Number three, to stabilize concentrations of gases at that level, by how much would global emissions need to be reduced? And number four, to reduce global emissions by that amount, by how much would industrialized countries' emissions need to be cut?

To address the first of these questions, it was already widely accepted two years ago that to have sufficient confidence in avoiding catastrophic impacts, the world must strive to keep average global warming within two degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial level, and today, support for a two-degree Celsius global warming limit is significantly broader. According to the recent Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists, the two-degree limit must be the prime goal of the next global climate treaty. This declaration is signed by distinguished Canadian climate scientists, including Corinne Le Quéré, Richard Peltier, and Andrew Weaver.

I don't have time to take you through each of the stages of the analysis in the case for deep reductions, but our final conclusion was that Canada needs to cut its greenhouse gas pollution by 25% below the 1990 level by 2020 and by 80% below the 1990 level by 2050. These are the same targets Mr. Layton has included in Bill C-377.

This year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, confirmed these targets are in line with science. The IPCC's fourth assessment report showed us that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming, industrialized countries need to reduce their emissions by 25% to 40% below the 1990 level by 2020 and by 80% to 95% below the same level by 2050. These numbers are shown in table 1 of the United Nations technical paper, of which you should also have copies. Please note the targets in Bill C-377 are at the low end of the IPCC's ranges; in other words, they're conservative targets.

Can Canada reduce its emissions by 80% below the 1990 level by 2050? Achieving that target while maintaining normal levels of economic activity implies moving to a nearly emissions-free energy system. There is every reason to believe this is achievable if Canada implements strong policies that encourage maximum use of low-impact renewable energy, complemented where necessary and appropriate by higher-risk technology such as carbon capture and storage. The case for deep reductions outlines a range of evidence why deep emission cuts by 2050 are feasible from the perspectives of technology, cost, and competitiveness. Table 1 of the UN technical paper citing the IPCC shows that in the scenarios compatible with limiting global warming to two degrees, global GDP could be up to 5.5% smaller in 2050 than in a scenario in which emissions are not controlled. In other words, about two years of GDP growth might be lost in half a century. That's a small effect, and it's one that could disappear altogether as a result of technological innovation.

In this case, I do not believe that the targets in this bill can be justifiably weakened on the basis of anticipated financial costs of making emission reductions. The expected global costs of climate impacts, beyond two degrees of warming—and these are costs to people, for economies and for ecosystems—are simply too great. I would suggest that a country with natural, financial, and intellectual resources as abundant as Canada's must simply decide that this is a task that must be achieved and get to work.

Do we need to set these targets in law and require that measures be taken to achieve them? Yes, we do, because there have been and continue to be too many examples of federal governments adopting greenhouse gas targets and then not doing what is necessary to meet them.

Canada would not be alone with the approach proposed by Bill C-377. It is quite similar to that of the U.K. government's recently published climate change bill.

Some might say that Canada should not take on the science-based targets in Bill C-377 until all other major emitting countries do so. I would answer that this is not a responsible attitude, for two reasons. First, Canadians want to show leadership and ambition in solving this problem. The government has also expressed its desire to be a leader on this issue. Second, we have the resources to do this.

Countries such as France, Germany, Norway, and the U.K. have already adopted targets similar to those in this bill because it's the right thing to do and because they believe they can achieve them.

Others might argue that Canada has special circumstances that should result in our taking on less stringent targets. I suggest that they should specify which countries should have to do more to compensate for Canada's doing less. I would also remind you that the targets in this bill are already at the lower limits of what the IPCC says industrialized countries must achieve for the world to have a chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming.

To wrap up, this is not a political bill, in my view. It's a bill that's about basing policy on science and ensuring that Canada does not transfer our responsibilities to other countries. I see no reason why it should not be supported by all parties.

Thank you.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Okay. Thank you.

I just want to make a few remarks, and I hope they are constructive.

When I'm asked the question of what would Bill C-377 mean, I do come at my response from a rather narrow perspective. The question I'm asking is, is there anything happening in this bill that I think might motivate the private sector to invest more in a carbon-free future than they are investing at this time? Unfortunately, when I look at the bill, my response to that question, the question that obsesses me, is no. So I want to go back and ask why it is no.

The reason it's no is because industry saw the Government of Canada commit to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, and we did that in 1992. Interestingly enough, very shortly after the Government of Canada made that commitment, the Government of Canada actually slashed funding for the EnerGuide program, a program initiated previously under Brian Mulroney's Green Plan. Then in 1997 we committed to cut emissions to 6% below 1990 levels over the 2008 through 2012 period, and industry waited for a long time to learn how government was going to convert that commitment to industry obligations. In 2005 the government gazetted an industrial regulation that required us to cap our emission intensity facilities at 13.5% below 2004 levels by the end of 2012, and that gazetted regulatory proposal created an unlimited supply of emission rights to new facilities, as long as the facilities met a new source standard called a BARCT standard. Then three years later, in 2007, we're looking at the prospect of a regulation that would require facilities to reduce emission intensity by 16% below 2006 levels by 2010, with restrictions and a reduction level applying to new facilities.

When you're in a private sector and you're looking at that history, and now you add the prospect of yet another emission target to the list, it doesn't get money to flow. I'm wondering if I could maybe ask the committee to look back and ask, are there two or three bits of infrastructure of information that you, the committee, can put in place, which information, once in place, helps us move forward faster at least this time? On the first page of my submission I'm asking myself this question, whether it's for this bill or any other bill if and when government produces a plan for compliance with the law. Have we agreed on some standard measures against which we're evaluating the plan? So every year when there's a budget, when we're trying to form our opinions about what the budget means to us, we can read clearly what the current and future gross domestic product forecasts are that the Minister of Finance is using. We may or may not agree with those forecasts, but we know the context in which the plans are being built, and we can evaluate them and what they mean for our business planning purposes.

On my front page I'm showing you that over the last year, at least, the four--actually more than four--leading assessments of plans that the government has been producing have been published, and they use a very wide range among them of business-as-usual emission forecasts. If we're in business, we can't compare the evaluations that are before us because the business-as-usual forecast is an eternally moving target.

For us to move forward, I wonder if this committee might sit down and say that maybe one of the bits of infrastructure we need, however imperfect--and maybe you want three sets of them--is an official Canadian business-as-usual forecast, so that all of us know what the ground is that we're trying to shift.

The second thing I put in front of you, on the second page, is an estimate of what Bill C-377 means in terms of burden by province. This is a simple analysis. It basically starts with the National Energy Board reference case forecasts for all of the provinces and the National Energy Board population forecasts. Then it takes the goal of Bill C-377, and given those emission forecasts and those population forecasts, it explains what it means if we apply the obligation to reduce by 25% from 1990 levels to each province across the board, without differentiation.

Every time anybody puts anything forward, I think it's important to start with a page that looks like this.

As a final decision, this is not my recommendation for a business-as-usual forecast to use as our baseline--I understand that no one is proposing undifferentiated targets within Canada--but my view is that if you stare at that table on page 2, I think you see some enormous challenges that can divide the country very.... It frightens me, and it frightens me that we're not looking at these realities. What it says is that with undifferentiated targets, we're asking Canadians to cut emissions somewhere between 27% and 54% per capita by 2020.

To me, it's not the scope of those reduction objectives that's so scary, but the range of 27% to 54%. If you look at where the biggest burden is placed, it's Saskatchewan. If we move forward on further discussions without having this kind of material in front of us and without recognizing that we haven't had a plan in the last 15 years of trying because we're not openly looking at regional implications, when we try to get civil servants to do it without guidance from Parliament, it can't be done.

This is big; this is far bigger than equalization or anything else.

I'm running out of time, but there are two other bits of infrastructure that need to be worked on, regardless of what target you're thinking about; you don't have to have agreement on the target to work on these two bits of infrastructure.

One is answering in your own minds the question of what price is too high. Yes, there's a lot of solar being developed in Germany, and that's great, but Germany guarantees solar power providers a minimum of 10 years at $550 a megawatt as the price paid for that solar. That's $550 a megawatt compared to, say, $5 a megawatt, which is the normal market price in Ontario right now.

It's not my intention to express the opinion that $550 is too much. My question is, what's too much, as far as Canadian politicians are concerned, or is there no limit to the price that should be paid? That's a reasonable answer, but we need to know; we need to hear people tell us what's too much or whether it can be too much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

He was involved with Bill C-377 and Bill C-288, with no costing. Are you using the targets that were from this document?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Neither one has been costed. So again you've used Mr. Bramley as a consultant to help draft your Bill C-377; I think that's what you said.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It's The Case for Deep Reductions: Canada's Role in Preventing Dangerous Climate Change. You have that right in front of you.

What part did the author of this, Matthew Bramley, with the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, play in helping draft Bill C-377?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-377 looks quite familiar. It looks like a continuation of Bill C-288. In fact, some of the same phrases were used in Bill C-377 as we saw in Bill C-288.

Who drafted Bill C-377, because both bills are so similar? Did a common author draft these bills?

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

Mr. Chairman, honourable colleagues, thank you for inviting me. I am very glad to be here. I am very interested in your work. I have already attended some of your hearings.

I'm here to present Bill C-377, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which I introduced into the House, as you know, in October 2006. This bill proposes science-based medium and long-term targets for Canada for avoiding dangerous levels of climate change.

It is in the nature of private members' business that these things take a long time to move their way through the process. So here we are at this point able to discuss the bill. If anything, in this case, I would say the passage of time and the events of the past year have really made it an even more ideal time to be discussing this bill. Since October last year we've had more science reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We've had two plans presented by the government. Legislation has been written by a special committee. A G-8 summit has been held on the issue, and of course we had the UN conference in Nairobi as well. As we're discussing this matter here, the world is gathered in Bali, kicking off negotiations for the second phase, the post-2012 phase, of the Kyoto Protocol, which is precisely what this bill is designed to address.

Of course, today, December 11, is the 10th anniversary of the Kyoto Protocol itself. It's a chance really for us to look forward at what needs to be done. There's been a lot of finger-pointing. We all know how that goes in politics. A lot of partisan games and so on have been played. It would be good if we could turn the page on that and look to the future. Canada's record is clear. The world knows about our record. Based on the last national inventory report numbers, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are 33% above where they were set by the target for Canada through Kyoto.

I think everybody on this committee is in agreement that we have to deal with climate change. It's a fundamental issue. How fundamental? Well, the UN Secretary General has called climate change the biggest challenge to humanity in the 21st century. I think he's right. The global environmental outlook by the United Nations environmental program has stated:

Biophysical and social systems can reach tipping points, beyond which there are abrupt, accelerating, or potentially irreversible changes.

We must do our share to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return. This should be our starting point, and it is the starting point for Bill C-377.

There is broad agreement among scientific experts that an increase of two degrees in the surface temperature of the earth, as compared to the pre-industrial era temperature, would be a dangerous climate change that would impact the entire planet. Even the government's Minister of Foreign Affairs accepts this two-degree threshold.

To obtain results efficiently, we must first have a clear orientation. Everything must be planned in advance. We must set benchmarks to ensure that we are on the right path and, to be absolutely sure, we need expert and objective monitoring of our progress. This is what we are doing with this bill.

We've marked out the destination, which is to avoid a two-degree Celsius increase. We've set out well in advance what the objective should be: an 80% reduction by 2050. We've identified some benchmarks along the way: a 25% reduction by 2020 and interim targets at five-year intervals, which are spelled out. And we're providing for accountability through reporting and monitoring requirements in the bill.

It's a pretty straightforward bill. Its purpose, as stated in clause 3, is

to ensure that Canada contributes fully to the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

In terms of Canada's contribution to stalling a two-degree temperature increase, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will have to be reduced by 80% by 2050. That target is set out in clause 5.

This is based on The Case For Deep Reductions, the report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, which I believe you're familiar with. Also, I know that Matthew Bramley will be your next witness, coming in over the phone, and he will be describing his research and this report.

Clause 5 also sets a medium target of a 25% reduction by 2020, also based on that report.

Clause 6 provides that these targets and all the other five-year interim targets will be published in a comprehensive greenhouse gas emissions target plan. The first plan would have to be tabled within six months of this act receiving royal assent.

Regarding accountability, this bill proposes, under section 10, that the minister should regularly make statements to explain the measures taken by the government in order to meet the targets and the precise reductions that they entail.

Section 13 provides for a review of the statements and for hearing the objective opinion of experts. The current draft assigns this role to the Commissioner of the Environment. However, according to another bill, this role would be inappropriate. Therefore, we are ready to accept that the bill be amended. For instance, it could give this role to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The targets set out in Bill C-377 match the targets set by the world's most progressive jurisdictions. The European Union is committed to a 60% to 80% reduction compared to 1990 levels by 2050. France is targeting a 75% to 80% reduction, and the United Kingdom is committed to a reduction of a least 60% below the 1990 levels. Norway is committed to becoming carbon-neutral by 2050.

In North America, these kinds of targets are also becoming quite a bit more common. California, as you know, has a 2050 reduction target of 80%. The New England states have signed on to a target reduction of 75% to 85%. The Government of Ontario has set a reduction target of 80%. U.S. Democrats are getting on board. Candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have all pledged a commitment to a cut of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 in their programs.

Backing the kinds of targets that Bill C-377 would bring into Canada would put Canada in good company with the leaders, not the laggards. Being with the leaders means that we'll be better positioned to transform our economy into the new energy economy of the future. This is where the real opportunities are.

These are the targets required by science. They are the targets set by responsible nations that understand their role in the world and their responsibility to future generations.

I might add that they are a major improvement over the targets we've seen in the government's “Turning the Corner” plan. The government says it will cut greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020, but that's 20% below 2006 levels, meaning it's approximately 2% above 1990 levels. Its 2050 target works out to between 49% and 62% below the 1990 levels.

We don't know where these targets came from. They seem to have an element of arbitrariness to them. They don't seem to be linked to any particular calculus of the temperature impact on the planet. In fact, the government, unlike the EU, has refused so far to even take a position on the two-degree Celsius limit on global warming.

Thanks to access to information, we now know that Foreign Affairs is aware of the need to heed this limit, but the government has so far chosen to ignore that awareness or that advice.

In conclusion, I want to thank you once again for inviting me to table this bill. I am glad to know that you will be hearing witnesses. We are open to improving the legislation, to making it better. Above all, it is important that we strive to improve matters. The stakes are high, and we are pressed for time. We can already see the impact of climate change.

In the summer of 2006, just before introducing this bill, I was in the forests of British Columbia. I was shocked to see the devastation. I flew with some of the local people, including the owner of the mill, and I saw all the red and brown leaves of the forest. Then I flew at 30,000 feet, between the two great mountain ranges of the Rockies, and it was red as far as I could see. That was an absolutely shocking thing, to realize the devastation, the catastrophic change that has already happened.

Then this past summer I was at the Arctic Circle, up in Pangnirtung, in an Inuit community. I asked the elder what changes he was noticing. As we looked down the valley, he said, “Well, the change is in the colour. We've never seen green here before.” As far as we could see, there was a green kind of moss going up the 500-foot embankments, with the glaciers just visible beyond that. I said, “You mean the elders told you there was never any green here before?” He said, “No, I mean within the last 10 years. The glaciers used to come right down, and it was all rock and ice. But now there's a huge transformation. Now we can't get access to our protein sources, the migrating animals, because their patterns have changed.”

We're seeing the results. They're very dramatic. They're impacting on our planet. But we've only begun to see the changes.

On the other hand, we have so many opportunities to exploit if we could set a new direction for ourselves. I'm very, very confident that Canada could be in the forefront of some of the changes that are needed to get us to that new energy economy. I'm hoping this bill will help.

Thank you all very much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

No, I think I made my point. I'm concerned with this slowing down. I thought we had a very simple process; now it's becoming much more complex. I would like to see this move ahead quickly and effectively. The sooner we can have this come back to the committee with the steering committee making their recommendations, the sooner we can have that list approved by this main committee and the sooner we can move forward with Bill C-377. This has to come back here first.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, we debated this at length at our first meeting as this committee. The committee well knows my position on this, that it's undemocratic and it's against the normal policy and the normal procedure for the parliamentary secretary representing the government not to have a voice at a steering committee. Without that, we will move very slowly and we would like to cooperate and see this move very quickly. I believe the NDP wants to see this move quickly.

It is the Liberals trying to manipulate the witness list. We're cooperating with the witness list. We're saying, let everybody present their lists of witnesses, as the norm is. There's trust in you. Sometimes I would like to see you more helpful, but you are a very fair person, and we trust you and the clerk to provide a good balance.

We've agreed with what's being proposed by the NDP. Bill C-377 is their bill and we agree with what's being proposed. We've suggested some minor changes. They've agreed with that.

As far as the Bali meeting is concerned, I actually find that refreshing. When we came back, Chair, from Berlin I asked that every member--Mr. Godfrey was in Berlin with me and you, and it's good to have Mr. Ouellet back--report to this committee what happened, what we learned, and the committee didn't want to hear it. So now to hear that the committee would like to hear what happens at these conferences, I find that wonderful.

But you're quite right, we have to be realistic. What we're going to hear from Bali is the beginning of negotiations that, hopefully, we'll complete in 2009. So let's stay with the plan, the proposal from the NDP. I think it's fair, it's their bill, and let's not go down a Liberal path where we're trying to manipulate who can speak and who can't.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm surprised at Mr. Warawa's comment on point 6. The period from 2012 to 2020 is precisely what will be at issue in Bali. They're also going to discuss targets and the climate change review. We know that the IPCC will be coming back again to provide clarification on the matter.

It seems to me that this is entirely related to Bill C-377. This is the very essence of this bill introduced by the NDP. An overview will have already been done, and specific matters will perhaps have been determined in Bali. It seems to me that the Bali Conference is the subject that it would be entirely appropriate to address before starting the study of Bill C-377.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So the second one, the scientific panel, I'm totally fine with.

On the third proposed meeting, with the economists, what we would like to see discussed would be the economics of climate change and Bill C-377 and the mechanisms, the options, that are available to meet the Bill C-377 obligations--market-based mechanisms, fiscal measurements and incentives, regulated emission limits, performance standards, cooperative measures--and the feasibility of meeting these obligations. So it would deal with the mechanisms from the economic aspect.

Also, there's the cost of meeting the targets. What are the costs of meeting those obligations and the economic ramifications of forcing a government to meet those obligations? What will be the consequences?

So that's on the economics, which is proposed meeting three.

The fourth, the environmentalist panel, I have no problem with.

On meeting five, the jurisdictional experience panel, I have one quick addition. What is the constitutionality of Bill C-377? We've heard concerns over its constitutionality, so that needs to be addressed in the jurisdictional panel.

Those are my comments.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Referring to the proposed meetings from the NDP that we have in front of us—there are six—we're fine with those. Again, I'd like to elaborate a little bit on them.

We're not fine with the last one, because it's not relevant to Bill C-377 directly. If the committee wants to have a post-Bali debriefing, then that's fine. But we're talking Bill C-377, and from that logic, we can have a post-Heiligendamm, post-G8...whatever the committee wants to do. So I have no problem with that. I'd like to see the sixth meeting gone because it's not relevant specifically to Bill C-377, but the others I'm fine with.

If I could just, as I'm speaking, quickly go through them, there are a couple of items I'd like to have elaborated on a little bit.

The second meeting suggested is the scientist panel to discuss the scientific underpinnings of climate change and Bill C-377. Again, the witnesses are being recommended. There are a couple there: John Stone and Mr. Weaver. So each party will submit names, and you can--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

The problem I definitely have is that when we go to the Speaker or to the clerks in the House, they will tell us that parliamentary committees are really responsible for their own decisions, that in fact there isn't an order paper or set of rules that apply to committees. I've heard this many, many times, that committees control their own destiny, so to speak. They elect a chair to make decisions, they have a steering committee, they have a committee, and those decisions are made.

So I guess I have real trouble with bringing back a motion that couldn't have been voted on, a motion that was made, in effect, when the committee had ended. In fact, we had a new motion brought forward. That new motion, I believe, was out of order simply because it didn't deal with the subject on the table, the estimates, which I think it had to deal with.

I think Mr. Bigras' motion is in the order papers, and that's what we are here to deal with. We have roughly five minutes left to deal with his motion.

Of course, we also need some agreement about Thursday's meeting in terms of arranging witnesses and carrying on further with Bill C-377. But we have to call those witnesses now. I believe three have been approached and are tentatively available for Bill C-377, but that needs to be confirmed with them.

Again, the committee, being responsible for its own destiny, needs to decide if we are going to hear Mr. Layton and the other two witnesses, Aldyen Donnelly and Matthew Bramley. Those three witnesses have been suggested. Of course, it's Mr. Layton's bill.

So we will carry on with that on Thursday. The clerk needs to know right now if we should confirm those speakers for Thursday. That's my first question.

My second is, after we go to the motion of Mr. Bigras and debate it, do members want to return after the vote to carry on with that debate? That's the next question, because this meeting is going to be called in about two or three minutes.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, again, the goal is to come up with a fair structure.

Mr. Chair, I really hope I'm wrong, but I read in the newspaper that there was a tactical strategy of some opposition members to try to make this not work. It appears it's going down that road. I'm still hoping for the better, Chair, and I'm going to try to come up with a motion that is going to create fairness and not dominance.

Chair, my concerns were what I saw previously. Bill C-377 is going to be coming up, a very important private member's bill that we will deal with. We need to come up with a witness list, as was mentioned. So, again, we need to have a member on that.

I think Mr. Luc Harvey would provide a balance, a francophone perspective.

[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.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It appears we have a few moments and to save time later I will inform members of something they are just aching to hear about now.

As hon. members know, our Standing Orders provide for the continuance of private members' business from session to session within a Parliament.

The list for the consideration of private members' business established on April 7, 2006, continues from the last session to this session notwithstanding prorogation.

As such, all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that were listed on the order paper during the previous session are reinstated to the order paper and shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the first session.

Generally speaking, in practical terms, this also means that those items on the Order of Precedence remain on the Order of Precedence or, as the case may be, are referred to committee or sent to the Senate.

However, there is one item that cannot be left on the Order of Precedence. Pursuant to Standing Order 87(1), Parliamentary secretaries who are ineligible by virtue of their office to be put on the Order of Precedence will be dropped to the bottom of the list for the consideration of private members' business, where they will remain as long as they hold those offices.

Consequently, the item in the name of the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Motion M-302, is withdrawn from the Order of Precedence.

With regard to the remaining items on the order of precedence let me remind the House of the specifics since the House is scheduled to resume its daily private members' business hour starting tomorrow.

At prorogation, there were seven private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1:

Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-265, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (qualification for and entitlement to benefits), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities;

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance;

Bill C-327, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television broadcasts), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage;

Bill C-343, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (motor vehicle theft), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;

Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development; and

Bill C-428, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bills deemed introduced, read the first time, read the second time and referred to a committee)

Furthermore, four Private Members' bills originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bills are deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House:

Bill C-280, An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (coming into force of sections 110, 111 and 171);

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord;

Bill C-293, An Act respecting the provision of official development assistance abroad; and

Bill C-299, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identification information obtained by fraud or false pretence).

Accordingly, a message will be sent to inform the Senate that this House has adopted these four bills.

Hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. The Table officers are available to answer any further questions that hon. members may have.

I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in this second session of the 39th Parliament.

(Bills deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

For the benefit of the committee—and Mr. McGuinty should hear this—the research analyst has asked for a little more clarity and specification in terms of what exactly members would like her to do in preparation. What topics would you like her to look at in preparation for next week's study? Now, I indicated earlier that you should get those thoughts to her quickly—but that was about the other issue we dealt with first, Bill C-377, wasn't it?

Would members like to indicate right now any particular topics you'd like the researcher to look at? Otherwise, I'd ask you to get those topics to her by.... I'd ask members, if you have any suggestions now, let's hear them. If not, I'm going to ask you to get them to the clerk by five o'clock tomorrow, who can then pass them on to the research analyst.

I think I have Mr. Bigras, and then Mr. Godfrey.

[The Clerk]

As of right now, the only additional piece of business the main committee has given itself is Mr. McGuinty's motion next Thursday, June 7. There will also be, as you decided, a steering committee meeting that the chair will need to call for next Wednesday to discuss Bill C-377.

The committee hasn't actually set a new date for a meeting on Mr. Warawa's issue of gasification, because our initial schedule in May was changed and the steering committee has adopted something else.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

The motion of Mr. Warawa is that by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, suggestions for witnesses on Bill C-377 be provided to the clerk in advance of the steering committee meeting on Wednesday, June 6.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

At this point we don't have a motion on the floor, do we?

I think there is a desire, a consensus, to have this referred to a steering committee. Mr. Bigras had suggested starting in September. I think that's practical, in the sense that we're scheduled to be here until the 22nd, so we have another three weeks, approximately.

Tomorrow, many of us are going to Berlin to the G-8 plus 5.

Mr. Cullen suggested that we meet Wednesday of next week. We will arrive back on Tuesday, so we'll be a little jet-lagged, but I think having a first meeting of the steering committee would be fine on Wednesday of next week.

During this next week we can provide the clerk with some names, but it wouldn't be a restrictive list of names; that list can evolve. We can start in September with a reconvening of the steering committee, maybe a day before we have the committee meeting. So we can start in September with Bill C-377, with the recommendations of a witness list, and a plan.

If that's okay, I'd like to move a motion that the witness list and the planning be referred to a steering committee, and that the first meeting be Wednesday of next week.

[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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, I don't mean to interrupt, but the discussion right now is Bill C-377, and how we are going to plan Bill C-377. So I would encourage Mr. McGuinty to stay on topic.

Thank you.

[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]

It sounds great, Mr. Chair.

We've obviously been giving this some consideration. This is just in colloquial to remind committee members that this is Mr. Layton's private member's bill.

This bill was originally designed to take us from 2012 and beyond, because we knew that in play were the government's efforts around clean air and climate change, which became the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, and Mr. Rodriguez's bill. This piece was meant to follow. We've thrown over some ideas about who we think we need to hear from.

The timing of this is kind of fortunate because of the conversations going on in the global context right now. Some of us will be at the global forum leading to the G-8 plus 5.

Bali is the next round of the United Nations meetings that takes us beyond the Kyoto concept. For those of us who have been involved in some of the international negotiations, the main concern at the international community level is that there be no gap between the commitments made in the Kyoto round and the next round, that the negotiations have a natural flow, and that countries recommit to new targets to take us beyond 2012.

Bill C-377 is meant to be that piece, so that Parliament wrestles with the idea of what comes next. We all know the context and the struggles with what happened around the first commitment period. There's an effort to get it right for the second one, because in a sense the second one is where Canada in particular is going to have the most bearing and weight on our domestic policies. I'm sure there are lots of comments on that.

What we're suggesting today is that we have not a brainstorm, Chair, but a throwing in of ideas, and that we then turn to the clerk, or Tim, or whoever may be advising us on a work plan.

Is Tim not with us any more? We're Tim-less. That's okay. Don't over-rely.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Colleagues, the meeting is called to order.

I'm sorry to be late. I had another meeting. It is Luc's fault as he slowed me down when I was on my way here.

No, he doesn't want to accept responsibility. We walked in here together, but we were both a minute late. So my apologies.

We have two orders of business today. The first relates to Bill C-377, an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. The second is a notice of motion from Mr. McGuinty, which we'll get to a little later.

I understand from the clerk that the chair, Mr. Mills, has suggested that we first discuss how we want to deal with Bill C-377. We haven't had a discussion to determine our decision about what kind of work plan we would have in relation to this bill, so we should talk about how to organize the committee's work and perhaps about the number of meetings we think we need to have on this bill.

I haven't seen any hands yet, but I think Mr. Cullen would like to talk about a proposed work plan for this, so I'm going to invite him to do so. How does that sound?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

This is one of many times that the Liberals have attempted to change the decision of the committee. We have an agenda. We were going to deal with the issue of looking at practical solutions on how to deal with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, carbon sequestration, coal-bed methane, and gasification. Those are the three we sidetracked to deal with in Bill C-377. Now again there's an attempt to take us off the agenda, to change the agenda at the last minute.

We've had a good discussion. The main estimates are before us. We need to deal with them and vote to return the main estimates to the House without changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey.

I'd like to thank our witnesses again for a job well done, and I thank all the members.

I want to remind members that on our first Tuesday back we have the minister. A notice will be coming from the clerk. I will be discussing with a member of each party what we're going to do to progress at the meeting on Thursday, the 31st. I believe we tentatively set Bill C-377—I believe that's the number, but whatever the number is, Mr. Cullen, we will discuss it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

In order to have a steering committee, we would need a motion that we rescind the orders that we voted on earlier and that we establish a steering committee. Obviously that motion, if it's put, needs to be debated. I think all of us have expressed that.

My hope was that we could accomplish this just by sitting down and saying this is the schedule we agreed to. It seems to me it's not that difficult. We have very few meetings, and yes, we have witnesses already arranged. We obviously have deadlines of the minister appearing. We have a deadline on Bill C-377, but that's a little bit further out, and so on. But it would seem to me that we could come to a conclusion. It's not rocket science.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, that was the recommendation of Mr. Cullen, I believe, and Mr. Bigras has said yes.

You're quite right in that we did make a decision that we weren't going to have a steering committee, but that could be changed. If we feel at this time that it would be a wise decision, I have no problem with that, which is what you're suggesting in a friendly way, as long as the rules of the steering committee are that consensus must be reached, otherwise it comes back to the committee and is voted on.

There are a lot of issues on the table besides Bill C-377 specifically, but what do we do with all these other issues that Mr. McGuinty wants to speak to on his motion? I would think that a steering committee would be a better way to deal with it, considering that time is just about up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am inclined to support the motion of Mr. Cullen. I also like very much that of Mr. McGuinty.

You just threw out a whole bunch of things to do until June. I have not seen any document that clearly spells out a schedule of future business. We are used to discuss future business at a steering committee meeting. It might be a good idea to call a meeting of the steering committee, for example for tomorrow afternoon, in order to establish a work plan and avoid having to vote on motions which might be conflicting.

We have a number of deadlines imposed by the Standing Orders. We have 60 sitting days of the House to consider Bill C-377, but there are also other items that we should deal with. I believe a meeting of the steering committee would allow us to do a proper job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes.

On May 31, we could begin with witnesses, and so on, for Bill C-377.

Now, that's just a rough proposal.

On June 5, four of us will be away at the G-8 plus five. I would propose cancelling that meeting because of members' being away.

That's kind of a rough, tentative schedule, if that helps at all.

Mr. Bigras, you're next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just as our guests are leaving, the notion that I have.... This is one of those unfortunate moments when I wish we had a subcommittee. My instinct on this is to say that while we have some interest in looking at Bill C-377 expeditiously, we are also supportive, in concept at least, of Mr. McGuinty's motion to do some assessment of what the government's plans have shown.

What we're interested in doing is, in a sense, suggesting a calendar that will work for all committee members. We know that we have some commitments to witnesses coming forward; some might be more flexible than others. The ideal for us is to set out a calendar that will take us to at least the first week of June, because I think it gets very sketchy after that.

As I said, we're supportive of the concept of this motion that Mr. McGuinty has brought forward and are prepared to adjust our own. This is the problem with making these calendar decisions as a group of 12. It's not very quick.

I'm going to suggest that a responsible person from each of the parties come forward and sit with you with a proposed calendar later today or after caucus tomorrow to work out something that gets both of these things accomplished and gets the minister here as well.

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

Congratulations on being gasified, Chair. That's good to hear, and I know we'll be talking more about this in the coming days.

I'll be tabling my notice of motion formally on Tuesday, but I wanted to give the committee notice that we'll be seeking to begin study on Bill C-377, which was initially designed as the post-Kyoto long-term targets, the bill by Mr. Layton, and trust the committee will study it and return it to the House post-haste.

The motion will be extremely simple and straightforward for committee members to read, and we look forward to the study of the bill, knowing that the committee has some things to study but not an overwhelming schedule, obviously, this spring.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-377 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 18 consideration of the motion 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.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[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.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the actual wording of the bill tabled on October 31, 2006, by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In a second stage, the bill will create an obligation for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the measures proposed by the government to meet targets and comply with the obligation to submit a report to Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-377.

The fight against climate change is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important issues of the planet and represents a major challenge for Quebec and Canada. Although the Bloc Québécois is concentrating on respect for the first phase of the Kyoto protocol, namely the period from 2008 to 2012, we should plan for the next stage in order to improve further Quebec’s and Canada’s environmental record.

While awaiting the results of the official negotiations among the 163 signatory countries and stakeholders of the Kyoto protocol, led by the special working group which began meeting in Bonn last May, Canada must determine a medium and long term plan to show it really wants to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. By adopting credible targets acknowledging the importance of significantly reducing greenhouse gases so as to reduce global warming, Canada can resume its role as a leader on environmental issues, a role it has stopped playing in recent years.

The Bloc therefore supports the principle of Bill C-377 in the hope of being able to examine and debate it in committee. The Bloc will seek to improve this bill. For example, the Bloc had Bill C-288 amended so that it includes a mechanism for a territorial approach, the simplest approach, but above all the most effective one for Quebec and the other provinces of Canada, in order to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

We are in favour of the principle of Bill C-377, and we wish to study it with all due seriousness, given the seriousness of the issue of climate change.

There are three parts to this bill: first, new targets for the years after 2012; second, the publication of an annual report; and third, the new obligation on the environment commissioner. I want to turn now to one of these three parts.

Clause 5 of the bill sets medium and long term targets. The Government of Canada will therefore have to ensure, as a long term target, that Canada’s emissions are reduced to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050.

The second target that is mentioned is 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020, which is considered the medium term target.

Between 2012 and 2020, Canada will therefore progress from a 6% reduction to a 25% reduction on its way to finally achieving its objective for 2050.

Clause 6 adds something else: it sets interim targets. It establishes the targets to be achieved every five years beginning in 2015. This interim plan also specifies certain other things such as a greenhouse gas reduction target for each of 2015, 2020, and 2025 as well as the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target.

The second part of the bill requires that an annual report be published. Since there are certain targets for each of the years mentioned, the purpose is to see whether the government achieved these targets.

The measures may include: lower emissions and performance standards, market-based mechanisms; spending or fiscal incentives may also be mentioned in these proposals or in the objectives in order to reach the targets. Cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments are another way of achieving these targets.

In regard to the latter point, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the approach is in accordance with the territorial approach always specified by the Bloc. In complying with the Kyoto protocol, the Bloc Québécois still insists that the federal plan must include a mechanism allowing for the signature of a bilateral agreement with Quebec.

This bilateral agreement based on a territorial approach should give Quebec the financial tools it needs to implement more effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its territory. This is the most efficient and the only truly equitable solution that takes into account the environmental efforts and choices made by Quebeckers in recent years, particularly with the development of hydroelectricity. This measure must be included in the measures taken following the 2008-12 period, so that Quebec may also continue to implement its own greenhouse gas reduction plan.

The third point is the new obligation of the environment commissioner to produce a report. It is important to note that there is no provision in Bill C-377 that would make the environment commissioner an entirely independent officer of Parliament who would report directly to Parliament. The Bloc would like such a change to be made to the environment commissioner position so that he has the latitude to fulfill the new duties assigned to him.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois has always sought a territorial approach. Given the major differences between Quebec's economy and those of the other provinces, as well as efforts that have already been made, this is the only fair and effective approach that does not require years and years of negotiation. It is very simple: Quebec and the provinces who wish to do so can opt out of the federal government's plan and implement their own measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels within their territory. To enable Quebec and the provinces to make their own choices, the territorial approach should be combined with a permit exchange system.

As the deadline nears, the federal government must opt for the territorial approach to speed up efforts to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible. However, the Conservatives twice rejected this promising approach and seem no more open to it now than they were before. For the period following the first phase of the Kyoto protocol, that is, after 2008-12, Quebec must be in a position to undertake its work according to its own plan.

The Bloc Québécois has no doubt that human activity is the cause of greenhouse gas production and is responsible for climate change. During discussions prior to the climate change conference in Bonn, the Bloc Québécois sent a clear message to the Conservative government. The federal government must shoulder its responsibilities and start thinking about medium and long term objectives. Since the conference, the Conservative government has stubbornly rejected the Kyoto protocol. It has lost face in the eyes of all of the countries that ratified the protocol. As my colleague said earlier, the past two years and the past few months have been a total loss in the fight against climate change.

The House resumed from February 5 consideration of the motion 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.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Before I get involved in debate on NDP-15.1, I want to question whether or not it's in order. The wording of NDP-15.1 is almost identical to a private member's bill, Bill C-377. Procedurally, my understanding is that you cannot have this bill and Bill C-377 saying the same thing. So I question, through you to the clerk, whether or not this is procedurally out of order or not. Thank you.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation 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.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. Can I just answer both parts of the question?

On the issue of the expectations, yes, there was Bill C-288, but there's also Bill C-377, which again comes back asking the commissioner to do policy analysis and provide advice to government. So we interpreted that to mean there were expectations of parliamentarians that we could not meet, and said this is something the committee might want to raise.

If the committee believes that this is easily addressed and there is no expectation gap, then that's fine. I interpreted these draft bills differently in thinking that people expected more from our office and from the office of the commissioner than we can do under our legislation and under the standards that guide our work.

You are correct to say that when there is a legally binding agreement or when there is a policy or a law from government, we can quite legitimately ask what the plan is to address this, and what kinds of measures you have put in place to ensure that you meet those targets. If government itself is saying that we're not going to meet them, it is quite legitimate for us to report that. That is what we did this past fall, in fact. We said that the measures are not in place—

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are pleased to be here to meet with the committee members and to speak to the motion that is currently before the committee. As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ron Thompson.

As I indicated in my letter to the committee on Monday, policy advocacy and legislative audit are incompatible. This is a recognized principle in the auditing profession, and it is based on the standard that governs all auditors in Canada. This principle is also widely observed by legislative audit offices in many other countries.

It is interesting that the same issue arose in 1994 and 1995 when discussions about the creation of a commissioner of the environment began. At that time, my predecessor, Denis Desautels, indicated to the environment and sustainable development committee:

ln Canada, it's generally accepted that legislative auditors avoid observing on high-level policy and they concentrate their comments on implementation of that policy. Therefore, responsibility for such matters as review of the appropriateness of policy and arbitrating environmental disputes should not be given to my office, as this could quickly and seriously jeopardize the Auditor General's traditional independence, objectivity, and credibility. There would be similar risks for a separate environmental auditor general if he or she were given audit responsibilities along with these other duties.

The then Auditor General also explained to the committee how the office had in fact been conducting environmental audits since the early 1990s using the same rigorous audit methodology that was being applied to all other work in the office.

Nonetheless, in its May 1994 report, the committee recommended that the Office of the Commissioner be established separate from the Office of Auditor General, with access powers similar to those of the Auditor General, but with broader responsibilities: specifically, policy evaluation, advocacy of sustainable development and the evaluation of sustainable development practices and technologies. The committee also encouraged the Office of the Auditor General to continue to expand on its environmental audit role.

The government, in its response to the committee's report, explained that not all functions as proposed by the committee could be undertaken by a single body, and that the various roles, as envisioned by the committee, could be "undertaken more effectively and efficiently by working through existing institutions and mechanisms, new government initiatives, and the proposed new commissioner." It added that it was more efficient to have the Auditor General continue to play its audit role and that integrating the audit of environmental issues with the audit of economic and social issues would in fact reinforce sustainable development.

I believe that we have fulfilled that role. In fact, environmental aspects are considered in all of our work by all audit teams throughout the office. For example, in our review of financial statements, we audit the government's liability for contaminated sites. When we audit crown corporations like Atomic Energy of Canada, the audit scope includes the environmental aspects. The office has become a world leader in environmental auditing. Auditors from around the world have requested our advice and many of them have taken courses on environmental auditing that we developed here in Canada.

Should Parliament decide to establish a new office outside the Office of the Auditor General, with a focus on advocacy and providing advice to government, it is my view that environmental auditing should remain with my office.

The issue is about expectations that are being placed on us that we cannot fulfill. I mentioned Bill C-288 last week. In that case we were able to resolve the matter, and the policy advisory role was transferred to another body. In fact, it was transferred to the national round table. Bill C-377 is a more recent example, and that is the reason I have brought all of this forward for the consideration of the committee.

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. We will be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

Thank you.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to the private member's bill introduced by the leader of the NDP. Bill C-377 aims to ensure that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

I would first like to remind members that, for us here on this side of the House, any policy aimed at fighting climate change must incorporate the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol. Furthermore, on Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, submitted its fourth report on climate change. This latest report confirms that, more than ever, urgent action is needed.

The Intergovernmental Panel, formed in 1988, warned the public and the international community about the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions, specifically concerning the fact that climate change and carbon dioxide production is closely linked to human activities.

The fourth report of the IPCC confirmed, with nearly 90% certainty, a link between the climate change we are seeing today and human activities. Last week, the IPCC report predicted that sea levels will rise by nearly 56 cm—nearly two feet—and that temperatures will rise by from 1.1^o to more than 6^o. It thus confirmed previous reports. It emphasized that urgent action is needed to fight climate change and stressed the importance of creating an action plan in order to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. We feel that any plan to fight climate change introduced by the government must incorporate the Kyoto targets and would be the only appropriate response to the IPCC fourth report on climate change.

Today we have Bill C-377 before us. However, it is important to remind the House that, last May, the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion calling on the government to table a plan that would include the Kyoto targets. The plan was to have been tabled last fall. We were asking that Canada provide international leadership. The majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of implementing the Kyoto protocol. We know what happened next. The former Minister of the Environment went to Nairobi, set aside the Kyoto targets and obligations, and made an irresponsible speech about the fight against climate change. This motion, adopted last May 16 by the House of Commons, created a framework for our expectations with regard to climate change.

After the Bloc Québécois motion, the Liberal MP for Honoré-Mercier tabled a bill that clearly articulated the Kyoto protocol targets in regulations and legislation. We studied this bill in committee. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to include the territorial approach enabling a province, such as Quebec, to be responsible for and free to implement its own plan for fighting climate change while meeting the Kyoto targets. With these amendments, Bill C-288 was adopted by the House and we talked about it here last Friday.

Today, we have another bill, Bill C-377, tabled by the leader of the NDP. This is definitely support in principle. However, I have the feeling that this bill at times sets us back a few months.

Let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois presented a motion calling on the government to table a plan consistent with Kyoto to combat climate change. Let us also not forget the opposition initiative, a bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, again consistent with the Kyoto protocol. Today, the leader of the NDP is introducing a bill that does not incorporate the Kyoto protocol targets, particularly in terms of the first phase of reductions.

How is that the NDP, which has always said it is in favour of the Kyoto protocol, is today introducing a bill where the term “Kyoto” appears just once and there is no mention of the 6% target for the first reduction phase?

All this bill mentions are medium-term targets, or a 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 and longer term targets of 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. However, the bill lacks a target for the first reduction phase between 2008 and 2012. This bill suggests that Canada is prepared to ensure that the targets for the first phase of reductions are met.

When asked, the leader of the NDP said that it was understood that Canada had signed the Kyoto protocol and ratified it. He said that as though this guarantees that the Canadian government will respect the Kyoto targets.

Since 1997, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have introduced measures that have not respected the 6% reduction targets. Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 27% since 1990. If Canada wants to meet the first target, it has to make an overall effort achieving 33%. All of a sudden the NDP has confidence in the Canadian government, saying that the government signed the Kyoto protocol and therefore it intends to respect it.

We will support the bill in principle today, because this is a step in the right direction, but that is not enough. The Bloc Québécois could not support a bill that did not include the phase one greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are finding ourselves in a situation where only one political party in this House has been supporting the Kyoto protocol since 1997, when it came to be, and that is the Bloc Québécois. I was in Kyoto in 1997 and I have seen all the time that has been wasted before Canada committed, through ratification of the accord, to respect Kyoto.

We will recall that, at the time, there were discussions within cabinet between the industry minister and the natural resources minister about flushing out the Kyoto objectives. The then Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, was stuck between the oil lobby and provinces like Quebec which wanted the Kyoto protocol to be respected. Back in 1997, the Bloc Québécois already supported the Kyoto protocol.

Since last Friday, the Conservative government has merely recognized the existence of climate change, and the Minister of the Environment expressed surprise at the IPCC report. I think that the government ought to take note of the existence of climate change.

We would like four things to be added to this bill introduced by the NDP. First, compliance with the Kyoto targets, particularly the phase one targets — and if this bill goes forward, expect the Bloc Québécois to put amendments forward. Second, a territorial approach. I sense that, in the mind of the hon. member, clause 10 hints at agreements and bilateral accords that might be signed with the provinces. Third, a carbon exchange, which is clearly identified as an option in clause 10. Bear in mind also that, in our opinion, the reduction targets should be based on absolute value, and not intensity, as the government would like it to be. Finally, let us not forget the $328 million necessary to achieve the Kyoto objectives in Quebec.

If this bill moves further along the parliamentary process, we will propose amendments, especially with respect to the Kyoto objectives.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the merits of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. This bill clearly deserves a careful examination on its merits. As I said moments ago, the sincerity of the member who is putting it forward I believe is beyond reproach. But the introduction of Bill C-377 is timely.

On Friday you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the House considered Bill C-288 put forward by my good friend the member for Honoré-Mercier. Of course, Bill C-288 is an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto treaty. Bill C-288 reflects our party's hope that Canada will choose the right path while listening to climate experts, playing a leadership role with the international community and transforming our economy to meet the challenge of the 21st century.

As we all know there is a legislative committee currently at work rewriting the government's failed clean air act. With the ongoing work of the environment committee, Parliament is seized with environmental issues these days. This should not come as much of a surprise.

Where are we now? The environment emerged as the number one issue for Canadians after the government cancelled successful programs like EnerGuide, halted initiatives to increase renewable energies such as wind power, and effectively killed a national plan to regulate large final emitters and worked to establish a carbon trading market in Canada, all in the first year of the Conservative new government.

In total, $5.6 billion worth of environmental programs were scrapped. The government has stumbled in particular when it comes to the question of climate change.

I have a simple question for the government, which has now been in power for a full year: will it table its plan to fight climate change? I have asked this question repeatedly, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Unless the government can prove otherwise to Canadians, 12 months into its mandate, Canadians can draw only one conclusion: there is no plan.

The government is making things up as it goes along. It is jumping from ice floe to ice floe, announcing programs here, handing out cheques there and holding photo ops. What is even worse, last week, the Prime Minister was asked 18 times to clarify his position on climate change—which he denied for 10 years before becoming Prime Minister, including while he was leader of the opposition—and to tell us whether he was right then or whether he is right now. He consistently refused to answer.

This is worse than having no plan. Clearly, the government and the Prime Minister have no vision.

Climate change was not one of the government's top five priorities. It was barely mentioned in the throne speech, absent in the economic update and, worse, the only attention paid to the environment was to be found in the 2006 budget, which demonstrated massive cutting.

The first year was spent aggressively discrediting our government's 2005 green plan. The new Minister of the Environment, the one sent to rescue a sinking ship, was not that long ago the minister of energy in a provincial government who led the fight to stop the ratification of the Kyoto treaty and to stop action on climate change. Since his appointment, the government has taken to regifting parts of our 2005 action plan.

The hypocrisy of this is so bad that the government regifted our government's report on our obligations under Kyoto for the calendar year 2006, imagine. It may have knowingly misled the international community by reporting programs it was cutting as actually being in place.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the government intends to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty and is doing so by subterfuge, by stealth, and by a thousand cuts.

Its spurious misleading of the House with regard to what it describes as “useless Russian hot air purchases” deliberately misleads Canadians and undermines the hard-fought clean development mechanism and the joint implementation mechanism, both in the treaty, that leveraged the power of the free market to meet our goals. It relies on, for example, the use of an international trading system to reduce greenhouse gases internationally at a lower cost.

That is why my leader, the hon. member, said:

I call on the Prime Minister to implement a comprehensive plan to honour Canada's Kyoto commitment, including a cap-and-trade carbon market, with more demanding targets than that proposed in 2005.

I call on the Prime Minister to implement environmental tax reform and fiscal measures to reward good environmental behaviour, and provide disincentives for behaviour that harms the environment and human health—all in a way that enables every region and province to succeed in the sustainable economy.

He also said:

I call on the Prime Minister to better support greener energy production and other forms of renewable energy, starting with a minimum target of 12,000 megawatts of wind power production.

I call on the Prime Minister to better support the research, development and commercialization of resource-efficient and environment-friendly technologies.

Most importantly, I call on the Prime Minister to do all this in a way that strengthens the Canadian economy, providing better jobs and a higher standard of living for our children.

If the government is serious about a global response to a global challenge, which reflects the fact that there may be 190 countries in the world but there is only one atmosphere, I challenge it further. I challenge all members of the House, including the government's caucus, to vote for our motion tabled in the House on Thursday.

Let me turn now to the merits of Bill C-377.

Like the clean air act, Bill C-377 is not necessary. It is important for Canadians to know that the bill was introduced in October, prior to his requested secret meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the clean air act. It is unclear to Canadians and to us, as an opposition, whether the NDP has cut a deal with the government on the so-called clean air act. If so, it is legitimate to ask whether the bill ought still to be put forward by the leader of the NDP.

Upon re-reading the bill, I was astonished to learn that the leader of the NDP has dropped any reference to respecting the Kyoto accord in its entirety. Just like the so-called clean air act, Bill C-377 sets no short term targets to curb global warming. Only two are defined: one in 2020 the other in 2050. Perhaps the member could explain why his bill sets no short term targets.

Perhaps the leader of the NDP could explain why he has called on Canada to unilaterally vary the targets for emissions in Canada without any mention of the penalties that would accrue to Canada and Canadians under the Kyoto protocol. Has he forgotten we are a party to the protocol? Is he proposing to facilitate a government skirting the essential issue of near term targets? Why would he suggest that we delay action?

Let me reiterate that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available now, this week, for immediate action. There is no excuse for avoiding short term.

What is the NDP's intention with respect to our motion on Kyoto? Will the leader of the NDP be fully supportive at the vote this afternoon? Will the government?

It appears as if the member's bill, by giving discretion to the environment minister to set targets starting in 2015, facilitates a further removal from Kyoto. I remind the government and all members that targets were negotiated internationally. I am convinced the member would not knowingly facilitate the government treating Canada like an island or under the guise of splinter groups, and have us withdraw from our 167 partners that support the Kyoto treaty. It is fundamental that Canada participate, globally, to fight a global threat.

Finally, I welcome the attempt in Bill C-377 to leverage the role of the environment commissioner to meet our targets. Given our proposal as the official opposition to make the environment commissioner fully independent, I also welcome his support of our motion to hive off the commissioner's position and make it a stand-alone one with a strengthened mandate.

I look forward to hearing answers from the leader of the NDP. I congratulate him for his positive contribution to this debate.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth, for tabling Bill C-377. I believe this is a first step and gives a direction to the fight against climate change. That said, I have a question about clause 5 of his bill and the commitments articulated therein.

I read the bill introduced by the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth, and not once did I see the word “Kyoto”. Furthermore, clause 5—which is about the commitments Canada would be expected to fulfill should this bill be adopted—does not mention the first phase: reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

Why are there medium and long term targets, but no short term targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will open by sharing the kind, gracious and gentle words that the member brought forward at the opening of his remarks with respect to the death of two senior captains, two firefighters who perished in Winnipeg. Our thoughts and prayers on this side of the House are also with their families and with those who were injured and their families.

I have no doubt that the member offers his comments and proposals in Bill C-377 with complete sincerity. I have known him to be a man of strong integrity. We have worked together in the past in other lives on a national climate change response and I commend him for contributing to the debate. I welcome the opportunity to put questions to him about the merits of his proposal.

Perhaps the leader of the NDP could help Canadians understand the position the new government is pursuing, which speaks directly to the question of what the government describes as hot air credits and hot air purchases offshore.

Could the leader of the NDP help us to understand how his bill would reinforce our international emissions trading obligations under the Kyoto treaty which would give access to Canadian companies and to the government as a whole to a wonderful and marvellous market mechanism that could help us to reduce our greenhouse gases at a lower cost? Could he help us to understand how his bill would reinforce those mechanisms in the Kyoto treaty?

[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.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 24th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

As a result of the replenishment of Tuesday, October 31, 2006, the committee recommends that the following item, which it has determined should not be deemed or designated non-votable, be considered by the House: Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

In addition, the committee recommends that Motion No. 262, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, should also be considered by the House.

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to ensure that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

It is clear that climate change represents a serious threat to Canada's economic well-being, public health, natural resources and environment. The impact of climate change is already being felt in Canada, especially in the Arctic.

This bill, once established, calls on the government to bring into place, very rapidly, regulations on the emission of greenhouse gases. It will also set interim and long term targets for Canada that meet the scientific basis on which such objectives must be established. It also instructs our government to pursue these objectives and goals in international negotiations. It provides an ongoing role for the environment commissioner to report to the House and the people of Canada on progress and on plans.

I am very pleased to table this legislation on such an important issue facing all Canadians, indeed, all citizens of the world.

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