Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Criminal Code

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not blame the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton for not knowing the historical reality that the Senate of Canada has done much more egregious things against the democratic will of the House of Commons. In November 2010, which I remember vividly, the Senate killed a climate accountability act that had been brought forward by Bruce Hyer, Bill C-311. Bruce went on to become a Green Party colleague of mine in the House, but what the Senate did was even worse than anything we can imagine, in that it killed the climate legislation without first referring it to committee as a result of procedural shenanigans ordered by the PMO.

To come back to the main point here of the legislation before us, Bill C-7, I agree with the hon. member that we we have not had adequate time to review the changes the Senate has proposed in relation to mental health provisions. I am deeply troubled by how quickly we are now moving ahead with something that just weeks ago I stood in the House to support, namely, the original bill. That bill specifically said that we were not dealing with mental health issues, and yet now here we are. To that extent, I agree with my colleague. I am very troubled by how quickly we have to move—

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on your request, I would be happy to withdraw it and replace the word with one big fat “insult” to the Canadian people, if that is more palatable to those present.

That whole group, the whole Conservative war room, could continue its purely partisan activities with $140,000-a-year salary, staff and office space, and incredible travel privileges. It is wrong and unfair on so many levels that I do not even know where to begin.

Also, the Conservatives are by no means alone in this. The Liberals have been equally guilty over the years of stacking the Senate with their political operatives, so that the partisan activities of the party are passed on to the taxpayer. It is an abomination and an affront to democracy.

Earlier I referred to the early years of our democracy when the Senate would veto much of the legislation passed by the House of Commons. I spoke about how the Senate arbitrarily vetoed J.S. Woodsworth's Old Age Pensions Act of 1926. We spoke of the Senate vetoing funding for the new unemployment insurance act in the 1960s. One would think such a thing could never happen today, but one would be wrong.

I refer members to Bill C-311 in the last Parliament, Jack Layton's climate change accountability act. For five years, over two minority Parliaments, Jack Layton massaged and encouraged his climate change bill through the lower chamber, only to have it unilaterally and arbitrarily struck down in the Senate without a single hour of debate and without a single witness being heard. Now Canada, at the G7 discussion on climate change, hangs its head in shame, because it has nothing to bring to the table. No legislation has ever been brought forward on the subject of this existential threat to the world. It is no wonder Jack Layton called the Senate “outdated and obsolete...a 19th-century institution that has no place in a modern democracy in the 21st century.”

I refer also to the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the very modest parliamentary reform act that he encouraged members of Parliament to adopt. I believe the vote was 270 to 17 in favour in the House of Commons and, sure enough, it has gone to the Senate to die, I believe. I put it to everyone that we will not see that bill succeed in the 42nd Parliament.

The third bill was already mentioned by my colleague from Windsor, which I believe you put forward, Mr. Speaker, on sports betting. It has languished for three years in the Senate, probably never to be seen again. The last bill was introduced by my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, a bill on transgendered rights, an important bill that was nurtured through the House of Commons, a very real social issue, again dying an unnatural death in the Senate.

After years of failed attempts and a frustrating Supreme Court ruling, Senate reform is now sitting squarely on the too-hard-to-do pile. The Prime Minister would have us believe that there is no appetite among the provinces for what he calls another round of constitutional wrangling, but how would he know? He has never called a first ministers meeting. He has never asked them. It has been 23 years since we had a go at amending the Constitution. Does he think that is too frequent to consider the well-being of our federation?

The Constitution is supposed to be a dynamic document, a living, breathing thing, not static and rigid. I think the Prime Minister is wrong. I believe there is a real and growing appetite for reopening the Constitution to discuss any number of things, from interprovincial trade to revenue sharing, to the Canada pension plan, to yes, even the future of the Senate of Canada.

I took part in the constituent assemblies leading up to the Charlottetown accord led by Joe Clark. I was one of the ordinary Canadians who wrote a letter to The Globe and Mail and 160 of us were chosen to learn more about the Constitution of Canada and embrace some of the issues that the federation was facing. I can inform members that it is a healthy exercise to take the pulse of the federation from time to time and try to address the legitimate concerns and grievances that inevitably grow in a federal system of government. It is healthy to come together to reaffirm the resolve that it takes to keep our loosely knit federation intact.

It was a worthwhile and important effort that almost had me convinced that the Senate could be fixed. I no longer believe that. I now share the view of the premier of Saskatchewan that it is irredeemable and should be abolished.

Let me close by quoting, once again, Mr. Greg Thomas, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, in his recent article in the Toronto Star:

The Senate is a disgrace to Canada. The Senate doesn’t make our nation better; it makes it worse. And unelected assembly of landowners has no legitimate right to rule over the rest of us, no matter what the Constitution says. The Senate is a constitutional institution, to be sure. But then, so was...the slave trade, in Britain, in the 19th century.

Democracy in Canada could be enhanced by abolishing the Senate.

I say to my colleagues, through you, Mr. Speaker, by voting nay on vote 1 of the main estimates tonight, members of the House of Commons will put this issue on the national agenda. I urge members present to vote tonight, reflect upon what is best for democracy, reflect upon what their constituents would want them to do and vote accordingly. I suggest that leaves them with no choice but to vote no on vote 1 of the main estimates 2015-16.

Concurrence in Vote 1--Senate

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will be talking about the main estimates. The government keeps talking about how it wants to shrink the bureaucracy and save taxpayers' money.

Well, the NDP has a solution that will help the government save $90 million per year. The money saved could be used to enhance the programs we have been talking about this evening.

How would the NDP save $90 million? Well, it is very simple. We would abolish the Senate, which is an archaic and undemocratic institution. Why are we paying $90 million per year for an institution made up of unelected members who are accountable to nobody?

Since 2011, 369 residents of Brome—Missisquoi have written to me about the Senate or have signed a petition calling for the Senate to be abolished. I am speaking on their behalf this evening.

Canadians work tirelessly to make ends meet, but the senators sit only 70 days a year. They are only asked to work three days a week, and that is when they even bother to show up for work.

In 2005, the Prime Minister said that the Senate was a relic of the 19th century, but since 2006, he has appointed 57 new senators, 51 of them former Conservative Party backers. Senators are completely unaccountable. They represent only the party that appointed them. They do not represent their regions or even the Canadian people.

It seems to me that, over the years, the Senate has turned into a gang of publicly funded lobbyists disguised as provincial representatives.

On April 18, 2014, the National Post reported that one-third of senators hold positions on either public or private boards of directors. Thirty-four of the 96 senators are board members. According to the National Post analysis, senators earn a lot of money from their membership on boards.

I would like to know how they can wear so many different hats at the same time without being in conflict of interest. Senators sit on boards of companies in financial services, mining and energy, and real estate. This makes me wonder how impartial they really are when they are debating our bills.

Let us not forget that, in November 2010, under a minority government, the NDP passed Bill C-311 through the House of Commons. That bill would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels. That was a much more ambitious target than the one the government announced at the Copenhagen summit. The bill was passed by elected representatives in the House of Commons and killed by the Senate.

When asked to justify this strategy, the Conservative Senate leader at the time retorted that the government, which did not support the bill, was not going to miss an opportunity to get rid of it.

One of my colleagues introduced another bill to protect transgendered people, which was passed by this House in April 2013 and is currently being held up in the Senate.

The Senate has never had a problem quickly passing the omnibus bills that this government pushes through here with its majority and time allocation motions.

What other bills passed in the House will the Senate kill in the future?

The NDP has long been calling for the Senate to be abolished. Originally, the Senate was designed to be a chamber of sober second thought. It has become a haven for donors, fundraisers and other friends of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

Canadians are becoming increasingly frustrated with the scandals in this undemocratic, unelected Senate that is currently under investigation. The senators continue to abuse Canadians' trust. That is why now, more than ever, this antiquated institution must be abolished.

We are not the only ones who want to abolish it. Manitoba and Quebec got rid of their senates many years ago. Their unicameral legislatures work just fine. People in New Zealand did the same with their upper chamber. Saskatchewan MLAs recently adopted a motion to abolish the Senate. I remind members that Saskatchewan has a Conservative premier.

Here in Ottawa, the Conservatives and Liberals refuse to take action. The NDP has proposed some practical solutions to make the Senate more transparent now, such as the following motion:

That all funding should cease to be provided to the Senate beginning on July 1, 2013.

The Liberals voted against this motion. Then, in the fall, we moved a motion to make the Senate more accountable to Canadians. The NDP was optimistic that the old parties would reassess how they use the Senate and support our motion. Our measures would have prevented senators from participating in partisan activities and using taxpayers' money to participate in activities that are not directly related to their parliamentary work.

The outcome of the vote on that motion shows that they are all talk and that transparency and accountability are not really that important to them. It was particularly disappointing to see the Liberals join forces with the Conservatives to defeat this motion. The Conservatives and the Liberals keep swearing that they really want to change things, but as I said, they vote for the status quo at every opportunity.

Canadians now know that the NDP will continue to defend our democratic values and fight for the Senate to be abolished. Why are we paying $90 million a year for an unelected, unaccountable Senate? Abolishing the Senate would save millions of dollars, and that money could be invested elsewhere in the estimates.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition speaks to the issue I raised in question period. That is Canada's responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These are from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, primarily Saltspring Island and Galiano Island, demanding that this House put together a plan to meet the targets in the bill that was put forward by the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay—Superior North, what was Bill C-311, to reduce greenhouse gases rapidly by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is on the subject of climate change and is signed by residents of my riding, particularly from Salt Spring Island, but also from Vancouver, Guelph as well Toronto.

The petitioners call on the House to work toward putting in place the limits required by science for much more rapid reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly to the levels that were once passed by the House, under former Bill C-311, to reduce greenhouse gases by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This the least we should be doing.

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Victoria.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion today. In particular I want to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax, for her tremendous work on this very important file and on the issues we are addressing today.

Today I want to talk about facts, about science-based evidence, rather than convenient ideals. The Minister of Natural Resources suggests that people are not as worried about climate change anymore. Well, I and all of my New Democrat colleagues are worried, and yes, Canadians are worried about climate change. We are worried about it because we inform ourselves of facts, and reputable scientists and scientific research firms concede that two-thirds of the existing known fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground to prevent average global warming of more than 2° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The 2° threshold is a dangerous tipping point. Beyond it, we cause irreversible damage to our planet's ecosystems, yet Canada's emissions continue to rise despite Conservative claims. In 2011, Canada's emissions rose to 702 million tonnes, moving us even further away from our 2020 target of 607 megatonnes. Even worse, Environment Canada's most recent projections show our emissions will continue to go in the wrong direction unless we bring forward policies that are very much stronger.

Provinces with significant climate policies in place, such as Quebec and Nova Scotia, are also seeing a gradual decline in their emissions. More work is needed to build on these successes, but they are encouraging nonetheless. It works.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported in his fall 2010 report that although the federal government acknowledged 20 years ago that climate change would have significant long-term impacts ranging from severe storms to droughts, the federal government still lacks an overarching federal strategy that identifies clear, concrete action.

At the Doha climate change talks in December of 2012, the UN Secretary-General stated:

From the United States to India, from Ukraine to Brazil, drought decimated essential global crops. ...tens of millions of people endured another year of vulnerability, at the mercy of the slightest climate shock. No one is immune to climate change—rich or poor. It is an existential challenge for the whole human race—our way of life, our plans for the future.

Multi-billion-dollar disasters are becoming more common around the world. Munich Re, a global reinsurance company, reported that in 2011 worldwide economic losses from natural catastrophes were a record $378 billion. In the Northwest Territories, the Mackenzie River ice road crossing has seen delays in the average opening date of about three weeks since 1996.

The list goes on. These are facts. They are not convenient ideals to excuse continued tax breaks for big polluters. They are not convenient ideals so that we can avoid talking about something we do not want to talk about.

Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberals before them, New Democrats are committed to addressing climate change. We accept it as a fact and we have a plan to take urgent and immediate action to avoid catastrophic climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to keep the global average temperature increase below a maximum of 2° Celsius.

We will put a price on carbon and establish hard emission caps for large industrial emitters. We will enact the climate change accountability act, which would put in legislation a framework for achieving the national target of 80% below 1990 emission levels by 2050. We will establish a permanent federal energy-efficient retrofit program to reduce residential energy use, cut GHG emissions, create jobs and save Canadians money.

We will establish effective programs to help communities deal with the impacts of climate change in Canada. We will fulfill our international climate obligations. We will cut more than $1.3 billion in annual subsidies to fossil fuel industries. We will restart federal investment in renewable energy; and we will create a green jobs fund to support just employment transition to the new economy; and we will reinvest to give Canadian green tech researchers and developers a leading edge in the global market.

We cannot saddle future generations with the health problems caused by the pollution of our air, water and soil, or the insecurity of a planet affected by floods, food shortages, population displacement and border disputes. Science shows climate change is already causing many of these problems, and Canada is and will be affected.

Environment Canada and the minister himself admit that current actions by the Conservative government would only get Canada half the way to our already weakened target for greenhouse gas emissions. That target falls far short of the reductions Canada has committed to making to avoid catastrophic climate change. Canadians are united in concern about the impacts of climate change, and they support the development of renewable energy projects, including wind, geothermal, solar power and energy-efficient technologies, as well as long-term investment in public transit.

The current government claims to want to make Canada a clean energy superpower but has in fact cut funding for climate change. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, in his 2010 report, chastised the Conservative government, and the Liberal government before it, on its failure to develop a national plan to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Yet the current government has failed to act in the face of mounting evidence and increasing concern from municipalities and the provinces and territories.

Let it be known that the Liberals' track record is no better. Although they signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, they did absolutely nothing to try to reduce our emissions until it was too late. In 1993, the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gases by 20% by 2005. They instead allowed them to increase by over 30%. In 2005, the United Nations reported that Canada's pollution increased more than any other signatory to the Kyoto protocol. The federal environment commissioner said that even if the measures contained in the Liberal government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emission reductions would have been enough to meet their own Kyoto obligations. Quite simply, their plan was not up to the task of meeting the Kyoto obligations.

Finally, and perhaps more tragically, on October 8, 2009, Liberal and Conservative MPs formed a coalition in this House to defeat a motion by the New Democrats to return Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, to the House for a vote prior to the Copenhagen climate conference that December. The NDP bill would have committed Canada to science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets and worked to hold the government publicly accountable for action on this issue.

We can do better. We can have a greener Canada and a prosperous economy. We can fulfill our environmental obligations. We can be wise investors and we can be responsible global citizens. We can leave to our children and grandchildren an environment, a Canada and a world of which we are proud.

New Democrats condemn the lack of effective action by successive federal Conservative and Liberal governments since 1998 to address emissions and meet our Kyoto commitments, and we call on the current government to immediately table its federal climate change adaptation plan.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from residents of Salt Spring Island, within my own constituency.

The petitioners call on the House to take action along the lines of the bill that passed in the House of Commons, but was defeated in the Senate, the former Bill C-311. They urge the government to take action to reduce greenhouse gases to the levels that science recommends, moving as rapidly as possible to 90% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050.

Senate Reform Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today. I have a degree in political science and I am very interested in all matters pertaining to parliamentary process, especially Senate reform. It is a subject that I studied a number of times while in university. This is the third time that the Conservatives have introduced a bill dealing with either the election of senators or Senate terms. Thus, we have had a great deal of material to examine and analyze in recent years.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to reform the Senate in two main ways. The first limits the tenure of senators to a maximum of nine years for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008. The second allows the provinces and territories to hold elections, at their own expense, to decide the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration for future Senate appointments. The provinces could thus choose any system they liked for electing senators, provided that the system adhered to basic democratic principles.

The Conservatives say the measures they have introduced are intended to modernize the aging institution that is the Senate. For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues on part of what they say: the upper chamber does in fact present major problems, and measures need to be taken to remedy the situation.

However, the solution the NDP has been proposing for several years is quite different. In fact, we are calling for the complete abolition of the Senate. The reasons why we are calling for the abolition of the upper chamber are very simple. First, the institution is not democratic, and it is composed of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister. More often than not, those appointments are partisan and are made to reward friends of the Prime Minister. As well, he sometimes adds insult to injury by appointing candidates, and even ministers, who were rejected by the public in a general election, as we saw after the last election on May 2. The people living in the greater Quebec City region can attest to that as well.

In addition, the Senate is also used for partisan purposes by the government, whether to guarantee the speedy passage of government bills or to kill bills that have actually been approved by the House of Commons. I am thinking in particular of the Climate Change Accountability Act and the bill to provide generic drugs for Africa.

Since 1900, there have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate, and they have all failed. Bill C-7 is no different from all those other failed attempts. It does not solve the problems that already exist in the upper chamber, and on top of that it creates new problems that simply worsen the present situation. First, limiting senators’ tenure to nine years does not make them more accountable to Canadians; quite the contrary. In fact, the bill eliminates any form of accountability to the public, since senators would never have to face the public at the end of their tenure. Once senators were elected, they would never have to account for their decisions, their actions and their broken election promises, because they could never stand in another election. As well, they would be automatically entitled to a pension, regardless of their record.

I cannot see how having the Prime Minister give a senator a nine year non-renewable term increases democracy in the Senate. Nor do the measures proposed by the Conservatives in Bill C-7 prevent partisan appointments. The bill does not really change the way senators are appointed, and the Prime Minister remains entirely responsible for choosing senators. The Prime Minister is not obliged by this bill to select senators from the lists submitted by the provinces or territories, and he can continue to choose whomever he wants and ignore each and every list he receives. He can, therefore, continue to fill the Senate with senators who are loyal to the government rather than to Canadians. This is a major problem.

Canadians elect the members of the House of Commons and place their trust in them to be their voices in Parliament. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, appoints senators, as a reward, and they serve the governing party.

I shall now read a letter written by Senator Bert Brown to the members of the Conservative Senate caucus. It is dated June 15, 2001, which, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates a situation. I am going to read the first and last paragraphs, which I think are the most relevant . The letter reads,“Yesterday, in Senate caucus [the minister] was showered with complaints about Senate elections and a nine year term. ... Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

The message to senators is very clear: their loyalty lies not with the regions that they represent, nor with Canadians; their loyalty is to the Prime Minister. Canadians, too, have heard this message loud and clear.

Another consequence of this bill would be the creation of a two-tiered Senate with elected and unelected senators in the same upper house, which may be worse than what we currently have.

Bill C-7, if passed in its present form, will fundamentally change the nature of Canadian politics as we know it today. We will end up with senators elected at the provincial level who believe that they are more legitimate than the unelected senators. We will then have a Senate with different degrees of legitimacy based on the method by which senators are selected.

However, the most negative effect of this bill will be evident once we have an entirely elected Senate. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Senate currently has more or less the same powers as the House of Commons. However, since senators are unelected, they cannot indefinitely block legislation with financial implications because they have no direct mandate from Canadians but are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Once we have an elected upper house, it will be a whole different story. Senators will have greater legitimacy to introduce bills and block House bills. That could result in American-style impasses pitting two houses of elected representatives with essentially the same decision-making powers against one another in legislative conflicts with no apparent solution.

Ultimately, such impasses will force us to redefine the framework of Parliament, including the rights and responsibilities of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Major changes will require nothing less than a constitutional amendment. There is no other option, because that is the existing legislative framework.

The Conservatives claim that their bill will sidestep a constitutional debate on Senate reform, but I do not see how such a debate can be avoided.

Before passing a bill that will inevitably lead to interminable constitutional debates and discussions, we have to let Canadians weigh in on the issue of the Senate's very existence. All the provinces have done quite well without their upper houses since 1968, so it is high time we thought seriously about getting rid of the federal Senate. That is why, for years, the NDP has been calling for a referendum to find out if Canadians want to get rid of the Senate. Before setting in motion any major reforms of the Senate or abolishing it entirely, we need a clear mandate from Canadians, from the people of this country, and the only way to get a clear, legitimate mandate is to hold a referendum.

The changes that the Conservatives have proposed in Bill C-7 are inadequate and will not solve the Senate-related problems. That is why I oppose this bill. If the Senate cannot be abolished outright, the status quo is better than the constitutional chaos into which the Conservatives apparently wish to lead us. Serious consideration is in order before passing Bill C-7. The government will find itself embroiled in constitutional debates that it would rather avoid. That deserves some thought.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House to present a petition from members of my constituency in Saanich—Gulf Islands.

The petition speaks to an issue that has been raised by a number of other members in petitions this afternoon. It relates to the importance of taking climate action, specifically for achieving targets that we would find referenced in the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the subsequent act that failed in the House in the last session.

The same targets are referenced here in what was at one time Bill C-311. It also references, importantly, the work of the national round table on the environment and the economy. I bring that to the attention of members. The climate change caucus had an excellent presentation from that organization yesterday evening. This petition speaks to its findings as well.

Senate Reform Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

If only we could be so fortunate as to have the government amend the bill so that the Senate would be abolished, then this could be our last time to rise and speak about Senate reform. My NDP colleagues and I believe that the Senate needs to be abolished. Any attempt to reform the Senate would simply be window dressing to this very seriously undemocratic institution. As things currently stand, Bill C-7 introduces ineffective measures that will do nothing to fix the Senate.

What is currently wrong with the Senate? We often describe the Senate as a romantic place of sober second thought. However, we know the Senate is no such a place. Last year, rather than respecting the will of this House, as my colleagues have pointed out, the Senate killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. The bill was passed in the House of Commons and voted for by elected members of this House. The Senate killed it and the government called a snap election.

In the words of our former leader, the hon. Jack Layton:

This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada. To take power that doesn't rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country.

This spring the Senate killed another bill which was very important. Bill C-393 would have made it easier for people in developing countries to obtain more affordable life-saving medicines. It was a bill that would have saved lives. It was voted for by members of this House and killed by an unelected Senate.

To suggest amendments and return a bill to the House is one thing, but to kill a bill in this way, using sneaky tactics, is just plain wrong. It is disrespectful to the decision-making power of this democratically elected House.

Right now the Senate is basically full of political appointments, friends and failed candidates. That is what the Senate is right now. For instance, our Prime Minister appointed to the Senate three failed Conservative candidates from the last federal election. All three failed to win a seat in the election. Canadians decided on May 2 that they did not want to have these people representing them. Yet, here they are; they are in the Senate.

There are a number of things in the bill that do not fix anything at all. For example, the Conservatives make excuses for their appointments saying that they will use them to reform the Senate. This is clearly laughable.

Every day in this House the Conservatives trample on democracy. They ram bills through the House and committees without debate or examination, sometimes without even costing these bills. Then the Conservatives want members to believe that they actually want a more democratic Senate. They do not.

The reforms the Conservatives are proposing in this bill are completely inadequate.

First, under the proposed legislation, the Senate would become a two-tiered system with some elected senators and some unelected senators.

Second, the limit of one nine-year term means that senators, even elected ones, would not be held accountable for their actions in a subsequent democratic race.

Third, because the actual appointment process would not change at all, despite talk of increased democratic accountability, the bill does not actually introduce any check on the Prime Minister in the appointment process. Basically, it could be business as usual.

Fourth, because the bill would do nothing to address the distribution of seats in the Senate, the increase in power of an elected Senate would mean an unbalanced increase in the power in Quebec and Ontario. I come from British Columbia and that is not fair.

Fifth, perhaps the most important intended role of the Senate is its ability to represent women and minority interests. By making it an elected Senate and forcing any candidate that runs to do so under a party banner would only tighten the partisan stranglehold on the legislative process. Parties will drown out minority representation, like we have seen in Australia. There are examples in Australia where this has happened.

Sixth, the introduction of increased democratic legitimacy would give the Senate even more leeway to assert its own decision-making power, which could result in gridlock. We have seen that in the United States. This is counter to the productivity Canadians expect from their government.

There are solutions, and New Democrats and others have proposed them. The best solution to this democratic black hole, that is the Senate, is to basically abolish it. The Conservatives have been wishy-washy in the past and unable to decide what they want when it comes to the Senate. For instance, previous Conservative bills have called for a federally regulated electoral process while another bill called for eight year term limits. We can see clearly that what the Conservatives want is the appearance of reforming the Senate when, in reality, they stack it with their cronies and use it to kill legislation passed by democratically elected members of the House.

Unlike the Conservatives, New Democrats have unwaveringly supported the abolition of the Senate since the 1930s, and many Canadians agree that we need to abolish it and move on from this undemocratically elected institution. At the provincial level, both Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and NDP provincial Premier Darrell Dexter have called for the abolition of the Senate. In my province, Premier Christy Clark has said that the Senate no longer plays a role in Confederation.

We have seen from history that all provincial legislatures have abolished their provincial senates. The last one was done in 1968. Even the Prime Minister himself once said that the unelected Senate is a relic of the 19th century.

Unlike the Conservatives who have not consulted the provinces, New Democrats believe it is the responsibility of the government to consult all Canadians. To that end, New Democrats believe that the issue of Senate reform cannot be solved by this piecemeal bill. The issue of Senate reform needs to be put in a referendum, so Canadians themselves can decide how they want to deal with it.

The majority of Canadians support New Democrats in this proposal as well. There have been a number of polls done and I will mention one that was done in July 2001 by Angus Reid, which said that 71% of Canadians supported having a referendum on this issue.

In closing, I would therefore urge my Conservative colleagues to heed their small c conservative roots. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. It would no doubt completely change the Canadian political system, but to what end we cannot be sure. The best solution to Senate reform is abolition.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak about Bill C-7 today.

The Senate was never originally intended to be a career for the prime minister's cronies. In debate on the bill today, many of my colleagues have brought up great points about the government's Senate reform legislation. They have discussed how the so-called election of senators would still leave Senate appointments up to the Prime Minister as he sees fit. The Prime Minister would be under no obligation to follow voters' wishes or to follow any convention at all.

This is important, because our current Prime Minister has shown no hesitation in ignoring our parliamentary conventions when it suits him politically, and we still have no answer to the question of what is to stop the Prime Minister, or any future prime minister, from ignoring non-binding elections.

Members have also brought up the fact that these optional elections would not go to the root of the matter. They would not make senators any more accountable than they are today. Senators would be appointed to a non-renewable nine-year term and would never have to face the electorate more than once.They would not be accountable for anything they did or did not do while in office.

As well, NDP members have touched on the fact that under Bill C-7, anyone who wants to be a senator would have to be chosen by a political party. This leaves little or no room for independent candidates or committed Canadians who do not have political affiliations. These points about the bill are all very valid, and I thank my fellow NDP members for them.

I would like to especially focus on one basic unavoidable fact, which is that any real reform of the upper chamber would require constitutional change. All members in the House should know that. The government knows it, and anyone who has studied the history of Confederation and of our Constitution in high school knows it. The Prime Minister certainly knows it.

Reforming the Senate would require amending the Constitution with the approval of seven out of 10 provinces representing the majority of Canadians. That means Bill C-7 is nothing but a colossal red herring. It may pass in the House and it may even pass in the Senate, but as soon as it is challenged in court by any province--and provinces are already lining up to mount legal challenges--it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Our high school history students could have told us that.

The Prime Minister thinks he can pass this totally symbolic legislation to finally reform our dysfunctional upper chamber, thereby fulfilling a long-term promise to his supporters, and when it is struck down the very next day, he thinks he will be able to throw up his hands, cry crocodile tears and say he tried, and no one will be the wiser.

However, Canadians are not stupid. Bill C-7 is nothing more than a massive waste of time and a waste of taxpayers' money. The only ones who will benefit from this exercise are constitutional lawyers, who will get rich on the taxpayer's dime arguing both sides in court for years. At the end of the day, no real reform will have been done.

Maybe that would suit our Prime Minister just fine, because, as we all know, he now has majority control of the Senate; 39% of the votes cast for the House gave him over 55% of the seats, and he has 100% control in both houses. He has it because he broke his own long-term promise never to appoint an unelected senator. Do members remember that?

Instead, he has appointed more unelected and unelectable party bagmen, Conservative fundraisers and political insiders to the upper chamber than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. He has traded his purported principles for power. Now the other place does his bidding, so would it really be in his best interests to change that situation?

A stranglehold on the Senate, both in numbers and through the use of the whip, is just another way an unprecedented amount of power has been concentrated in the office and the person of one man. The current Prime Minister has fallen a long way from his touted reform ideals.

I would like to add a personal note. Members in this House will know that I, of all people, have special reason to be unhappy with the Senate. After introducing and shepherding the country's only federal climate change legislation, Bill C-311, through all stages in this House in the last Parliament, the Senate was ordered to kill that important legislation before hearing any witnesses, before studying it in committee, before having full debate, or even any debate, on its merits.

This is the first and only time in Canadian history that a bill was summarily killed by the Senate just like that, when political appointees snuffed out important legislation passed by this elected House without even giving it the consideration it was due.

It is hard for me or for anyone to see how killing legislation before it is even studied can be considered sober second thought, as the purpose of the Senate has been alleged to be. If this continues, the red chamber is in danger of becoming the single best advocate for its own abolition.

However, I am under no illusion that it will be a long time before we abolish or reform that dysfunctional chamber. It is with no disrespect to the people who work in that place that I say the upper chamber is dysfunctional. I have had the pleasure of working with some of the very hard-working and knowledgeable senators, senators who are committed to making Canada better; however, they are constrained by our system itself and by our Prime Minister, as are we in this chamber, which could also use some reforms.

That brings me to my final point. Any true reform of our democratic institutions in this country will take much more than just smokescreens and red herrings.

Unfortunately Bill C-7 distracts everyone from real reforms that could be made today, improvements that would not even require constitutional amendments. I am talking about reforming the way this chamber, and potentially that chamber, is elected. A system of electing either of our chambers by proportional representation would finally make every vote count. There would be no more wasted votes, no more pitting one region of the country against another. More women and more minorities would be elected. A fairer and more accurate reflection of the will of Canadians in our elected Parliament would take place. It would be a real democracy, as practised by the vast majority of our world's elected governments.

However, that is something many politicians here, including government members, are desperate to avoid doing anything about, so they and the Prime Minister will do anything, including distractions like Bill C-7, to turn attention away from much more effective reforms that could be accomplished much more easily. It makes me think that the government is not really interested in changing things in our Senate at all.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who rose before me, I am very proud to speak to this bill, which interests me greatly. We care about our democracy, which is what is at stake here today, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre so eloquently pointed out.

A lot is being said about the purpose of the Senate, and what it seeks to achieve. I was a political science student, so I will take this opportunity to provide an overview of the governing bodies of other nations, particularly the United States. Their experience, as it compares to ours, serves as a justification as to why the Senate must be abolished.

One of the things that the Founding Fathers said about the Senate in the United States was that it was important to have a division in government to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Like us, they have a system where the person with the majority of votes is elected. And yet, we know all too well from our experience here in Canada that there is a percentage of the population that votes for other parties. This is the case in the current Parliament, where 60% of Canadians voted for parties other than the governing party. The principle is, therefore, that with a Senate, the executive—the President, in the case of the United States—and the Supreme Court, it becomes possible to protect against what is known as the tyranny of the majority.

In the United States, they determined that the best way of using the Senate in this instance was to provide regional protection. We are well aware of our history here in Canada and the same principle applies. Essentially, the Senate was created to protect the distinctive features of the regions. Of course, certain provinces are huge, such as Ontario—not necessarily in terms of land mass, but population—contrary to territories or provinces such as Prince Edward Island, which may be smaller, but which, like any other province or territory, are entitled to be democratically protected, in the sense that the opinions of their people are expressed through elected representatives—in an ideal world of course.

The same thing is apparent here. It was true of the United States, where the states, which vary enormously as far as size is concerned—in terms of both population and land mass—each had two senators. And yet the United States learned something far quicker than we did. Unless I am mistaken, it was in the 1950s that the U.S. decided that in order to benefit from this equitable regional representation, and to fulfill the mandate of the Senate, senators had to be elected. The U.S. moved forward by overhauling the constitution, which led to an elected Senate. That was 60 years ago and, of course, we are terrible laggards in this area.

The difference, however, with Canada is that in the United States it was the governors of the states who appointed senators and not the President. The comparison can therefore be drawn with Canada, where the Prime Minister appoints senators, which is very different. How do you achieve regional representation when the Prime Minister of the federal government chooses the senators? It is quite difficult and, in some ways, is a conflict of interest.

So we see that this is the first lesson that has not been learned, and this is something that is still going on today in spite of the intentions of this Prime Minister, who stated that he would never appoint senators. And yet we have people who were defeated in elections who have been appointed to the Senate. This is a huge problem. They are talking about electing senators; they say it will be democratic, that they will respect democracy. It is one thing not to elect senators, but what is worse is to appoint someone whom the public refused to elect. Appointing someone who was not elected is a problem, but it is a more serious problem when the people have said no to those representatives. They have flatly refused to be represented by those individuals, and yet they are appointed nonetheless, and they expect that those individuals will provide the same representation as a person who was elected. That is essentially very illogical logic.

I recall a Liberal member who was just saying that we had a very simplistic position.

I take that as a compliment, because what we are saying is very simple: abolish the Senate. There is nothing complicated about that. There is no point in embarking on debates about very complex bills with huge flaws, like the main flaw that allows the Prime Minister to choose not to appoint elected senators, which is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the nub of this bill. Our position is very simple, and I agree that it is a simplistic proposal, but in the positive sense of the word. It is a solution that will enable us to solve all these problems of patronage and lack of representation, particularly as they relate to the various regions, once and for all.

I also want to talk about a few points that have already been raised by my colleagues, but I want to say more about Bill C-311 in particular, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and other colleagues have addressed, and which deals with climate change. We introduced an opposition motion concerning climate change earlier this week. It refers to the withdrawal from Kyoto and this government's lack of vision in that regard. In fact, this House, by a vote of all parties, had passed a bill that was going to strengthen our principles and our fundamental values in that regard, so we could take concrete action on climate change. But that bill was killed by the Senate. The very problematic thing here is that we are not just talking about a bill passed by the House of Commons, a chamber composed of elected representatives, we are also talking about a bill that many ordinary people worked hard to get passed.

I was an activist at the time myself and I worked hard to communicate with members of Parliament about the importance of that bill, and I was by no means alone. People from all across the country worked to make members of Parliament understand the inherent merits of that bill. The organization was very successful because the House passed the bill. The Senate, unfortunately, disregarding the will of the people entirely and with no justification, killed the bill. That is one of the basic problems that Bill C-7, which we have before us today, is not going to solve. The problem will be solved by abolishing the Senate. It is not complicated.

I am going to make an important connection with a debate we had earlier this week on democratic representation. The connection is important because we are talking about democracy again. I am referring to Bill C-20, which deals with redistributing the seats in this House. We know that the Liberal Party's concern was about the costs that would be incurred. But I spoke on the bill and I raised the same point today. Let us talk about reducing costs and about how to pay for that bill so that we can have more democratically elected representation. I repeat once more: it is not complicated. Let us abolish the Senate; we will save millions of dollars that we can use to pay not only for better representation for all provinces, Quebec included, but representation that will take its place in this elected House.

Since I am running out of time, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Senate was conceived as a way to represent and protect the unique regional features of our country. I can state, specifically as a representative of Quebec, a province that is very aware of the importance of protecting those unique features, such as our language and culture, that I have seen no evidence, especially in recent years, that the Senate is doing its job of protecting that uniqueness. That is one more reason for abolishing it, and one more reason for us, as true elected members of this House, to protect the unique features of our various regions with our actions and our legislation.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about government Bill C-7 on the Senate. For several years, the government has been saying that it wants an elected Senate. If anyone is wondering whether I believe in the Senate, no, I absolutely do not, and I will explain why.

I may have once believed in the Senate but, if I did, I lost that faith. There was a time when I thought that there should be a place for the Senate and a time when I was uncertain, but that is no longer the case. I absolutely do not believe in a Senate appointed by the Prime Minister. For me, that is not democracy. In the past, in other countries, senators were appointed by their prime ministers, but those countries changed their way of doing things to take modern democracy into account. They chose to have elected senators with certain powers. For example, there are countries where the Senate cannot vote on bills related to government spending but, instead, it takes care of bills related to what is happening in communities.

I am looking at our Senate when I refer to an unelected Senate. We are supposed to live in a democratic country. There are various political parties—the NDP, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Canadian Alliance and all the others. They are all legitimate. We have the right to have our parties. Someone at Elections Canada makes sure that all the rules are followed, that everyone has a place and that any eligible person can run for a seat in Parliament. Those running for office campaign for 35 days. There is a huge election campaign. We have to sell ourselves to the public. Who should the people choose to represent them in Ottawa? A democratic, secret vote is held to choose someone—a man or a woman—to represent us in Ottawa, someone who can discuss and vote on bills that will become the laws of our country. These representatives are chosen by the people. That is democracy. It is the people who decide who will represent them, or who their members of Parliament will be. In the end, does it matter that the Prime Minister says that he wants to elect senators—people who are retiring?

Everyone knows that when someone is appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, they are there until the age of 75. The Prime Minister has the power to appoint people to the Senate, but not to remove them, however. A senator may do whatever he or she likes after being appointed. A senator must have done something really inappropriate to be relieved of his or her duties. No one wants to leave; they do not do anything until the age of 75, and there is no problem. That said, I do not want to tar all of the senators with the same brush.

In 2005, when Canadians and Quebeckers decided to elect a minority government, the opposition had the majority in the House of Commons. As has always been the case, if a budget is brought down by a minority government in the House of Commons and if the opposition, which is in the majority, votes against that budget, this means that the government does not have the confidence of the House and, consequently, that government falls and an election is held.

If a budget is brought down by a minority government in the House of Commons and the majority opposition votes against the government's budget, this means that the government does not have the confidence of the House. The government falls and there is an election. That is the rule. That is what protects the elected government, which has the power to trigger an election. That is where confidence is expressed. It is a vote of confidence. Normally, the government has to choose.

That is not, however, what is happening. The House is passing bills and the unelected Senate is voting them down in the other place. The Senate is voting against bills passed by the members elected by the population. I will give you an example.

The NDP introduced Bill C-311 concerning our responsibility with regard to climate change, the Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. Whether we like it or not, the House expressed its opinion in a vote. The elected members voted. I think that all members, be they with the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc or the Conservative Party, should feel offended, even though this is an NDP bill, that the unelected Senate voted to defeat this bill.

Our time here in the House is limited. At some point, there will be other people here. At some point, the Conservatives will no longer be in power and will be in the opposition. I wonder how the Conservatives would feel about the Senate voting against House bills, in a minority government situation, for example, during the time when they had a minority government.

The current Prime Minister himself has said previously that the Senate's job was not to vote against House bills. The House is elected. Members of Parliament are elected by the public.

A few years ago, I sent out a bulk mailing in my riding and asked constituents to respond. It was almost a referendum. I asked people whether they agreed with the Senate, whether senators should be elected, whether the Senate should be abolished or whether it should remain as is. No one wanted the Senate to remain as is. Among those who responded, 85% indicated that they were in favour of abolishing the Senate. It would be interesting to have a referendum on this in Canada. It is great to say that this is part of the Constitution, to hide behind that and to say that, because of the Constitution, we can never change the Senate. The Constitution makes a great place to hide.

However, what would happen if there were a national referendum and the public said it was in favour of abolishing the Senate? If that happened, all of the provinces would have to agree in order to amend the Constitution. Hopefully the provincial premiers and legislatures would honour the decision of Canadians and Quebeckers. We would hope they would recognize that, if the public no longer wants a Senate, it is time to get rid of it once and for all. Why are we spending money on this institution?

The bill that I introduced required Supreme Court justices to be bilingual. The bill was passed in this House. The majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of the bill. The Conservatives consider themselves lucky that the Senate does exist because, had it not, the bill would have been passed and they would now be required to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. That is democracy. Elected representatives should decide. We are the elected representatives—whether Conservative, NDP, Liberal or Bloc. The voters elected us to the House. We were not appointed by the Prime Minister. Conservatives should mull that over. They will not be in power for the next 100 years. At some point, the Conservatives will no longer be in power.

It is not right. It was not right when the Conservatives were in opposition. The current Prime Minister was against the Senate voting down bills passed by the House of Commons. What has changed since he moved from opposition to power? What has caused such a change in him?

The Senate claims that it exists to protect minorities and the regions, but it never has done that.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate about Senate reform, albeit many of my colleagues, including the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, earlier talked about our stated policy.

On questions earlier, the member from Edmonton talked about our being all over the map today. Let me be abundantly clear, and the New Democrats have been clear since the 1930s: we think the Senate should go, just as many other Commonwealth countries that took up the Westminster model decided over the years that their senates would go.

We need not look that far afield. We do not have to look to New Zealand, as my colleague talked about. We just have to drive down the 401 from this place to Toronto. Toronto no longer has a senate for Ontario. In fact, no province in this country has a senate anymore. They are all gone. The last time I checked, Alberta was doing quite well without that senate.

When I talk with my colleagues from Alberta, they say that not only is their economy humming, but with all the things that are happening, it is a great place to be. I was in Camrose two weeks ago and I concur; indeed, Alberta is a great place to be. It is humming along with just a legislative house and no senate. It did not need one. Everything seems to work without a hitch.

It brings me to a vivid thought I have in my mind. If I could hearken back to the days of Premier Lougheed and Premier Klein, I could just imagine Premier Klein saying, “Senate, this is what I need done”, and the Senate saying to the Premier of Alberta, “Wait a minute, Premier Klein, we don't think so”. I can just imagine the constitutional flummox that would have been. I can imagine Ralph standing up in Edmonton saying, “I don't think so”.

What we are saying on this side is that we do not think we should keep the Senate, but we do not think it is up to us. We think it is up to Canadians. Let us let them decide. Let us put it to Canadians and ask them if they think the Senate is a valuable institution for us to keep. It is their institution, although when it was founded, it really was not about them as electors; as my friend from Cole Harbour said, it was the great unwashed, meaning supposedly us as members in the green chamber, and not them in the other place.

Clearly it was the landed gentry who said they needed to have sober second thought, just in case we did something absolutely ridiculous in this House and tried to send it along to Canadians.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues in the House. They do not do things that would be so ridiculous that we would need to send it to an unelected body for sober second thought, because quite clearly, that sober second thought is a myth.

Why do I say that? As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, when it came to Bill C-311 in the last Parliament, in which I had the great privilege to be a member, that legislation on climate change, regardless of what individuals thought in here, was passed democratically, as we would expect this institution to do, and duly presented to the Senate for sober second thought. I will agree with the “sober” part, but I do not think I could agree with the “second thought”, because the senators did not give it a thought at all, not one. They simply said, “Goodbye. We do not want it. We will get rid of it. Done”.

If senators were truly serious about their job, whether they liked the legislation or not, they had an obligation to look at the legislation, call witnesses about the legislation, critique the legislation, and ultimately, if they chose to, deny the legislation. That is their right.

However, to suggest that the Senate is somehow the chamber of sober second thought when the senators would not take the time to consider legislation is a slap in the face to the duly elected members. We are the duly elected members of this country, not the folks in the other place. Their actions did a disservice to their credibility, not individually, but as an institution that says it will take into consideration what the House has passed, take a look at it, investigate it, make a decision on it and, if we in the House agree, make some changes.

That has happened over the years. The Senate has indeed made some changes and sent legislation back to the House for changes. It has happened, but in this case there was no second thought, sober or otherwise.

Ultimately, why do we have such a place? Does it live up to the reputation it supposedly has?

It is interesting to note what Senator Bert Brown said in his letter to his colleagues. Of course, it was not sent to all of the senators, only to those of the Conservative persuasion. That is because the other place has taken on the mantle of a partisan place, and I will speak to what the legislation says on keeping it a partisan place.

In his letter he said, and I quote:

Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

What happened to this place of sober second thought when the loyalty is to a Conservative caucus and to the Prime Minister of that Conservative caucus? What happened to the idea of standing back and reviewing legislation to give it that sober second thought?

In my view, it is not only diminished; it is destroyed by the very words of a senator appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister. Clearly this senator has an understanding of where the intention is to go with this issue.

Regarding politicization in the legislation, the bill says that to run for the Senate one must be a member of a political party in the registered domain of the place one runs in, meaning either a territory or province. In other words, one could not run as an independent senator. It would seem that one would have to join a party in order to run.

We can wax poetic about the folks who are there: the ex-finance bagman of a political party, campaign managers and defeated candidates both Liberal and Conservative. It was used as a reward for those who stood aside to let someone new get a seat in the House or when a change in leadership gave different perspectives under different parties. People were rewarded by being sent to the other place. Now we are going to politicize this place, as much as all of us here know it is political anyway. Maybe the bill is just an admission that it truly is political.

Ultimately, if we are going to say that one must run for a political party to run for the Senate, how do we make those folks accountable?

As members, we are accountable. Under the Canada Elections Act we have to hold an election every five years, although usually it is shorter than that. In the last number of years it has been shorter; sometimes a Parliament lasts only a couple of years. We have to go back to the folks who allowed us to come to this place and ask them if they would like to send us back again. They have the ability to judge us on the things we have done. They can look at our record to decide if they like what we did and then support us, or not, once again.

However, that would not be the case with this group. This group could promise the world during an election, and two things could happen. If the Prime Minister of the day liked the person, he or she would be appointed. If they represented the views of the Prime Minister and his caucus, they would be appointed.

However, we could also make the assumption that one could run and win an election in Alberta but not be appointed. There is no guarantee under the legislation that if elected, one would be appointed. The Prime Minister could simply refuse to make the appointment. One could wait six years and run again and still not get appointed. Therefore, even though the system down the hall in the other place is bad enough unto itself, we would make it worse.

It seems to me that if we want to reform the Senate, we should ask Canadians what they want. We should put it to them as to whether they want the other place. If they say yes, we should ask them what it should look like. We would then truly understand whether Canadians want it.

If the polls are right, more than 70% of Canadians say that the Senate's day has come. The sun has shone, and it is time to retire them all out of the chamber, roll up the proverbial red carpet and wish them all a Merry Christmas and a happy retirement.

That is exactly what we ought to do. We would be happy to help roll the first red carpet up as we let senators go on to whatever it is their lives will be, which is productive, prosperous and happy. We hope they enjoy the rest of their retirement.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, what outraged so many Canadians was how it duly moved through the House, a momentous occasion when it finally passed at all stages. It then went to the upper house, where it should have received sober second thought. There could have been witnesses called. My understanding is no witnesses were called, not a single person was heard. In fact, there was a snap vote. It was done in a way that it was defeated in no time at all. Unfortunately, after all that work, such good legislation, which would have been amazing for the country, was gone with the snap of fingers.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The Senate was created in 1867 to mirror the British House of Lords to serve as a chamber of sober second thought, to provide regional representation, and to act as a check on Parliament. It was made as an appointed body so that it could not stop legislation from the House of Commons. It was to revise and review the legislation. It was also created to recognize the social and economic elite. It was in part created to protect the property interests of the wealthy. There was some concern by our founding fathers that an elected body, the House of Commons, would not do so. Today we know that this is not true.

The Senate is broken and no longer works in the public interest. The House knows it and so do the Canadian people. We need to go beyond simply changing term limits of the Senate. The Senate needs fundamental change.

I became convinced of the need to abolish the Senate after witnessing the vote in the Senate in 2010 that killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill. That bill would have required the federal government to set regulations to establish targets to bring greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to set long-term targets to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The government must take action on climate change. This bill would have been the first step toward setting hard targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has become abundantly clear that the government did not want to deal with one of the most pressing issues of our time, so it arranged for the Senate to do its dirty work.

Bill C-311 passed the House of Commons. The bill passed at committee. The majority of members in the House at that time passed the bill, yet it was killed in the Senate. Let me repeat for clarity. The unelected, unaccountable Senate shut off debate and called a snap vote to kill important legislation passed in the House of Commons.

This was an outrageous move. Canadians were outraged by this move. It was the first time since before the Second World War that the Senate voted down a bill that won the support of the majority of the House of Commons. This move did not get the attention it deserved. It was a fundamental change in the way our democracy operates.

The Conservative government is not known for its transparency and adherence to democratic principles and now it has appointed enough senators to circumvent the democratic process.

Only a short few years ago, before they were in power, the Conservatives had very real concerns about the way the Senate operates. While the Prime Minister was in opposition he claimed that he would never appoint a senator. At that time he considered the Senate to be undemocratic, and the Prime Minister was correct. The Senate is undemocratic. It is why the people of New Zealand abolished the upper house, the legislative council, in 1951.

It is amazing how things change once someone gains power. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they have completely changed their tune and are using the unelected, undemocratic body to push through their legislative agenda.

The Prime Minister has appointed 36 Conservative insiders to the Senate since coming to power. In 2008 he broke a record by appointing 18 people to the upper chamber in just one day. The Senate is now stacked with failed Conservative candidates, party fundraisers and political organizers. Let us not forget that this was the same modus operandi of the federal Liberal Party. It too stacked the Senate with friends and insiders.

A senator earns approximately $132,000 a year. The qualification to become a senator now is to be loyal to the ruling party that appointed him or her.

The Senate costs approximately $90 million a year to run. Taxpayers are paying a large sum for an unaccountable, unelected body in the Senate and for senators to block legislation passed by their elected representatives.

I believe it is time, through a referendum, that Canadians have a say on the future of the Senate. A referendum will open up a dialogue on the system in which far too many Canadians have lost faith. It will allow us to engage the population in an issue that is important to our very democracy.

It is time for an examination of democratic reform. It would show Canadians that we, as their elected House, care about their participation in our political system.

This is the third time the Conservatives have introduced legislation on an unelected Senate and legislation on Senate term limits. Each time the legislation died because of prorogation or dissolution of the House.

The NDP policy calls for abolishing the unelected Senate. It is fairly clear. It is a long-standing call that dates back to the 1930s. This policy has been constantly reaffirmed by the party. We want to maintain our position to abolish the Senate. We call on the government to hold a referendum, asking the Canadian public whether they support abolishing the Senate.

Who else has called for this? Let us look across the country. Both Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter openly have called for the abolishment of the Senate. The premier in my own province, B.C. Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position on Senate abolition, although it does have plans, if this bill should pass, for Senate elections. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional. It has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without consultation of the provinces.

The public supports the idea of a referendum for the Senate, and it is growing. For instance, an Angus Reid survey from July of this year shows that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate. That is up from 25% a year earlier. We can see the momentum is growing. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1990 and all have failed.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether they agree with the content of the bill. When the bill was first introduced in June 2011, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the Prime Minister, pushed back against plans for Senate term limits.

Senators will remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed, by law, to serve one term, senators do not have to face the public or account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions they took in the previous nine years, and they get a pension when they leave office.

Having an elected Senate will fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It will create a two-tier Senate, where those who are elected will feel they have more legitimacy. Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. We could end up with the kind of gridlock we have seen in the United States.

The safest and conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what will happen with an elected Senate.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill entitled “An act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits”.

Although the bill may appear to address one of Canada's most egregious democratic deficits, I am afraid that the approach being taken leaves much to be desired.

Essentially, Bill C-7 restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. Provinces and territories would then be given the opportunity to hold elections at their own expense to determine which names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration, and only consideration.

While on the surface this approach might appear to bring heightened accountability to an unelected institution of the Crown, restricting Senate term limits while holding non-binding Senate elections fails to consider the most logical option for improving Canadian democracy, namely the abolishment of Canada's Senate.

I recall one of my constituents, Craig, telling me that he did not support a triple-E Senate. He supported a single-E Senate, and that single E stands for empty.

Before I get into why New Democrats believe that the Senate has outlived its raison d'être, I would like to highlight some specific criticisms of the bill as it currently has been presented to Parliament.

First, it appears that, as it is currently written, Bill C-7 contains a glaring loophole which would completely undermine the spirit of what the government is proposing. This is because the government is clearly attempting to pass legislation which should require a constitutional amendment and making unclear how much force the bill would actually carry.

For instance, by taking an approach which fails to crystallize the changes in Canada's Constitution, the Prime Minister would not be constitutionally required to appoint anyone elected by the provinces. Therefore, the bill does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed as the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

We have seen previous examples of the Prime Minister acting in contravention of existing democratic reform legislation which has passed through the House. Specifically, I can point to the fixed election date legislation. Why then should Canadians trust that the government would actually abide by the legislation that we have in front of us today? Call me a pessimist, but this is certainly one concern that I have with Bill C-7.

Let me make this clear. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. That brings me to another major concern arising from Bill C-7, which is the inevitable gridlock which would arise from having two separately duly elected Houses of Parliament.

Since the Senate would have virtually the same powers as the House under Bill C-7, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. On the surface this seems like a good idea. However, when we dig deeper into those proposals, it would illicit the real fear that we could end up with the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S., something which no Canadian wants to see our Parliament descend into.

This brings me to my final point that the best approach to take in order to reduce Canada's democratic deficit is the complete abolishment of the Senate. Personally, I am of the belief that when it comes to the Senate, Canadians do not need it. It is expensive. It has been packed with party insiders and we cannot trust what the leaders are going to do with the Senate.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed in the House of Commons, twice killing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act and, this spring, killing Bill C-393, a very important bill which would have facilitated the movement of generic antiviral drugs to Africa to help people living with HIV-AIDS.

These pieces of legislation, supported by wide swaths of the Canadian public, were killed by the Prime Minister's appointed senators in the Senate with no sober second thought. How can we have sober second thought when we have a bunch of Conservative Party organizers and fundraisers with obvious conflicts of interest? It makes a mockery of our democratic system.

As I noted earlier, even should the bill pass during the 41st Parliament, there is no guarantee that the government would actually abide by the rules it has put in place. Thus, we could end up with a patchwork Senate filled with a mix of elected and unelected senators.

I will put forward a hypothetical situation. What if the government refuses to appoint a senator who has been elected by residents of a province because it disagrees with the party banner under which that senator was elected? After all, the prime minister would not be constitutionally obliged to actually appoint them to the Senate. That is why I firmly believe the safest and most obviously beneficial approach to the Senate is to abolish it.

I will conclude my statement today by drawing attention to what the provinces, our partners in Confederation, have been saying about the Senate, both in terms of the status quo and the proposals in front of us. Both the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, and the Nova Scotia premier, Darrel Dexter, have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The B.C. premier, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation, while Manitoba maintains its position of eliminating the Senate. Even more worrisome is that Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if this bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

Why, then, is the government moving ahead with a plan that is not supported by the federal government's partners in Confederation? It seems that without the full support of the provinces this proposal will merely be a paper tiger dressed up as a solution to bring Canada's democracy into the 21st century.

What happens if certain provinces refuse to participate in the system? Citizens of those provinces would certainly be shortchanged. Even more dire is the thought that this bill would lead to a constitutional crisis with multiple provinces taking action at the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation. Without proper provincial consultation, which I fear has not taken place, this is an inevitability and something that should be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I ask that the government reconsider its position on the bill until such a time as the provinces are properly consulted and sign on to these proposals.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The NDP's position was clearly stated at the beginning of this debate. Since 1930, we have been in favour of abolishing the upper chamber for various reasons. This is a position that I believe is unanimous in New Democrat circles and that periodically comes up and is always reaffirmed at our conventions and meetings.

There are specific reasons for that, but first I would like to mention that we are not the only ones. The provinces are also in favour of flat out abolishing the Senate. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba have clearly spoken out in favour of doing so. With respect to Bill C-7 in particular, we know that Quebec has already looked into the possibility of contesting its constitutional validity in court.

What we have in front of us now could be considered a partial reform. It is not real reform of the Senate, but rather a modification of certain aspects. For example, the aspect that has to do with Senate terms. Right now, senators are appointed to the age of 75 or until the death of the senator, and that term would be reduced to nine years. Although the NDP is unanimously in favour of abolishing the Senate, there are some differences of opinion on the Conservative side, particularly among Conservative senators who have already shown some reservations about limits to their terms. Those senators were appointed recently. All members are aware that since the Conservatives took power in 2006 they have appointed 27 Conservative senators, which has given the Conservative Party a majority in the Senate.

We could talk about what the Liberals did before, and we may or may not agree with them. The fact remains that when there was a Liberal government, it was still possible that a non-Liberal senator would be appointed. That was the case in the past. The Liberals even appointed an NDP senator. Unfortunately, we asked her to give up her NDP designation because we do not support the Senate and are proposing that it be abolished. At least former Liberal governments provided some balance. But we are not seeing that same kind of balance with the Conservative government.

We talk a lot about the Senate being a chamber of sober second thought, a place where a different kind of reflection takes place, in comparison to the House of Commons. The members of the House of Commons know that all provincial senates have been abolished. No province has had a Senate since 1968. As far as I know, there have been no significant issues with passing laws at the provincial level since that time. Provinces do not have senates and, to be honest, they do not seem to be missing them. No provinces are requesting or calling for a provincial upper chamber. In looking at the provincial situation, I think that the NDP's position on the Senate is completely legitimate and is far from the Conservative position of wanting to keep the Senate. However, the Conservatives want to reform it. It is interesting to see how the Conservative opinion on the Senate has evolved.

There has been much talk—particularly during the era of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance—of the need for a triple–E Senate. Such a Senate, by its very nature and essence, would bear a much closer resemblance to the U.S. Senate as we know it, and that creates a few problems. If the bill were adopted as it stands, similar problems would arise. I will come back to the U.S. model, but I would first like to discuss two specific problems with the bill and the manner in which it provides for the election of senators at the provincial level, who would then be appointed by the Prime Minister.

The first problem has to do with legitimacy. If the provinces have no consistent process for the election of senators—and since the term being used is plebiscite rather than election—it would create a situation whereby, in certain provinces, no senators would be elected or selected in this way. That raises a problem of legitimacy. Those senators elected under one process might believe—and this would undoubtedly be the case—that they have greater legitimacy than those who are simply appointed by the Prime Minister without being subject to the procedure established by the provinces.

That would be problematic since the members of the Senate would not share the same understanding of the institution.

The second problem—and this is where the U.S. example is relevant—is that the Senate currently wishes to be perceived, if it does serve a purpose, as a place for sober second thought in response to bills adopted by the House of Commons. This sober second thought theoretically serves as a counterbalance to an overly populist reaction in the House and is intended to please a certain segment of the electorate without necessarily improving in any way on what the bill proposes.

In its current form—and I think that this has been evident over the last five years during which 27 new Conservative senators were appointed—there is no longer any sober second thought. The Senate no longer plays this role. The Senate, just like the House, polarizes political debate. I believe that the debate and political discourse in the House since 2006 have been much more polarized than in any previous era or decade. That is how things look nowadays in the Senate.

The Senate was intended to be a forum in which senators could adequately reflect upon the impact that bills may have on various facets of Canadian and Quebec society. The Senate no longer plays this role. Two bills have demonstrated this, including one we thought was particularly important. I refer to Bill C-311 on climate change and the establishment of clear standards and targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The House of Commons and its committees held several debates. It was not the first time this bill had been introduced. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Canada honoured its international commitments. After a number of attempts, the House of Commons finally adopted the bill. The unelected Senate, however, simply opposed the will of the House of Commons, in other words, the elected representatives of the Quebec and Canadian public. The objective was to polarize rather than to be effective. The Conservative government did not condemn this action as it should have, and undoubtedly would have, had a Liberal-dominated Senate stood in the way of one of its bills. When this occurred in the past, Conservative members led the charge in condemning the abuse of power of an unelected chamber pitting itself against the House of Commons.

My colleague from Winnipeg North raised the question: do Canadians and Quebeckers still want a Senate? It is an interesting and very relevant question, in my opinion. I propose therefore, as have a number of my colleagues, to ask Canadians and Quebeckers if they still want a Senate, and whether they believe the upper house still fulfils its role. Quite recently, in July, a poll was taken across Canada to determine whether Canadians wanted to vote on the existence of the Senate. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians, including Quebeckers, want a referendum in which they can vote on the issue. It is high time that we had this debate. In the same poll, 36 % of Canadians were in favour of abolishing the Senate. This is a significant increase compared to the previous year. It reflects public discontent with the role the Senate has played in recent years and the partisan appointments made by the Prime Minister.

Experience has clearly shown us that abolishing the provincial senates did not drastically affect how the provinces operate. In fact, a number of experts and constitutional jurists would say without a doubt that this perhaps even made it easier for the provinces, because there was no longer an unelected chamber able to interfere and undermine the will of publicly elected representatives. There is not a single province that would revisit the past and choose to bring back an unelected chamber.

We must be very careful about the Senate's mandate and about the direction we are currently taking to avoid having what we see in the United States. The suggestion was made by our colleague from the third party, and had already been made by the NDP. Let us have a real debate, let us include the Canadian public and let us have a referendum on this subject. Our position is clear: we are and will always be in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia is a tough act to follow. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He was flying.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7.

If I understand correctly, what is being proposed seems to me to be an improvement on what we have now. For example, they are proposing that the law limit the terms of all senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. In my opinion, that limit is not a bad thing. As well, the provinces and territories would have the option of choosing to hold elections at their own expense to determine what names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. We are not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world we would have the following. What the government has proposed is not a perfect world. In a perfect world we would have senators appointed for a limited period of time. They would be non-partisan and they would not represent specific political parties or be appointed as a reward for their services to a party. They would be distinguished people from most segments of society, such as first nations, business, labour leaders, the social sector, students.

In a perfect world a group of non-partisan people, an impartial board, would select individuals. If we were to do this, then in this perfect world we could have a chamber of sober thought consisting of respected people who would look at the work we do here and certainly not meet with the caucus of the governing party of the day, but, as the previous member said, be truly non-partial.

When we on this side speak out against what goes on in the Senate or what is proposed, we are not criticizing many of the honourable senators in the Senate. For example, I am pleased to see my former boss and friend from Yukon, Danny Lang, there and he is working hard. There are other folks like Hugh Segal, who has been championing poverty issues and rural poverty for many years. I certainly respect the work he and many of his colleagues do.

Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and it is an illusion or dream to think that we somehow could have in our democratic country a group of people, wise elders of our society, who would sit down and reflect upon what needs to happen and give its impartial advice. However, as my colleague from London—Fanshawe earlier said, it is not a reality and there is a contrast between what happens in the Senate, with its expenses, and all the effort that goes into maintaining that antiquated body.

If the Senate did not exist, we could inject more funding toward assisting people who are unemployed, the percentage of workers who do not have access to employment insurance. Many of us met with students in the last couple of weeks and know that, for example, the average student debt in British Columbia upon completion of university is $27,000 and tuition fees are rising. Yet other countries have made it a priority to have free tuition and health care and have strong economic engines, countries like Sweden.

In previous Parliaments I have been in since I was elected in 2006, there was actually a fair amount of debate on various bills and a fair number of witnesses would be brought to committees. There was much scrutiny, unlike now, when there is limited debate and closure on a number of important bills. Even after that time, when these bills would go to the Senate, under the direction of the current Prime Minister and his ideologically-driven government, they would be killed and often senators were told there would be no further debate whatsoever.

There was the climate change accountability act in the previous Parliament, Bill C-311, and the bill on generic drugs. For all the people watching this debate, a bill to help people suffering from AIDS so we could finally eradicate this devastating disease and take up the work done by Stephen Lewis and his foundation was before Parliament. Groups like the Grandmothers for Grandmothers, which I met with in Nelson a couple of weeks ago, is raising money to assist grandmothers in Africa who are raising children. There are millions of orphans due to this devastating disease. Parliament had a chance to pass that bill and, in fact, did so.

What happened? The Senate limited debate and stopped it. As a result, we do not yet have a policy to assist those suffering with AIDS by having cheap generic drugs available. This is truly a shame.

Then we had the act to kill the Wheat Board rammed through Parliament by the Conservatives without any democratic vote by farmers, the people who are part of the Wheat Board. There was limited debate in Parliament with no economic analysis, no in-depth study and a limited number of witnesses. Now this bill will go the Senate. If there were an impartial Senate, if the Senate, in an ideal world, were made up of wise people from different segments of society, they would look at the bill, bring in witnesses and say that maybe Parliament has not done what it should have been doing. They would then send it back to us and tell us to get back to work and fix this or abolish it, because that is not the will of the people that the House of Commons has reflected.

Then there is the crime omnibus bill that we are all faced with now that has also been rammed down our throats. At a time when crime rates are going down, we will be putting more people in prison and, not only that, the provinces will be bearing the costs of the bill. Even American conservatives are turning away from putting people into prisons. They are saying that it is not cost-effective and that maybe they should be doing more prevention and more rehabilitation. At the same time, we are going against all of the evidence and the Conservatives are not even listening to their conservative friends in the United States or the Canadian Bar Association and judges.

Even though most of Canadian society and the provinces have asked us what we are doing, the bill has been rammed through by the government. Once again, if we were to have a Senate that truly represented Canadian society in an impartial way, it would tell the Prime Minister to take his time here, that this does not need to be rushed through.

We need to hear more witnesses and actually listen to what the Canadian Bar Association is saying. We need to listen to our provincial colleagues who say that the cost is a bit too much and that they cannot really afford it. We need to listen to the Canadian public and then, in an ideal world, the bill would be brought back here and we would be told to do something about it that truly reflects the values of Canadian society and not the ideology that the government is presenting to us in this Parliament.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am really that proud to rise today on the debate of Senate reform because we are not getting Senate reform at all. We are getting Senate stay as it is with a few changes behind the cloak and dagger of what is perceived as Senate reform.

Let me get this straight for the people watching. Only the Conservatives can come up with this. We are going to make the provinces pay for elections. By the way, 40% of people do not vote in a federal election now. I cannot imagine the percentage of people who would love to vote in a Senate election.

Let me get this straight. We would get wonderful people, put their names forward for a Senate election and make the provinces pay for it. For example, if Mr. Smith was elected to be the senator from Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister could say, “No. We don't like that Mr. Smith, the elected person from Nova Scotia. We'll pick someone else.”

Folks will have to help me out with this because I really am missing the so-called democratic reform of this one. If one is going to pick someone else, do it in the first place. It is already being done. Why go to the waste of a sham of a so-called election?

The reality is that every single one of the people in the other chamber is a decent person. I think of Senator Dallaire, Senator Mahovlich, Senator Lang, Senator Meighen and Senator Baker. There are all kinds of them. They are really decent, hard-working, honest people. The premise of the chamber, the so-called chamber of sober second thought--mind, that is not completely gone--is that senators are supposed to peer review legislation that comes from the elected House to ensure that it meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of Canada.

In theory, that actually sounds pretty good. We select learned people from around the country to go into the Senate. These are people with life experience in a variety of fields. We use their expertise to peer review our legislation. Then, because they do not have a constituency, per se, they can report on issues facing the country. For example, the Kirby report on mental health was quite good. However, we have to ask ourselves, do we need a publicly funded Senate to produce a report like that? There are probably a lot of private entities out there that may have been able to produce the same report. Senator Kirby also did the 1982 report on the east coast fisheries, and that did not go very well. There is good and bad in both of those reports.

Having said that, they get to peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons. But do they peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons? No, they do not. A classic example is Bill C-311 in a previous Parliament. I am looking at some of my colleagues who were here. It passed the democratically elected House of Commons, went through the committee stage, went through third reading and passed, not once, but twice. Bill C-311 then went to the Senate, where it was supposed to be reviewed, but Bill C-311, the environmental bill from the NDP, did not even get to first base. It did not even get to the clubhouse. It did not even get to the parking lot. Some senators stood and said no. There were no witnesses, no discussion, nothing and the Conservative senators absolutely killed it.

If constituents of Canada vote, they take democracy seriously. We have to ask ourselves, where was the democracy in that? I can guarantee that if that happened to a Conservative bill and New Democrat senators killed it, the Conservatives would be screaming from the rafters. They would be doing what Randy White did, with the mariachi band, in 1995 or 1996, standing in front of the Senate, doing a Mexican salsa. I remember those days very well, how they ridiculed the Senate because a certain Mr. Thompson spent most of his time in Mexico.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking to the Senate reform bill.

First, let me say that I am very disappointed that the government has put up no speakers. I wonder just how important this bill is to the Conservatives if they have nothing to say.

As members know, New Democrats have long advocated for abolishing the Senate. This has been our position since the 1930s. Very recent polling shows that Canadians are open to having a closer examination of the value of the Senate in the 21st century and that we should carefully look at Senate abolition because it is achievable and it is a balanced solution.

The NDP believes that the Senate is a 19th century institution, an anachronism that is unnecessary in a modern 21st century democracy like Canada's. Senators only sit 90 days of the year and they cost taxpayers over $90 million annually. The Muskoka minister's $50 million pales in comparison. Democracies such as Denmark and New Zealand have long since eliminated their outdated senates. This decision was also undertaken many years ago by our own provincial governments. There are many who support the NDP position, including the premiers of several provinces.

For example, the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, stated in May of this year:

I support abolishing the Senate. I don't think the Senate plays a useful role. I think that they've outlived their usefulness to our country.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty echoed Ms. Clark's comments:

We think the simplest thing to do is abolish it, and I think, frankly, to reform it in any substantive way is just not possible. We have one elected accountable body that sits in Ottawa for us in the House of Commons. I just don't think we need a second, unelected, unaccountable body.

Even Conservative-friendly premiers condemn the Prime Minister's recent patronage appointments.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said, “It takes away momentum for change at the provincial level and it will probably increase calls that we hear from time to time saying, 'Do we really need this institution?'”

The Senate has become a repository of failed candidates, party fundraisers and professional organizers. These taxpayer subsidized Conservative senators even torpedo legislation passed by the elected members of Parliament. We are talking about bills passed by elected and accountable members of Parliament, such as the late Jack Layton's private member's bill to ensure action on climate change. Also, there was the member for Ottawa Centre's private member's bill to provide affordable AIDS drugs to those suffering in Africa. Both bills were killed by the Senate.

Both of these bills were extremely important and valuable not only to Canadians, but to people around the world. These bills were an opportunity for Canada to shine on the international stage, but the unelected Senate trashed them and left Canadians wondering what on earth has happened to our democracy.

New Democrats would like to abolish the Senate.

In addition to what has already been discussed, this bill has some other problems. It restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008 to a single, non-renewable nine-year term. Senators would never have to be accountable for campaign promises they made because they would not have to keep them, or for any of the actions that they had taken while in office.

Provinces and territories are given the opportunity to hold elections if they choose. These elections are at the cost of the provinces. The prime minister can then decide if she or he wishes to appoint the senators, but there is absolutely nothing holding the prime minister to appointing anyone who has been elected.

Several provinces have indicated that they have no intention of holding Senate elections. The Province of Quebec has been perfectly clear and called the legislation unconstitutional and said Quebec will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

The Conservatives and the Liberals seem intent on maintaining an antiquated institution that they have increasingly used for partisan purposes.

New Democrats understand that the Senate is unnecessary and does not serve to further our democracy in any way at all. We will continue our call for a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. In the meantime, we will work hard to expose the dangers that the Conservative agenda on Senate reform pose to the very fabric of our democracy.

Six years ago when the Prime Minister was opposition leader, he knew there was something wrong with an unelected Senate. He thought it was unfair. He called it undemocratic. He also said an appointed Senate, a relic of the 19th century, was what we had. He did not like how the prime minister holds a virtual free hand in the selection of senators. He promised that if he ever got the chance to be the prime minister, he would not name appointed people to the Senate. He insisted that anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people he or she represents.

However, the Prime Minister has turned his back on those democratic principles. Instead of solving the problem, he is becoming the problem. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the most significant number of senators in one day. Who are his appointees? The Conservative Party faithful: spin doctors, fundraisers, bagmen, insiders, people such as his former press secretary, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director through two elections, and let us not forget the several defeated Conservative candidates who were rejected by the voters.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise to do politics differently. Not only does he play the same old politics, he plays them better than anyone else, and I mean that in a very negative way.

Last fall the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation the Prime Minister simply did not like.

The climate change accountability bill was Canada's only federal climate change legislation. It passed twice in a minority parliament. It was good, solid legislation supported by a majority of elected MPs, legislation embodying the direction Canadians want to take. On November 16, 2010, the Senate defeated Bill C-311 at second reading. There was no committee review or witness hearings. Canada's only legislative effort to fight climate change was gone, killed by the unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Now unelected Senators seem poised to do the same thing to the NDP labour critic's bill requiring Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages. Former Bill C-232 was duly passed by elected MPs in the previous Parliament, and is now Bill C-208.

Just because someone flipped pancakes for the Conservative Party of Canada does not give that individual the right to override the wishes of elected MPs.

Too often today's Senate is doing partisan work for public money. Speaking of money, Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with a slow economic recovery, and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks.

Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $90 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs and trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out, or scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,300 a year for a three-day work week. Add in travel and expenses and each senator is costing us about $859,000 a year, all for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that do matter to people, such as creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building decent futures for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders just is not high on my or anyone's list.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, as elected members, have a duty to be accountable, but members of the archaic Senate do not have this moral duty.

This relic is a home for numerous defeated politicians who are appointed for partisan purposes, which was the case for some Conservatives who lost the election and were still rewarded by the Prime Minister. I am not the first person to use the word “relic”. In fact, the Prime Minister himself described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. Now that he is no longer talking about abolishing it, as he used to do, he wants to reform it based on equally outdated values. Why not donate this relic to the Museum of Civilization?

You do not have to be able to predict the future to know that this bill will fail, as did the 13 other attempts at reform before it. The NDP's long-standing belief in abolishing the Senate dates back to the 1930s, and it has constantly been reaffirmed by the party. Yes, the New Democratic Party will vote against the bill and will voice its desire to abolish the Senate, pure and simple. If the government is wondering about the public's opinion on this, we invite it to ask Canadians to voice their opinion through a referendum.

Here is why this bill is going to end up in the dustbin of history. It is undemocratic. The government wants to limit the tenure of all senators summoned after October 14, 2008 to a maximum of nine years. Considering that these individuals are accountable only to the Prime Minister, this is an invitation to hit and run. Moreover, they are entitled to a pension when they leave the Senate. While elected members must face voters at each election to get their verdict, senators are free to completely reject the opinion of Canadians.

The nine-year term set out in the bill confirms this situation, because even if senators were appointed after being elected, they would have the luxury of behaving as they please, without any obligation to go back before voters. The term “election” thus becomes devoid of any moral compass that is part of democratic duty. Since senators will not be allowed to run twice, how can they be accountable to the public? In this regard, the bill does not change anything in the undemocratic basis of the Senate, whose members are accountable only to the Prime Minister. A senator will only be accountable to the Prime Minister, as has always been the case. The bill only provides that a list be submitted to the Prime Minister. It does not in any way affect his discretionary powers.

Some may argue that the Prime Minister will never dare oppose the public's choice, but recent history has shown that the Prime Minister can violate this principle, as he did on the issue of fixed election dates.

I am going to digress a bit and talk about my thoughts while listening to hon. members and what the majority of people think of the Senate. To most people, the Senate is not a big concern. Except for the fact that it costs a lot of money, people do not wake up in the morning thinking about the Senate. For years, I too did not think about those individuals sitting over there and quietly passing the time while waiting for a well-deserved retirement. I did not think about the Senate until Ms. Verner was appointed there. To me, that was a fundamental violation of the democratic process. Someone who had lost all authority through a democratic process was promoted to the Senate with a golden pension for the rest of her life, this for services rendered to the Conservative government. There is a problem there.

There is a second problem. The Senate blocked two bills passed by a majority of members in a Parliament that required the agreement of all parties in order to make a firm decision. I am referring to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, which the Senate killed, and Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

In addition to posing a problem of legitimacy, the people appointed to the Senate have begun to kill bills duly passed by a democratically elected assembly. This is starting to get serious. Do we want to continue down that road? The Conservative government is going down a path that is fraught with danger for the future and for democracy.

It has been said the Prime Minister will take into consideration the provincial nominees or the list submitted when elections are held. I am the first to doubt this, and I am convinced that my colleagues and my friends in the NDP and other parties also have serious doubts about that.

Let us imagine for a moment that cross-Canada elections are held for senators. The list of new senators includes Amir Khadr, a symbol of the new Quebec left. This man is a leading light. His views could lead to social progress in Canada. Would the Prime Minister agree to appoint him to the Senate? Never, that is clear.

François Saillant, a champion of Quebec's homeless people, has been involved in every fight to increase social housing in the past 25 years. Would the Prime Minister appoint him if he were on the list? Never.

If Steven Guilbeault were on the list submitted by Canadians, would he be appointed as a senator by the Prime Minister? Of course not. I am convinced that members of the Green Party share my belief. Steven Guilbeault would never be appointed, nor would Laure Waridel of the organization Équiterre. The government does not want supporters of fair trade. We know that trade is unfair in the House. We have to leave it alone.

Would David Suzuki be appointed if he were on the list? I am convinced that the Conservatives would not want to appoint David Suzuki to the Senate.

Would astrophysicist Hubert Reeves be appointed? Would the Prime Minister appoint an astrophysicist, when this party denies scientific facts and scientific actions? Never.

Vivian Labrie founded the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, which fights to try to get the government to take the reality facing those most in need into account when making decisions. It fights to prevent decisions that will affect the poorest one-fifth of the population. Would this government appoint Ms. Labrie to the Senate? Never.

So this shatters the illusion and the fantasy that the Prime Minister would definitely appoint all of the senators proposed. That is not true. I would like to come back to my speech, which does not necessarily address that, but this raises a question. Basically, is it not dishonest to claim such things, when we all know the political stripes of the people appointed to the Senate?

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected by a province or territory. This bill therefore does not change how senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister is still free to choose whomever he wants to appoint to the position of senator. How can anyone believe that he will respect the democratic will of the people? He clearly does not understand the notion of democratic accountability. The Conservatives say that the provinces would be able to choose any system they like to elect senators, as long as the system complies with basic democratic principles. The facts show that this government knows very little about basic democratic rules. We cannot help but be cynical, since the government acts as though it was elected by 100% of the population when, clearly, that is not the case.

Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government said that it would go to court if this bill were passed without prior consultation with the provinces. What do the Conservatives want to do, reopen a constitutional debate? What a great way to be put through the wringer.

In closing, I wish I could find the words that would bring this government back to its senses and make it see that this issue must be resolved by the people.

We invite the government to hold a referendum if it is certain about the reform it wants to propose. I remain convinced that all Canadians would like to do away with this relic and relegate the Senate to the Canadian history museum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his eloquence in discussing what we believe are the concerns with the Senate.

I have always believed that the Senate has two roles in life. One is to peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons and, because senators do not have a constituency per se, to carry out in-depth studies facing the challenges of our society. For example, the Michael Kirby report on mental health was very good. I thought it was well done.

However, that is not what the Senate has been doing for the longest time. It rubber stamps legislation from the government. Bill C-311 the environmental bill, was passed by this House of Commons and the appointed, unelected Senate, without one witness, killed the bill without a word of debate. After all the work that the elected members of Parliament did to get it through this House and the years it took, for a bunch of unelected, unaccountable people to kill it is not democracy.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on the fact that this is what unelected, unaccountable people can do to override the wishes of the majority of the members of Parliament representing the majority of Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition and the good people of Vancouver Kingsway regarding C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

Before I proceed, for Canadians watching, I am one of the men that has a moustache in honour of movember, which is a time when we remember the very real effects of prostate cancer and encourage men across the country to not only get checked but to raise funds to help defeat this disease that has not only taken the lives of many men, but is something that afflicted the past leader of the NDP, the Hon. Jack Layton.

When we talk about the Senate, it conjures up a number of concepts in the minds of most Canadians. Unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, political patronage and elitist are words that have been cemented in the minds of Canadians whenever they think of the Senate of Canada.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers that are unelected. Modern democratic nations do not have representational chambers that are regionally imbalanced and unequal, with the principle of representation by population being completely ignored and frozen in a time two centuries past. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where a ruling head of state hand-picks legislators who are the head's fundraisers, failed candidates and partisan supporters.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where people are appointed for life or until they are 75 years old, while the people who senators supposedly represent have no means to remove them. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where the members spend their time campaigning for the ruling party on the public dime on the taxpayer-funded purse. They do not have chambers where unelected, patronage appointed members block legislation passed by a democratically elected chamber.

Modern democracies do not have chambers that restrict membership to those who own property, in the case of Canada $4,000 in land, and are closed to Canadians who do not. In fact, that is why Canada stands almost alone in the world among modern democratic nations with an anachronism from the past, a sordid past, a shameful history and a dubious future. That is why every province in Canada that had such a body abolished it in 1968.

I want to mention a few facts about the issue of abolishing the Senate.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The premier of my province, British Columbia, Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position of Senate abolition, although it has plans in place for the contingency that Senate elections are required should this bill be passed. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of provinces, which have not occurred to date. So far the bill is opposed by premiers of provinces representing the vast majority of Canadians.

In terms of what Canadians think, public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from July, just some months ago, showed 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate. Members of the Conservative government stand in the House virtually every day and say that they have received a strong mandate from the Canadian public. They received 39% of the vote in the last election and 61% of Canadians did not support them. They consider 39% of the Canadian public to be a strong mandate. I hope members of the Conservative government recognize that when 71% of Canadians support a referendum on the Senate that is an even stronger mandate.

Thirty-six per cent of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate right now and that is without any kind of public education campaign or national discourse or dialogue, which I am sure would elevate that number to well over 50% very quickly. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1900 and all of them have failed.

I want to outline what the bill would do.

The bill would restrict all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. It purports to give provinces and territories the opportunity to choose to hold elections at their cost and to determine which names will be submitted to the Prime Minister for his consideration. The bill clearly states that the Prime Minister is not required to appoint anyone so-called elected by the provinces. The bill would not make it mandatory that the Prime Minister would appoint a person so elected. In other words, it does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed, which is that the Prime Minister is free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

Bill C-7 appears from the outset to be a rather vague and once again confused legislation, which is clumsily attempting to pursue a number of objectives without any clear focus. The reforms outlined in the bill continue the undemocratic nature of the Senate and do not provide, in any way, what Canada needs as a modern democratic nation.

I will go through some of the major flaws in the bill.

When I said that the government had been a little bit confused, previous Conservative bills called for federally-regulated electoral processes. This one calls for provincially-regulated electoral processes. Another bill the Conservatives tabled called for eight-year term limits. This one has nine-year term limits.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether they agree with the content of the bill. When the bill was first introduced in June, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the current Prime Minister, pushed back against any plans for Senate term limits, even those who were supposedly appointed after giving their word that they would respect term limits.

The bill would retain the fundamental flaw that senators would remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed to serve one term, senators would never have to face the public to account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions that they took in the previous nine years. Then they would get a pension for life after they left office. So much for fiscal accountability from the Conservatives.

Having an elected Senate would fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It would create a two-tier Senate where those who were elected likely would feel that they would have more legitimacy. Later in my speech I will talk more about where we run into conflicts with the role and authority of the provinces to speak on behalf of the people in those provinces versus the senators.

Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would give greater legitimacy for the Senate to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent from the House of Commons. We very well could end up with the same kind of gridlock that we see in the United States, and I will talk about that in a few minutes as well.

The safest, the most conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate.

Let us reflect on the history and role of the Senate which originated in the British parliamentary system as the House of Lords. For hundreds of years the so-called upper chamber has been a symbol of nobility and power in place to prevent the commoners in the lower house from affecting the privileged lives of those who enjoy more than their fair share of the product of the nation. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has described the Senate as “a relic of the 19th century”, echoing my view that its presence continues to give merit to an outdated concept.

During the last election, Jack Layton said that something had changed with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister used to talk about being democratically accountable. He used to talk about things like the Senate being something that had no business opposing or blocking legislation from the House of Commons, where senators who were appointed had no business being patronage appointments.

The Prime Minister has stuffed the Senate with his political friends and with failed candidates. He either allowed or required the unelected senators to block environmental legislation passed democratically in the House of Commons after three readings. It is funny how things change when someone is in power.

The bill would do nothing to address the wider issues around the Senate, that its relevance and role comes from a shameful past of elitism and distrust of the ability of the common people to govern themselves. How else do we explain a requirement that to hold a Senate seat, one must own land? What does that say in 2011, in modern Canada, to all the millions of Canadians who rent or who do not own land? Is it that they are not fit to pass legislation in the Senate of our country? The government does nothing to change that rule.

I said that these reforms were not what Canada needs. This is an important message which must be conveyed to Canadians across the country. We have a tendency in this modern era to hear the word “reform” and automatically assume that this must be a good thing, something that we should greet with open arms. However, just because something represents reform does not necessarily make it good reform. Bill C-7 is not good reform. It represents reform that will make Canada's democracy far less efficient, much less predictable and is much more radical than the government will admit.

By describing the bill as radical, the government has presented it as an evolution of our democratic principles. However, the truth is these reforms would dramatically change the way in which our Parliament operates.

Bill C-7 is being discussed as simply a method of increasing democratic legitimacy in our system, but in reality it would not do that. In fact, it risks imperilling the very democratic premise it purports to improve. It would result in a complete change in the way our Parliament operates, with a significantly stronger and more active upper chamber. This will undoubtedly create challenges, some of which will undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

By electing the Senate as well as the House of Commons, we will create two parliamentary bodies that both may claim to have a mandate to govern. This is a very dangerous situation for Canada to be in. Parliament would lose the clarity that it currently has regarding where ultimate authority lies, in the democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons.

The importance of clarity in this area is illustrated by events from the last Parliament when my NDP colleague tabled Bill C-311, which was a climate change accountability act. The bill went through all three readings in debate in the House of Commons, went through democratic votes and passed. The bill was then referred to the Senate where the Conservative majority in the Senate, who are not elected by anybody, who are not accountable to anybody, who sit in that chamber for $135,000 a year until they are 75 years of age, voted to kill that legislation. That is not democratic; it is autocratic.

The 2006 Conservative Party platform stated that, “An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century”. What kind of hypocrisy is that? The Conservative Party went to the people of the country five years ago and said that its position was the Senate, which is unelected, should not block any parliamentary legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons. Five years later the government caused its Conservative senators to do exactly that. That is not undemocratic. That is hypocritical and unethical. It was a lie and that is wrong.

On these grounds, the actions of the Senate, on those two occasions, were unwarranted and unacceptable. It is our current system that allows us to draw this conclusion. It is clear that in a parliamentary democracy, ultimate authority must lie with the elected chamber and not with the appointed one.

Again, the fact is this bill would muddy those waters. If these reforms were implemented, then the Senate would have every right to throw out a bill that had already passed through the House of Commons as the senators, at least those who had been elected, would have an equal democratic mandate to the members in this place, or may very well claim so.

No clearer indication can be given about the dangers of this kind of system than what we have seen recently in the United States. With the house of representatives and the senate there having equal democratic mandates and being controlled by two separate parties, the world financial markets were almost brought to their knees. Once again, a piece of legislation concerning the debt limit in the United States was raised and the bill to borrow more money to keep the economy going had to be passed. The U.S. Congress had passed similar legislation many times before without a hitch, but on that occasion, the well-being of the American people was firmly put to one side as the two parties battled it out to achieve their own partisan goals.

This is what the bill risks here. Had one of those two political institutions had the clear authority over the other any chance of this kind of situation developing would be non-existent.

That has been the history of the House of Commons and Senate up to now. The Senate, being unelected, has always by convention refused to exercise its de jure powers and instead restricted itself only to holding up legislation, but never to blocking it, until the Conservative government of this Prime Minister came into being.

I would like to raise the issue of the makeup of the Senate going forward if the reform outlined in the bill were implemented. These changes would result in a completely incoherent upper chamber with two tiers of senators. Some would be subject to term limits for nine years and be elected, others would be appointed and could serve until age 75. What kind of message does this send to Canadians, or people all over the world about the reputation of our democratic processes? How can a parliamentary institution operate when one member has a fresh mandate from the electorate, while the person sitting next that member has been there for 25 years with no input from those who his or her decisions affect?

The divisive nature of the reforms also mean that there is a conflict set up between the provinces and the Senate. Which body would truly speak on behalf of the people of that province? I would argue that it is the provincial governments of the country set up by our Constitution that have a legitimate democratic mandate to speak for the people of those provinces, not the Senate, or senators from those provinces, many of whom do not even live in those provinces and have only a very tangential relationship with those provinces.

I know I am running out of time so I want to talk about a couple of quick facts that I think are important; one is money. The Conservative government that has given us a massive $610 billion debt and the largest deficits in Canadian history still wants to maintain a chamber that costs Canadian taxpayers over $100 million per year and is undemocratic.

We could abolish the Senate, as the New Democrats have suggested, and save the taxpayers $100 million a year with absolutely not one iota of deleterious affect on the democratic health of our nation. We could make our government more efficient and more effective. We could be quicker. I have heard members opposite talk about the slow rate with which it passes legislation. They are frustrated by how long it takes to get legislation passed.

By abolishing the Senate we could dispense with three readings and committee study, and speed up legislation, which is what Canadians want in this country, according to the Conservatives.

Why do the Conservatives not abolish the Senate? Why do they tinker around the edges? Why do they continue to take a fundamentally flawed and undemocratic chamber and continue to make it a flawed and undemocratic chamber? It makes no sense.

I want to talk briefly about the people of Vancouver Kingsway. I come from a riding where David Emerson was elected as a Liberal and two weeks later crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative. The people of Vancouver Kingsway rose up like few citizens, or few ridings, in this country have ever done. They loudly expressed their commitment to democracy in this country because what Mr. Emerson did was a betrayal of democracy.

Here, we are talking about a chamber that is stuffed with failed Conservative candidates, like Yonah Martin, Josée Verner, Fabian Manning, people who ran in elections, placed themselves before the people of the country for their democratic mandate and were rejected, then find themselves appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate and serve as legislators, even though the people of this country said they did not want to give them their trust or a mandate to do so. That is outrageous. That is an outrage in a democracy, when former fundraisers and failed Conservative candidates end up in the Senate. The Liberals were no better. They did the exact same thing when they were in power.

It is time that people in this country follow the New Democratic lead and abolish the Senate. That is the only responsible, reasonable, democratic measure that can be taken in this country, and I urge all members of the House to do so.

Opposition Motion--Canadian Economy

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, very clearly, a first step for this country would have been to implement Bill C-311 on the environment. We had the opportunity as a Canadian group of politicians to be a leader in the world and that was defeated, as I recall, in the Senate. I think that would have been an amazing step, and that was originally sponsored by the late Jack Layton who spent a lifetime involved with the environment.

As well, we talked about the revitalization of buildings across our country, the variety of things we could be doing to put people to work. People could start off at a lower level in construction trades by refitting homes and learn the skills necessary to progress in a trade so that project, which we estimated at $2 billion, over time would have created a situation where homes were properly protected from the environment, heating and cooling loss, and all of those things, and at the same time train people and supply some hope for them.

This was a comprehensive question that requires a lot more time than I have to answer it.

Opposition Motion—Confidence in the government

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to the non-confidence motion moved by the Liberals regarding the Conservative government.

People know that I have been sitting in the House of Commons for about 14 years. The House of Commons is the place where laws are passed and where we determine a direction and a vision for our country.

The Conservative government was elected in 2006 because it claimed to want to be a transparent government, a fair government, a government that believes in democracy, a government that does not believe in the Senate. I remind members that this is the same government that refused to hand over the documents we asked for on Afghanistan. We had to turn to the Speaker of the House, who forced us to hold meetings. Even there, the Conservatives refused, forcing the meetings to be held in camera. The NDP refused to participate in these discussions with the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc. Today, we do not know what happened with that issue. There are only three individuals in Parliament who know; the rest do not know. That is not transparency and that does not respect a member of Parliament's right to have access to information, as the Speaker of the House said. We did not have that right.

Later, the Conservatives introduced some crime bills. For four months, the hon. members on the Standing Committee on Finance kept asking for information on the cost of these bills. How much would the megaprisons cost? How much would all this cost the provinces? The Conservatives introduced bills on young offenders. Rather than give us information, the government waited until it was forced by the Speaker of the House to come before the committee. The first day in committee, the government presented a large document, which was tabled yesterday by the Conservative leader in the House of Commons. Even Professor Franks, from Queen's University in Toronto, said it would take until July to get through all this information. That is truly contempt of Parliament and contempt of parliamentarians.

It was this same government who said that the Liberals were corrupt. During the 2006 election campaign, the Conservatives exceeded the electoral spending ceiling by $1.5 million. They cheated the democratic system. Am I making this up? No. The RCMP had to search the Conservatives' offices for documents. Is that the type of government Canadians need? No.

People do not care a fig about what is going on in Parliament right now. They do not care whatsoever about corruption. I have more faith in Canadians than that. In the next 35 days, we will show them there is an alternative in Canada. This government told us it believed in bilingualism, but last week, on March 8, it announced that the Atlantic administrative region would be unilingual English. Is this the same government that said it would respect both of our country's official languages?

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages just told us that the government house leader has announced that he is very proud that he voted against forcing Supreme Court justices to be bilingual. That is true: it is in a newspaper, in an ad paid for by the Conservatives.

The government is saying that it does not want an election, yet it has just spent $26 million. It knows that Elections Canada cannot do anything about that. It has spent money for an election campaign before an election has been called. These things need to change in Parliament, in our democracy. This government said that senators should not vote on Parliament's bills. These are the same Conservatives who asked the senators to vote against the NDP's environment bill, Bill C-311. That bill would have helped our country's environment, but the Prime Minister's unelected senators voted against it.

That is outrageous.

In today's democracy, here, we have senators who are not even elected and who vote down bills introduced by elected members. My people sent me here. They voted for me. All of the members in the House of Commons were elected by the public. When the House of Commons passes a bill, the only thing the Senate can do, as has always been said, is study it to make it better, protect the regions and protect minorities. That is not what they are doing. The senators are listening to the Prime Minister of Canada.

We will see you on the road during the next 35 days. We will show you the door.

Opposition Motion—Conduct of Government

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition day as my party's democratic reform critic. This motion was made necessary because of the actions the Conservatives have taken since they came into power in 2006.

My colleague from Joliette spoke a lot about the saga involving the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism and also the actions of the Conservative Party, in particular the government, with respect to financing for that party, which established a scheme to obtain more money to pay for their advertising. I will come back to this later.

I would like to go over a few examples, because these are not just recent examples. Since they were elected in 2006, the Conservatives have interfered with democracy by manipulating principles as they see fit or even completely disregarding them. This is very worrisome because it creates precedents and we can dare not imagine would what happen with a majority government.

I would like to quote columnist Manon Cornellier, who wrote in the newspaper Le Devoir on September 29, 2010:

[Citizens] are kept in the dark and deprived of fundamental information, which means they are no longer as capable of exercising their primary democratic right of judging the government.

Democracy is always exercised better and more intelligently in a context of transparency, rigour and credible information.

I quoted this columnist because I want to remind the government why it is not currently a majority government and why there is an opposition. The opposition is here to shed light on government decisions and to hold the government accountable to the public.

For example, when I go back to the Quebec City area, many people who voted for me or my colleague in Louis-Hébert say they elected us because they do not want this to be a majority government and do not want its ideology imposed on Quebeckers. That is why the Bloc Québécois is so strong all over Quebec. The government is especially abusive in how it treats democracy here in the House. Today we are debating the reasons why the Conservatives are criticized so much, so often provoke stormy debates, and make a mockery of the opposition’s right to express its views and hold the government to account.

The Conservatives do not want to be accountable to anyone and do not hesitate to resorts to all kinds of tricks, even going so far as to break the most elementary rules by which they should abide in respectable country that is supposed to be democratic. They do not care a fig about democracy and shrink from nothing when it comes to promoting their partisan interests and imposing their reactionary ideology. There are many recent examples, and our motion mentions some of them.

I would like to refresh the memories of certain colleagues, and also of the people watching us, by reviewing a few more examples that are not mentioned in the motion put forward by my colleague from Joliette. For several years now, the Shannon citizens’ coalition and its lawyers have tried repeatedly to obtain documents from the Department of National Defence on the contamination of ground water. However, the government has been delaying the release of documents sought under the Access to Information Act, has been obstructive,and has simply failed to disclose the documents in question.

Last November 25, we managed—because opposition members are in the majority here in the House—to adopt an order to produce the documents. The documents deal with reports analyzing the water supply system at the Valcartier base since 1970. I asked the minister a question because he had promised to table the documents. He said right here in the House, before all the members, that he would table them. So what did he do? Nothing. The government and the Department of National Defence are still hiding behind the class action suit that is now before the courts. But when I asked him,he said it was already headed for the courts. Did he show good faith? No, he misled the House and all citizens about his real intentions.

A similar situation arose regarding the disclosure of documents about the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan. The government was refusing to release the documents and that is why it prorogued Parliament in December 2009. You had given a ruling, Mr. Speaker, in April 2010 that ordered the government to release the documents, which were not a threat to national security. So what happened?

One year later, a committee has examined the issue but no documents have been made public. If that is not obstruction, I wonder what it is. The government is delaying telling the truth to citizens. It is also delaying bills. It deemed it appropriate to have a majority of senators in the other place to block bills passed by the House. The Senate absolutely refuses to look at all the bills and come to a decision.

The Conservatives seem to have a hard time understanding and applying the basic principles of democracy. One of these principles calls for a separation of powers between the public and political administrations. Yet, how many times have the Conservatives interfered in the public administration since they took office? How many times have they muzzled senior public servants who did not share their views, or did not want to implement a partisan decision? KAIROS, to which the hon. member for Trois-Rivières referred earlier, is one example. The list of victims is a long one, but I will mention a few.

Linda Keen, former head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, was fired during the scandal related to the downtime of the Chalk River reactors. Munir Sheikh, the Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada, resigned because he did not support abolishing the mandatory long form census. Rémy Beauregard, whose management of Rights and Democracy was criticized, died of a heart attack after a stormy and tumultuous meeting. Marty Cheliak, former head of the Canadian firearms program, was let go because he was about to table a report supporting gun control. There is also Patrick Stogran, the former Veterans Ombudsman, whose mandate was not renewed because he dared criticize the government's treatment of veterans.

All these individuals were fired or their mandate was not renewed because the government was not pleased. The Senate has blocked legislation such as Bill C-311, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois and a majority of elected members in this House. This bill, dealing with our responsibility regarding global climate change, was contrary to the government's vision on the environment. They rejected it without even looking at it. The Conservatives set a precedent that had not been seen since 1930. They show a blatant disrespect for democratic institutions.

I could list numerous other bills that have been blocked, including the one requiring that Supreme Court judges be bilingual. The Conservatives bought time by constantly stalling the study of the bill until they had a majority in the Senate. The Prime Minister promised to change the rules of the game so that government would be more transparent. But what he has done is worse than what the Liberals did and, in some ways, he has gone even further than they did. The Conservatives' actions of late, coupled with the fact that Conservative senators are getting away with spending money from the Senate budget to promote their partisan ideology, lead us to believe that there is some confusion between the resources of a political party and the resources of the government or the House of Commons.

Taxpayers' money was used for partisan purposes and electioneering. They are always telling the House that public money needs to be respected and that the government is careful about how it spends public money. But what did they do? They used a scam to pay for ads and took $200,000 from taxpayers. They exceeded their election campaign spending limit.

Today we are going to “highlight” everything they have done since they came to power. We will demonstrate that this government is not transparent and that the Prime Minister has not kept his election promises. People wanted to see the Conservatives in power so that there would be more transparency. But that is not what we are seeing these days.

Opposition Motion—Representation in Parliament

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition motion moved in the House of Commons by the NDP and to discuss the proposal to hold a referendum on abolishing the Senate. The question would be clear and precise: do Canadians want a Senate?

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said it was not feasible because we would have to reopen the Constitution. The Constitution was established some time ago. In a democracy, people evolve and change over the years. The Constitution was written in 1982, but people have changed since then, which is only natural. Parliament exists because democracy evolves. Every day, we debate certain bills and change Canadian laws because we are evolving and we need new laws adapted to the new changes in our country. The same is true for the Constitution.

Tomorrow morning, there could be a referendum in Canada and the majority of Canadians might vote in favour of abolishing the Senate. Earlier my Conservative colleague was saying that the provinces should agree. In my opinion, that would put a great deal of pressure on the provinces and the provincial governments.

Will we continue to hang on to an unelected Senate even if the citizens no longer want it? Canadians no longer want senators to be appointed by political parties and by the Prime Minister to please his political party. For example, when the current Prime Minister of Canada was in opposition, and even when he had formed the government but felt that the opposition had a majority in the Senate, he said that the Senate should never meddle in bills introduced by the government or the House of Commons.

This same Prime Minister has a majority in the upper chamber, in the Senate, and senators follow his instructions to the letter when elected members pass bills in the House of Commons.

In a minority government, although a majority of members of Parliament have voted for the bills, the Conservative senators in the other place turn around and listen to what the Prime Minister tells them.

Earlier, one of our Conservative colleagues said that Alberta senators are independent because the nominees are elected. Another hon. member asked earlier why they have a whip and a house leader if they are independent. What is the whip's job? I am certain that everyone knows the answer: to make them toe the party line.

There are two parties in the Senate—the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party—and two whips. There are party lines. When the Liberals had a majority in the Senate, the Prime Minister was distraught because he said he had formed the government and Parliament had passed bills, but that they were blocked in the Senate. Today, he is doing the same thing. Even worse, the Conservatives are abusing their power by appointing friends. The Prime Minister was against this way of appointing senators. He was against it.

This Prime Minister appointed Doug Finley, the Conservative national campaign manager; Irving Gerstein, the top Conservative fundraiser and chair of Conservative Fund Canada; Judith Seidman, the Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister's leadership campaign; and Don Plett, president of the Conservative Party of Canada.

These are political appointments of the most extreme sort. Is that democracy? We send our young people to fight abroad so that other countries will have access to democracy and enjoy the right to vote, and so that laws will be passed by elected officials who are accountable to the people.

We are doing worse than that here in Canada. We do not have that kind of democracy. We pass bills in the House of Commons. Our rights are being violated. I was elected by the people of Acadie—Bathurst. I represent the majority of people in that riding and my rights are being violated. In fact, as soon as a bill leaves the House of Commons for the Senate, the Prime Minister issues an order that prevents the bill from being passed. Is that democracy?

Are we waiting for people to take to the streets to reclaim their democracy the way they are doing in Egypt and Libya? Canadians have elected MPs and those are the people that should be making the laws in Canada. But that is not what is happening. A group of friends was appointed to the Senate. Provincial premiers who lost their elections are appointed to the Senate as compensation. With all due respect, we saw this happen in New Brunswick. When Premier Hatfield lost the election in New Brunswick, he was appointed to the Senate. Political rewards are given to people who lose elections. People are thrown out of office by a democratic vote and the government turns around and sends them to the Senate until they are 75 years old. It is shameful.

Not very long ago, here in the House of Commons, we passed Bill C-311 on the environment. The Senate did not even review it. The Conservatives did not even debate the bill. They voted it down. Oh, but it is all right: it was an NDP bill. It was a fine thing to do. It did not make any sense.

That was the beginning of the end of democracy. The bill was not even debated.

Senators come to us and tell us we have to keep them there even though they have not been elected. They say that they are completely independent since the Prime Minister cannot remove them from their jobs until they are 75. They call themselves protectors of the regions and minorities and say they will ensure that politics do not interfere with what is good for the country. They will protect minorities and all that. But now they are going after minorities.

Like it or not, my Bill C-232 concerning judges in the Supreme Court was debated by the members in the House of Commons, and it was passed by a majority. That is democracy. However, the unelected senators have been sitting on their butts since April 2010 and refuse to even address the bill. The Senate has always fought to say that it would protect minorities and the regions, that it could study bills and if there were any errors, it could send the bills back with new ideas that it had added. It is improper for the Senate to reject bills from the House, especially if there is a minority government in power.

We did not see this problem in the past because we have had majority governments and the Senate typically had the same majority as the House, under the same government. So there were never issues between Senate decisions and those of the House. But now that there is a minority government, now that the majority of members are against the government, we are seeing all the little things that can go wrong. Now we see the dirty politics. That is what I call it.

If the Conservatives really believed in democracy, if they really believed in what they were saying, they would consult Canadians and ask them.

A survey was done in my riding. There were three questions: do you want to abolish the Senate; do you want the Senate to remain as-is; or do you want to modify it? Few people responded. Out of 89 people, 75 said that they wanted to abolish and get rid of the Senate, and 7 said that they wanted to modify it. No one wanted to leave it the way it is. I would be very happy to see a referendum and let Canadians say what they want to do about the Senate. I have no doubt that it would give us a starting point to work towards changing the Constitution, doing good things for democracy in our country and honouring our country so that we can be proud of what it represents in the world.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Canadians are telling us that the time has come to change the way we select our government representatives, including those currently appointed and elected. They believe that the current system is patently undemocratic and unfair.

A number of proposals have been made in the past to resolve concerns with the appointed Senate and the electoral process for the House of Commons. As the representative for Vancouver Kingsway pointed out today, the Reform Party once called for referenda on electoral reform and other policy matters of concern to Canadians.

In 2004, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying:

Despite the fine work of many individual senators, the upper house remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the Prime Minister.

A truer point has never been made.

That same year, the NDP sought all-party support for a process to consult Canadians on a reformed electoral process. Sadly the initiative was rejected by the other parties. In 2005, the NDP accountability package crafted by Ed Broadbent included reforming the electoral process to include proportional representation.

Remarkably, the Prime Minister again said in this place on September 7, 2006:

As everyone in this room knows, it has become a right of passage for aspiring leaders and prime ministers to promise Senate reform—on their way to the top....

But once they are elected, Senate reform quickly falls to the bottom of the Government's agenda. Nothing ever gets done.

Again, truer words were never said.

Well, today the New Democrats have tabled in this House a path forward. In tabling this motion, the representative for Hamilton Centre has presented to the members of this House a real opportunity to take concrete action to engage all parties and the public in reforming our democratic process to genuinely reflect the will of Canadians.

Let us consider the current Canadian federal election process. In the 2008 election, the NDP garnered 1.1 million votes more than the Bloc, but elected 37 MPs compared with 49 for the Bloc.

In the prairie provinces, Conservatives took seven times as many seats as the NDP and Liberals combined, while garnering only roughly twice the votes of the other two.

While 940,000 voters supported the Green Party, that party earned no seat, and fewer Conservative votes in Alberta delivered 27 Conservatives MPs.

The majority of democratic nations use a proportional system to elect their governments. Party-list PR is the most widely used voting system. It is used in Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Finland, Austria, Norway and Denmark. All of them are stable and effective democracies. That is hardly radical.

The mixed member proportional system is one that is frequently suggested for Canada. It combines the list system with first past the post. It is used in Germany, New Zealand and in regional parliaments in Scotland and Wales. Again, it is hardly radical.

It should also be kept in mind that proportional voting systems are not a new concept for Canada. From 1926 to 1959, the then-ruling party of Alberta, the United Farmers of Alberta, implemented a system of proportional representation, the single transferable vote system, to elect MLAs in the cities of Edmonton, Calgary and Medicine Hat. The remainder were elected by a system of a majority voting called alternative vote.

In 1959, the Social Credit Government abolished the mixed system of proportional and majority voting and returned the province to single-member districts with plurality voting, commonly known as first past the post. The government was widely criticized by the Alberta public for taking this step without public consultation, and the step was considered to have been taken for reasons of self-interest.

The single transferable vote, the system that was used in Alberta, is currently used in Ireland, Malta and for the Australian senate, and was used in many western Canadian municipalities in the early 20th century.

It is frankly wrong to suggest that Canadian voters are less interested than the citizens of other nations in pursuing improved ways of ensuring democratic representation, or that they are less able to adapt to different voting systems than the citizens of, for example, New Zealand, Spain, Germany or Belgium.

Our first past the post system has already lost its alleged advantage of electing majority governments. Is it not time that we stopped dithering and instituted improved systems to ensure that everyone's vote counted?

Surely we all agree that we need to remedy the declining voter turnout, as my colleague from Ottawa stated. We have a serious problem in this country where youth are simply not showing up to vote. They are not participating in the democratic process.

How many more times must we hear the complaint from Canadians that their vote does not count? How can we sit back and let the cynicism grow and voter turnout continue to decline?

Increasing interest in electoral reform is being expressed by Canadians. It is an issue that is constantly raised by my constituents and across Alberta. Many have become active in Fair Vote Canada. The longtime member of Fair Vote Canada's Edmonton group, Professor Jennie Dailey-O'Cain, advises that proportional representation would put a stop to the exaggeration of regional and rural-urban differences, bring more diversity and stability to Parliament, force different parties to learn to work together long term and make every vote count. Is that not what we all want?

New chapters of Fair Vote Canada continue to be started. Canadians are looking for opportunities to discuss change. Just this week a new chapter of Fair Vote Canada held its inaugural meeting in Lethbridge, Alberta.

There are many myths about proportional representation. They mostly revolve around the lack of stability of governments and their ability to effectively manage the economy.

In fact, what are often called consensus democracies are not less but possibly more stable and more effective economic managers. They are also better managers of the environment and more energy efficient than the majoritarian, winner-takes-all democracies.

If we were to take the plunge and adopt a voting system that more accurately reflected the voting choices of Canadians, we might actually find that a more representative democracy delivers good government. Was that not, after all, the goal of our Confederation fathers? I am proud to be a descendant of one. I believe strongly that my ancestor would support and encourage our continued efforts to pursue better means of delivering responsible government, a government of and elected by and truly representative of the will of the Canadian people. I believe that our proposed legislative reforms and dialogue with Canadians can deliver this long-awaited opportunity for electoral reform.

In 2004, the Law Commission of Canada issued a report entitled, “Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada”. It said:

The first-past-the-post system is overly generous to the party that wins a plurality of the vote in a general election, rewarding it with a legislative majority that is disproportionate to its share of the vote....

It allows the governing party, with its artificially swollen legislative majority, to dominate the political agenda almost completely for a period of four or five years, thereby contributing to the weakening of Parliament....

It promotes parties formed along regional lines, thus exacerbating Canada’s regional divisions, and conversely penalizes parties with diffuse national support....

This system disregards a large number of votes: unless a voter supports the winning candidate in a given riding, there is no connection between the voter’s choice and the eventual makeup of the House of Commons....

It contributes to the under-representation of women, minority groups, and Aboriginal peoples....

It prevents diversity within the House of Commons. As a result of regional concentration, disproportionate votes to seats, and an under-representation of women and minority candidates, legislatures within this system lack a diversity of voices in political decision-making processes.

The Law Commission of Canada recommended adding an element of proportionality to Canada's electoral system, more specifically that Canada should adopt a mixed member proportional electoral system.

Canadians have been calling for reform. They desire a more democratic system.

Last year the government used the unelected Senate to kill Bill C-311. An NDP bill, the climate change accountability act, was passed by the majority of the duly elected representatives of the Canadian electorate. What is the government afraid of?

I call on government members and all members of this place to support this motion to allow the voice of Canadians to be heard.

Opposition Motion--Representation in Parliament

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre for his work and his vision for our country. He was the one who proposed this motion to our caucus. I would like to thank him and offer my congratulations.

The time has come to discuss our electoral system. It is clear that major changes are needed in the Senate. For example, it is inexcusable that a group of unelected senators rejected Bill C-311 on the environment without any, yes any, discussion.

I would like to spend the rest of my time by sharing my thoughts on proportional representation.

We do not have a high voter turnout in Canada and there are many reasons for this. I would like to submit that one of them is that the representation in Parliament does not accurately reflect the percentage of votes received. For example, if we had some sort of proportional representation system in place prior to the last election, the results would have been as follows: the Conservatives would have wound up with 119 seats, Liberals 83, NDP 56, the Bloc 31 and the Green Party would have had 17 seats. Even though 941,097 people voted for the Green Party, it did not get one seat in the House of Commons.

The executive director of Fair Vote Canada says that:

Proportional voting would obviously help the NDP. Almost 80% of votes cast for the NDP don't help to elect anybody. But this is about what's good for all voters.

He goes on to say:

If you are a Conservative in Toronto or a Liberal in Calgary, the current system is not working for you. The plain fact is that most of us are 'represented' in Parliament by people we voted against. Canadians demand more viable political choices.

There are some myths floating around and Fair Vote Canada attempts to counteract those myths.

There are trade-offs between good democracy and good government. In his landmark study, “Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Democracies (1999)”, internationally renowned political scientist Arend Lijphart assessed and compared the performance of majoritarian democracies associated with winner take all voting systems and consensus democracies associated with proportional representation systems.

He concluded:

—the overall performance record of the consensus democracies is clearly superior to that of the majoritarian democracies” and “the good news is that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is no trade-off at all between governing effectiveness and high-quality democracy – and hence no difficult decisions to be made on giving priority to one or the other objective.

The other myth that he dispels and talks about is the fact that proportional representation means coalition governments and that is bad because it requires deal-making. Let us put this idea to rest today once and for all. Here are the facts. Governments formed under any voting system are coalitions of different groups that negotiate and make deals. That is the way democracy works. The two largest big tent parties are coalitions of factions, which are generally hidden from public view except during leadership races. These internal factions compete with one another and then negotiate and compromise on the party platform.

Do people think we do not have differences of opinion in our party? Of course we do. We come together, and that is how we should be coming together in Parliament.

The primary difference between this and the formation of multi-party coalition governments under fair voting systems is transparency. Coalition negotiations among parties are generally more visible to the public and the compromises are publicly known. Majority rule under fair voting systems, the resulting coalition or governing group represents a true majority of voters.

That is what Canadians want. That is probably one of the reasons why they are not voting or coming out in large numbers to vote.

Let us look at some facts to dispel the fact that once we get proportional representation, we will have chaos and bedlam. The examples often cited are Italy and Israel. Let us apply some perspective.

With more than 80 nations using proportional systems, critics can find only two examples, which I just stated, of a system that appears to be chaotic. Opponents of fair voting do not like to talk about long-term stability and the prosperity of Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, or about most of the other 81 countries using proportional systems. In the last half of the 20th century, many of the large European countries had about the same number of elections as we had in Canada.

Coalition governments created under fair voting systems tend to be stable and productive for two reasons.

First, the parties know that a fair voting system makes it highly unlikely any party will gain a majority of seats because seldom do a majority of voters support any one party. The parties understand that the only way they can ever govern is by creating constructive partnerships with other parties. What a revolutionary idea, creating constructive partnerships so we can govern for the people of Canada.

Second, because election results reflect the way people vote, the parties have no motivation to force frequent elections, or prorogation, because of small shifts in public opinion. With Canada's first past the post system, a small shift of votes can trigger a huge swing in seats, which is something that cannot happen with a fair voting system.

Far from creating chaos, Lijphart's study on effective government demonstrated the countries using fair voting systems readily matched and often exceeded the economic and social performance of nations run by single-party governments, which are usually, as he says, false majorities. As Dr. Lijphart concluded, there is no trade-off between good democracy and good government. In fact, it is good democracy that leads to good government.

I submit that the timing is right as we discuss the reforms of the Senate, which is not working, as we discuss the House of Commons, which often is dysfunctional as we are often accused of partisanship and going against each other. Is it not time to come together and have a sensible system of voting so we can co-operate and have the actual proportion of people who voted reflected in the House of Commons?

I would like to say that proportional representation is an important step towards a healthy and very strong government.

It is imperative that we have in the House of Commons a representation that truly reflects the votes that people have cast.

I am sure our motion will be supported by all members in the House of Commons. I am sure that each and every one of us wants to ensure what is reflected here truly reflects the votes that people have cast in the last election. This could be a major breakthrough for democracy in our country.

I am ready to take questions.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives spoke about that being an issue when they were in opposition. They said that the Senate, an unelected, undemocratic body, needed reform and attention.

Now that the Conservatives are in power, they could have done something about that. If this were really an issue, they could have acted on it. Five years is a legitimate timeframe to have addressed this issue and, I would argue, it should have been addressed years ago when they first came to power.

This needs to be addressed but what have the Conservatives done? Let us look at the record. Once they came to power, they turned it around and started to use the Senate to kill bills and change the outcome of the democratic process that has been voted on and approved by the majority of the members of the House of Commons who represent the Canadian people.

I mentioned Bill C-311 earlier in my speech, which was of great importance to Canadians, and seeing it killed in the Senate was tragic.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

I stand to speak today in favour of the New Democrat motion calling for a referendum to abolish the Senate and for proportional representation.

The Senate was created in 1867 to mirror the British House of Lords, to serve as a chamber of sober second though, to provide regional representation and to act as a check on Parliament. It was made an appointed body so that it could not stop legislation from the House of Commons. It was there to revise and renew legislation. It was also created to recognize the social and economic elite. It was, in part, created to protect the property interests of the wealthy.

There was some concern from our founding fathers that an elected body, or the House of Commons, would not do so. Today we know that is not the case.

The Senate is broken and no longer works in the public interest. This House knows it and so do the Canadian people.

I became convinced of the need to abolish the Senate following the controversial Senate vote on November 16, 2010, that killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act.

Bill C-311 would require the federal government to set regulations to establish targets to bring greenhouse gas emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to set long-term targets to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The government must take action on climate change and Bill C-311 would have been the first step to set hard targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it has become abundantly clear that the government does not want to deal with one of the most pressing issues of our time, so it got the Senate to do its dirty work.

Bill C-311 passed the House of Commons and passed the committee. The majority of members in this House, who were sent here to represent their constituents, passed the bill and yet et it was killed by the Senate. I will repeat for clarity that the unelected and unaccountable Senate shut off debate and called a snap election to vote down and kill this important legislation that passed through the House of Commons.

That was an outrageous move and Canadians were outraged by the move. It was the first time since the second world war that the Senate had voted down a bill that had won support of the majority of members in the House of Commons. This move did not get the attention it deserved. It was a fundamental change in the way our democracy operates.

The government is not known for its transparency and adherence to democratic principles and now it has appointed enough senators to circumvent the democratic process.

Only a few short years ago, before the Conservatives were in power, they had very real concerns about the way the Senate operated. While the Prime Minister was in opposition, he claimed that he would never appoint a senator. At that time, he considered the Senate to be undemocratic.

This is something members will rarely hear from me but the Prime Minister was correct. The Senate is undemocratic. That is why the people of New Zealand abolished their upper house, the legislative council, in 1951.

It is amazing how things change when one gains power. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they have completely changed their tune and are using this unelected, undemocratic body to push through their legislative agenda.

The Prime Minister has appointed 36 Conservative insiders to the Senate since coming to power. In 2008, he broke a record by appointing 18 people to the upper chamber in just one day. The Senate is now stacked with failed Conservative candidates, party fundraisers and political organizers. We must not forget that this was the same modus operandi for the federal Liberal Party. It, too, stacked the Senate with its friends and insiders.

A senator earns approximately $132,000 a year. The qualification to become a senator is to be loyal to the ruling party that appoints him or her.

The Senate costs approximately $90 million a year to run. Taxpayers are paying a large sum for an unaccountable and unelected group of senators that block legislation passed by their elected representatives.

I believe it is time, through a referendum, for Canadians to have a say on the future of the Senate. A referendum would open up the dialogue on systems in which far too many Canadians have lost faith. It would allow us to engage the population in an issue that is important to our very democracy.

I will now talk about the second aspect of our motion, which reads:

(c) the House appoint a Special Committee for Democratic Improvement, whose mandate is to (i) engage with Canadians, and make recommendations to the House, on how best to achieve a House of Commons that more accurately reflects the votes of Canadians by combining direct election by electoral district and proportional representation....

These two ideas, to abolish the Senate and to investigate how to best create a House of Commons that accurately reflects the votes of Canadians, fit well together.

Voter turnout continues to decline each election. In 2008, only 59.1% of Canadians went to the polls, the lowest turnout in history. The youth turnout was even worse. As parliamentarians, we should be very concerned. We need to reflect on why this is occurring and how we can turn this disturbing trend around.

Too often I hear from people who feel their vote does not matter. They tell me that they often decide to vote strategically. They feel that it does not matter who they vote for because there is no way their favourite candidate will, under our current electoral system, ever be elected. Therefore, they end up voting for a candidate, not because they support that candidate, but because they want to stop someone else from gaining power.

Proportional representation is an electoral system that allows every vote to count, whereas the first past the post system creates a winner takes all situation. I worry that sometimes people stay home from the voting booth because they feel that with our first past the post system, the person they want to vote for does not stand a chance so they do not bother voting.

This is not the way our democracy should operate. This could point to why Canadians, and particularly why the youth vote, seems to be so disengaged. It is time for an examination of democratic reform. It would show Canadians that we, as their elected House, care about their participation in the political system.

The United Kingdom, in conducting a referendum on electoral reform in May, is doing just that. The people of the United Kingdom want their voice heard, and so do Canadians.

An Environics poll conducted for the Council of Canadians last year indicated that 62% of Canadians supported moving toward a system of proportional representation in Canadian elections. This support was consistent across the country, notably 71% of youth wanted to move to a proportional representation system.

I mentioned in my speech my concern about youth voting and the voter turnout. If we can do anything to inspire our younger generation to get to the polls, we must. It is imperative to the future of our democracy.

In the motion supported by Fair Vote Canada, it states:

With people all over the world risking their lives to demand their democratic right to be heard, it's about time that Canadians had a fair voting system, so that all our votes can make a difference.

We must do all that we can to bolster our democracy and to ensure that all votes count. For that reason, I am in full support of the motion and urge all parliamentarians to vote in favour of if.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

The fact that the Senate defeated Bill C-311 is a fact. That is why we need to reform the Senate.

I want to add to what the hon. member from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador said about defeated candidates being appointed to the Senate. In that group of senators that was appointed, there are eight formerly defeated candidates, some of whom were defeated more than once.

Do we know why they were defeated? It is because the people in their ridings did not want these candidates to represent them, but the government, in its wisdom, appointed them to the Senate.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would like to comment on the fact that after prorogation in December 2008, when the Prime Minister did not want to face Parliament and the music, he then appointed 17 senators on January 2, 2009, one of whom was the individual who lost the election in Avalon in my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That person, Senator Fabian Manning, voted very recently to kill Bill C-311, the very bill the person who defeated him, who is sitting in the Liberal caucus, voted to support in the democratically elected House.

What does the member think of that, and what should Canadians think of a system that allows a Prime Minister to appoint a defeated candidate to an unelected Senate, who then votes down something that the person who defeated him voted for in the House of Commons?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic for democratic reform to speak to the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre. The NDP member's motion contains many elements, including the holding of a referendum on the question of amending the Referendum Act in order to abolish the existing Senate and to appoint a special committee for democratic improvement made up of 12 members. The motion also defines how the special committee would operate. Today I would like to focus on point (a), which is the most important and which reads as follows:

the House recognize the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in the Parliament of Canada, specifically the unnecessary Senate and a House of Commons that does not accurately reflect the political preferences of Canadians;

I would like to examine this point from two angles: the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, and the unnecessary nature of the Senate. In that regard, we quite agree with the NDP.

Bills on democratic reform have been coming up over and over again for the past few sessions. This time around, we have Bill C-12, which aims to change the formula for calculating the number of members per province to increase the total number of members to 338. The distribution of new seats would be as follows: five more for Alberta, seven for British Columbia and 18 for Ontario. That would give us a total of 338 members, compared to the 308 we have now. This bill, if passed, would have a direct impact on Quebec's weight in the House of Commons, which would drop from 24.3% to 22.19%. Quebec would be even more marginalized compared to its current weight in the House.

It is of the utmost importance to maintain Quebec's weight in the House because Quebec is the only majority francophone state in North America and because Quebeckers are a unique linguistic minority on this continent. Louis Massicotte, a political scientist at Laval University, published an article on federal electoral redistribution entitled “Quelle place pour le Québec? Étude sur la redistribution électorale fédérale”. It is also more important than ever to protect our language and our culture when negotiating free trade agreements. We are talking about the cradle of the Quebec nation, which this House recognized in November of 2006, although, in practice, this means nothing to the Conservative government.

Make no mistake. If the government is insisting on increasing the weight of these particular provinces, it is because they are its stronghold or because it hopes to make political gains there. By going forward with this democratic reform, the Conservative government is claiming that it wants to respect democracy. However, the Conservatives are not fooling anyone. They are masters of flouting democracy. For example, they prorogued Parliament to avoid votes. They failed to follow the House's orders to submit documents, in particular, documents on the transfer of Afghan prisoners. They refused to appear before parliamentary committees. They recommended that unelected senators vote against bills that were passed by a majority of votes in the House, thus going against the will of the people. In 2008, they also failed to abide by their own legislation on fixed election dates.

The government is blatantly misleading the House and the public, as in the case involving the Minister of International Cooperation. I could go on but there are other points I would like to make.

Any recommendation in the House made by a special committee should not only take into account the current demographic weight of Quebec in the House of Commons, but it should also ensure that this weight is maintained because under no circumstance should Quebec's weight be any less than it currently is in the House.

In its current form, the Senate is unnecessary. It is a vehicle for partisan politics. Ever since the minority Conservative government came to power, it has been using this vehicle to introduce bills that the House of Commons opposes, in order to go against the will of the House of Commons. I cited a few examples, but there are many more.

Going against the will of the elected members of the House of Commons is completely anti-democratic in that this opposition comes from people whose legitimacy comes from a partisan appointment, unlike the legitimacy of the members of Parliament, which comes from the people.

We do not have to look too far back to find an example. Just consider Bill C-311. Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, was supported by the Bloc Québécois and the majority of the legitimately elected members of the House of Commons. The bill imposed binding greenhouse gas reduction targets to ensure that Canada respects the IPCC recommendation and the requirement to submit a significant action plan every five years. The Prime Minister allowed the Senate to deny the will of the Parliament of Quebeckers and Canadians by allowing Conservative senators to defeat Bill C-311 without even studying it.

Yet, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister declared that an unelected chamber should not block bills from an elected one. He then did an about-face and is now making use of the Conservative senators. He made sure that he appointed the majority of senators to the Senate to ensure that they would block bills or motions that Parliament had adopted and sent to the Senate and that they would introduce bills before members of Parliament even had a chance to speak to them.

When the seats of Liberal senators opened up, the Prime Minister made sure to appoint loyal Conservatives. By allowing their senators to vote against Bill C-311 without even studying it, the Conservatives created a precedent, a first since 1930, and showed a flagrant lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

The Conservative senators also managed to block certain bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate to be studied. Take, for example, Bill C-288, regarding the tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions, introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, or Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), which would require Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. The Prime Minister could be confident that the senators would vote against these bills. In both cases, the Senate blocked the bills. On May 5, Bill C-288 received the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. For the second time in less than three years, it was sent to the Senate. Since then, it has only been debated twice. Bill C-288 would help thousands of young people who want to study and remain in the regions, some of which are struggling economically.

With Bill C-232, the Conservatives were trying to buy some time. They kept delaying study of the bill until they had a majority in the Senate. The Conservative government is taking advantage of the fact that it controls the Senate in order to dictate its agenda. It is one thing for the Conservative government to oppose a measure, but to recommend that the Senate prevent debate on these two bills is unacceptable.

This shows the Conservative government's contempt for the will of the democratically elected parliamentarians. I should point out that the Liberals were no better and also used some schemes to delay passage of bills. Nonetheless, they never went as far as the Conservatives are going. In 2006, by the way, the Conservatives campaigned on reforming the Senate and making it more legitimate. That was one of the Prime Minister's promises.

That is why this Conservative government introduced a bill to reform Senate terms and limit them to eight years. That bill does nothing to reform this outdated, archaic institution where appointments are strictly partisan. That bill does nothing to remedy the nature of the Senate. The Prime Minister has transformed it into “a permanent office for his organizers, a waiting room for his Montreal candidates, and an absolute circus by the use of his surprising appointments, to describe them politely”, according to Vincent Marissal from La Presse.

The democratic deficit in the Senate and its extraordinarily partisan nature derive from the choices made by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. From an academic standpoint, the upper house or senate in a federal system must represent the federated entities alongside a lower chamber, in our case, the House of Commons.

According to Réjean Pelletier, a political scientist and a professor in the political science department at Laval University, it is clear that this is not the case in the Canadian Parliament. In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation could have chosen the American model, where senators are elected by state legislatures and all states have equal weight, with the ability to elect two senators for a six-year term.

Instead, the Fathers of Confederation copied the British House of Lords and thus made the Senate a chamber that reviews legislation passed by the House of Commons. So the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought that moderates the overly democratic ways of the lower house, which is subject to pressure and emotional pleas from the public. But it no longer plays that role. What is more, senators were supposed to be appointed by the crown.

The idea of representing and defending the interests of federated entities did not come up in the discussions prior to the signing of the British North America Act. And from that stems our objection to the Senate, with its lack of legitimacy and representation.

Given that the Senate has become a partisan tool for the ruling Conservative Party and that it lacks both legitimacy and representation, it is not surprising that the public is angry about senators' spending.

According to an article by Stéphanie Marin in the January 27, 2011 edition of La Tribune, it would cost $90 million a year to keep the Senate in place. I do not remember the exact number, but I believe that 60% or 70% of Quebeckers supported abolishing the Senate.

We also learned in January that some senators are incurring excessive if not extravagant expenses. Conservative senators have not stopped sending mail-outs despite the fact that, in the spring of 2010, the House of Commons prohibited members from sending these types of mail-outs outside their ridings and specified that the Senate should follow suit.

It is important to note that the total printing budget for the Senate increased from $280,500 to $734,183 in 2008-09. Last month, the senators gave themselves the right to use taxpayers' dollars to continue to send mail-outs in which they can attack members.

To remedy the representation and legitimacy deficits and truly reform the Senate—to create a Senate where senators are actual representatives of Quebec and the provinces who are appointed or elected by legitimate authorities in Quebec, such as Quebec's National Assembly, and in the provinces and where there is equal representation for Quebec and the provinces resulting in a truly effective and non-partisan upper house as they have in other countries—we would have to proceed with a constitutional reform that would require agreement from seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population. We know that this would be practically impossible because we would have to reopen the Constitution.

The Bloc Québécois does not oppose this motion given that the Senate, in its current state, is unnecessary and that the current method of democratic representation has many shortcomings, such as the ones I have already mentioned. However, the Bloc's support for this motion is conditional upon the inclusion of two basic elements. First, Quebec's political weight must not be reduced at all as a result of any democratic reform. Second, under Quebec's referendum legislation, a referendum must be held in Quebec on the abolition of the Senate.

I would like to make two amendments to the NDP's motion. I move, seconded by the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges:

That the motion be amended:

(a) by adding after the words “the next general election,” the following:

“with the understanding that, in Quebec, such a referendum will be subject to Quebec law, in accordance with the current Referendum Act and as established as a precedent by the 1992 Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord,”;

(b) by adding after the words “recommendations to the House” the following:

“that in no way reduce the current weight of the Quebec nation in the House of Commons”. .

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

moved:

That: (a) the House recognize the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in the Parliament of Canada, specifically the unnecessary Senate and a House of Commons that does not accurately reflect the political preferences of Canadians;

(b) the House call on the government to (i) propose amendments to the Referendum Act in order to allow the holding of a special referendum at the same time as the next general election, (ii) put a simple question, as written by the Special Committee for Democratic Improvement, which would allow Canadians to vote to abolish the Senate;

(c) the House appoint a Special Committee for Democratic Improvement, whose mandate is to (i) engage with Canadians, and make recommendations to the House, on how best to achieve a House of Commons that more accurately reflects the votes of Canadians by combining direct election by electoral district and proportional representation, (ii) advise the government on the wording of a referendum question to abolish the Senate; and

(d) the Special Committee for Democratic Improvement shall consist of 12 members which shall include six members from the government party, three members from the Official Opposition, two members from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party, and

(1) that in addition to the Chair, there shall be one Vice-Chair elected by committee members, who shall be from an opposition party;

(2) that the members to serve on the said Committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party's members of the Committee no later than three days from the passage of this motion;

(3) that the quorum of the Special Committee be seven members for any proceedings;

(4) that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(5) that the Committee have all of the powers of a standing committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

(6) that the Committee shall report its recommendations to this House no later than one year from the passage of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to not only move my motion but also to debate it.

New Democrats, and probably most members of the House if they were to admit it, accept the fact that Canadians believe that our Parliament is broken and that we need to do something about it rather than tinkering around the edges. We need to make profound changes that will actually bring modern, true democracy to Parliament Hill.

The current Prime Minister has quite a track record of commenting on the Senate. Prior to the current position he holds, it had been his position that the Senate is a relic of the 19th century. We agree with the Prime Minister on that.

However, it is a relic that was put in place for a very specific purpose. It was created to ensure that Canada's elite, the power brokers of the day, those that have, are protected from whatever the unwashed masses might do should we actually give them control of this country, control of the economy, and control over the laws that govern our day-to-day activities. The Senate was put there to keep this place in check. We believe it is time to remove that, get rid of the Senate, and focus on making this place as democratic as it can be. That is the solution as far as we are concerned.

Citizens in this country go from rage to laughter at the situation that we have in our current Senate. That is why it has been known for many years as the “taskless thanks”. Under our Constitution, the Senate is a body that is actually superior to this place. However, there is one little missing piece in that place, the absence of democracy.

I would like to say upfront that there is one exception to the comments that will be made, and that I will make, about unelected senators. In fact, there is one who was elected. Although I acknowledge the exception of the one senator who was elected, I do remind the House that that senator will never have the word “re-elected” appearing after the word “elected” because there is no requirement for that senator to go back to the people and ask, “Am I doing a good job? Am I doing the right thing? Are you happy with what I've done?” I accept that there is an exception there, but it only goes to a certain degree. The whole issue of accountability and reporting to the very people who provided the mandate to be there in the first place is missing.

I also want to say that there are independent senators in that place. Although not many, there are independent senators who go out of their way to maintain that independence and try to keep at arm's length from the partisan aspects. However, that is a very small minority.

An important comment I would make at the outset is that this is not about individual senators. There will be comments made about them. To some degree, they have to be accountable for their actions and what they are doing over there.

However, today is not about individual senators. In fact, I have the greatest admiration for most of the ones with whom I have worked. In particular, a certain senator from Saskatchewan who is a lawyer, a former judge and ambassador, and the co-chair of our Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association, does a magnificent job and is a great Canadian. I am very proud to represent Canada with her and the others on that team. That does not change the fact that this hon. senator still does not have the democratic mandate to be affecting our laws and deciding on whether or not this country will have laws that protect people or whether we have an economy that represents ordinary working people. Senators do not have that mandate. As good as that Canadian is that I am talking about, she still does not have that mandate.

There are some who would argue that by going to an elected Senate, we will solve that entire problem. However, we are arguing here today that if Canadians focused on this issue, we could convince them that the best thing to do is to abolish the Senate completely and focus on bringing proportional representation to the House of Commons to more accurately reflect the political will and decisions of the Canadian people. That is what this is all about.

The government has put forward some bills and it looks like its ideas are not going very far. People are asking why they are doing this now. The government is trying to do something and people can see that it is not getting anywhere, and so what is the point? Why are they wasting their time trying to do that? It is too complicated.

Why do we not just go ahead and elect senators and keep the Senate there? It is because we all know that going to an elected Senate, first, would be just as complicated and just as difficult as abolishing it. We also know that it would create gridlock in this place. It was a real eye opener for the Canadian people, and certainly for this party, when Bill C-311 was unilaterally killed without debate, or at least not much if there was any, after being passed by the House twice.

We believe, rather than setting up a system that would complicate things even more by creating permanent gridlock, we ought to abolish that place completely.

How do we go about that, because it is so complex? We could stand up a fleet of constitutional lawyers who would tell us how difficult that would be to do. Agreed. Anything to do with the constitution and this place and that place is complicated. That is a given, but running away from the problem will not solve it.

We in the New Democratic Party are saying that if we have a big problem like this that is so important to the future of the country, why do we not go to the “bosses” and ask them what they think. The bosses in this case are the Canadian people.

We are suggesting that we put a referendum before the Canadian people, a simple question. We believe the first question that needs to be asked if we are to look at changing things is, “Do you still want a Senate, yes or no?” If the answer is yes, then we can move on and start talking about what that would look like and engage Canadians in that discussion. We believe that in an open and fair political battle, we could win that one, because the number of people in Canada who believe that it should be abolished is growing. However, if we put that question to the Canadian people and they said, “No, we do not want the Senate any more”, we believe we could move very quickly to implement the will of the Canadian people, because that is where all power derives from in this country, in the will of the Canadian people.

The Prime Minister said he would not appoint anybody who was not elected to the Senate. Let me just give a brief description of some of the people the Prime Minister has appointed, without mentioning names, as that is not my thing. I do not have much time, and so I will just list some of them: a Tory organizer was appointed to sit in cabinet as a Quebec representative, which we all remember; a former director of the PC fund and chair of Tory leadership and policy conventions was appointed senator; as were a Tory campaign director for 2006 and 2008; a former chair of the Conservative Party's fundraising; a former chief of staff to Preston Manning; and an unsuccessful candidate in 1993 and 1997.

That is one of the problems here. The Prime Minister said he would not appoint anyone and then turned around and only appointed, for the most part, with a couple of exceptions, good, loyal Conservatives. That may make the Conservative benches happy, but all it does is put the lie to the claim that the other place is non-partisan. That is not true.

To continue, a former Conservative MP, defeated in the 2008 election, and another unsuccessful Conservative candidate in the 2008 election were also appointed. What is it with the Conservatives who cannot get into Parliament through the front door, but as long as they are good buddies with the Prime Minister of the day, they get to come into Parliament through the back door? Of course, the nice thing about that is they never have to go back to anybody. One bended knee request, and it is over.

There are a few more. We have another unsuccessful Canadian Alliance candidate, and yet another. We have a former president of the Conservative Party, the Quebec co-chair of the Prime Minister's own 2004 leadership campaign, and the Prime Minister's former press secretary. We have a former Newfoundland Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, a former Ontario Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, a New Brunswick Progressive Conservative cabinet minister, another unsuccessful Conservative candidate and yet another, and the list goes on and on.

The Liberals are no better. The Liberals right now, to the best of my knowledge, and if I am wrong I will correct it publicly, have their national campaign co-chair as a senator, their Nova Scotia campaign co-chair as a senator, their New Brunswick campaign co-chair as a senator, and their leader's Alberta and British Columbia outreach coordinators as senators too.

What is interesting about that is that it speaks to the leader's Alberta and British Columbia outreach, but if a senator is to provide a sober second independent thought, how can it be that a senator can also somehow be tied to the leader of the official opposition? There is no politics over there, though: they are all just good Canadians, reflecting soberly with sober second thoughts.

Why do they have a whip? When did we need to start whipping independents? They have a government House leader. We know that a government House leader's job is to shepherd government legislation through the Senate, yet government legislation is partisan. How can that be? There is the leader of the official opposition. How can that be? How can all of these things exist and yet at the same time we can have this independent sober second thought? How?

It is time to give the Canadian people their chance to kill that undemocratic chamber and make this place more democratic. That is what this is about.

As for the other piece of this, it is not as sexy and will not get all the headlines. We knew that. However, in many ways, the proportional representation aspect of this is arguably even more important than the Senate, because the decision about what happens with the Senate will be taken here. We need to make sure that everywhere here is democratically elected and actually reflects the will of the people. This House does not do that right now.

We have a system, and we believe it is time to end it, where if a party goes into a general election and gets 40% of the vote, it gets 100% of the power. What kind of democracy says that 40% of the vote gives a party 100% of the power? Right now, ours does. Right now, that is the way that first past the post works.

Some people are saying that the reason we want proportional representation is that we are one of the smaller parties, that it is the only way we will get into power, et cetera, all of which may or may not be true. However, I would remind the government members who may want to use that argument that in Germany, where they have proportional representation, it is the right wing that has formed a coalition to reach a majority government. So if it is a plot, a secret conspiracy, to help the left and the NDP, we need to rethink our strategy here. That does not seem to be a guarantee with this system.

What is a guarantee, though, is having people's votes reflected. Right now there are hundreds of thousands of votes cast in a general election that virtually do not count. In my own riding, I hope that all of those who voted for me are happy but all of the people who voted against me are unhappy, and where is what they wanted reflected? Where is it? It is legitimate, too.

Just because one's favoured candidate does not win, does not mean that one's vote is worth less than somebody else's vote. Yet that is what our current system does.

If we had proportional representation, under one of the more prevalent models, here is how it would help the Conservatives. Granted, the Conservatives would have fewer seats. They would have 119. However, in terms of democracy and representing the will of the Canadian people, the 26% of the votes they received in Toronto would have elected members for them. The Conservative Party received 26% of the votes cast in Toronto but did not get one seat. That is not an accurate reflection of the entire electorate in Toronto.

The Liberals would have won 83 seats. They would have gained a few. However, more importantly, in the 2008 election, the Liberals had 28% of the votes in south central Ontario but did not get a single seat. That is not right.

The NDP would have won 56 seats. Granted, that would be an increase. Fair enough, but the important thing is that 25% of the vote that it got in Saskatchewan would have been reflected in a seat from Saskatchewan. How can a party get a quarter, a full 25%, of the votes cast and have nothing to show for it?

The Bloc would have had 31 seats. What is interesting is that in 2008 the Bloc received 38% of the Quebec vote but got 65% of the Quebec seats.

The Green Party I want to mention. Based on the last vote, the Greens would have had 17 seats, because they received 6.8% of the vote, and yet there is no Green voice here. Yet the Bloc got 10% of the national vote and got 49 seats. Think about it: the Green Party got 6.8% and no seats, and the Bloc got 10% and 49 seats.

The system just does not work. It does not work for Canadians. It certainly does not work for women, aboriginals and minorities.

People are somewhat concerned about how complicated the system might be. Well, it is certainly no more complicated than trying to figure out what is going on between here and that place over there. We know that Canadians are pretty good at dealing with strategic voting, so they are not going to have any problem, in the NDP's opinion, mastering proportional representation. It is in 74 other countries already.

When people vote, they will get two votes. One will be for their local candidate in their geographical riding. People will cast their votes for the person they want to be their MP for their area, just like now, except there is a way that we can polish the first past the post system. Then people will get a second vote, allowing them to pick their party preference. Then, at the end of the day, there will be a calculation made.

One of the models that has been looked at is the two-thirds/one-third system. Two-thirds of the seats would be like these, and one-third would come from the PR lists. Then the proportion of everybody's vote, as I have already said, would be reflected in the House. There would be the candidate of people's choice and a reflection of the party weight in the House, thereby giving people the democracy they are craving, demanding and looking for.

I urge my colleagues to look at adopting this motion. It is a bite-sized measure. It is saying that we should take one step at a time, that we should put the question about whether the Senate should exist to the Canadian people and that a committee should engage Canadians in modernizing our democracy and bringing proportional representation to this place we love.

Disposition of Abolition of Early Parole Act

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been sitting here listening and I am a little puzzled. I am trying to understand why it is that the member is debating what the Senate did to Bill C-311.

It is my understanding that the rules require a certain amount of relevance in a member's comments. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call the member to order and ask him to speak to the subject at hand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member from Trinity—Spadina

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious in this House of Commons that we are now facing probably the most undemocratic government of all time. It is bad enough that the Conservatives got elected, but ever since they have been elected they have displayed a level of arrogance that is beyond the pale.

It took over 13 years for the Liberal Party of Canada in power to develop that level of arrogance. It took the Conservatives over 13 days. Since then, we have seen an unprecedented level of attack on Canadians and the Canadian system in the history of our country.

It starts with the Conservative government reversing itself when it comes to closure. I remember a time when the Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party and the Alliance Party went nuts over the Liberal government every time it invoked closure. Every time that happened they stood up and screamed and yelled. Now they turn around and do it themselves. In fact, they do it in such a way that is really quite sad because the bill they brought forward has no accounting mechanism whatsoever.

We in the opposition have asked quite clearly what the cost of that initiative will be but the government has refused to give it. Why would a government, so hell bent on passing legislation that it has to rush it down the throats of parliamentarians, in this case with their coalition partners, the Bloc Québécois, not tell the House of Commons or the Canadian taxpayer how much it will cost?

Let us go through the past couple of months of the Conservative government.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism attacked the judiciary. Just recently, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke attacked the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador by saying that they should be responsible for their own safety when it comes to the waters off the east coast. The Conservatives have attacked public servants and one of the finest people in the nuclear industry, Ms. Keen. In fact, every time people disagree with the government, they get attacked, and viciously I might add. The list goes on and on.

The Conservatives have given us record deficits, a record debt and yet they continue on without any accounting methods whatsoever. They are just basically saying to heck with the rest of us. They tell us what they will do and then say that we can bring them down if we want. Well that day may come very soon.

I think Canadians are tired of the level of arrogance that the Conservative government has displayed. In my 13 and a half years I have yet to see this level of disgust by a party over there, especially when it is the governing party.

The ironic thing is that we have men and women serving overseas in many countries bringing forward peace, freedom and democracy to many other people who have never had democracy and yet the Conservatives step on democracy because they do not even like it.

I remember very clearly that every time closure was brought in by the Liberals, the Conservatives yelled and screamed. Now they turn around and do it themselves. They attack the judiciary, public servants and disagree with people they hire. When the veterans ombudsman, Colonel Pat Stogran, issued a scathing report over the Department of Veterans Affairs they attacked him. The government did not attack the message, but the messenger because the truth hurts.

The reality is that the government's time is on a very short leash. I, for one, hope the Canadian people in this country rise up to say that this is enough. The good people of Egypt rose up against Mubarak and many of them died to get democracy in Egypt. I would hope that they are not looking at our democracy right now.

What the heck is going on? The government does not even respect the fact that there is an opposition, which is something the Conservatives wanted when they were in opposition. In fact, several pieces of legislation have passed the majority of the House of Commons only to go to an unelected, unaccountable Senate to die.

Bill C-311 was a classic example of how the Conservative Party of Canada trampled on the democratic rights of the majority of the House of Commons. The majority of the House clearly voted for Bill C-311. In fact, the Prime Minister himself said that when the majority of the House democratically votes on a legislation or motion, then the government is honour bound to honour that bill or motion. Those were his own words.

However, when the House did that on several occasions, it went to the unelected, unaccountable Senate, which, by the way, the Conservatives said they would never do. They stood here in the House and screamed and yelled against the Liberal-appointed senators holding up legislation.

When we look at the facts, at least the Liberals were honest about their view of the Senate. They liked it just the way it was. The Conservatives screamed and yelled about that. The minute they put enough their cronies and bag people in there, they started changing the rules.

Without even having a witness and without even having one word of debate, the Conservative senators killed Bill C-311 without even any discussion.

The Senate is supposed to do two things and two things only: peer review legislation that comes from the House of Commons and work on in-depth reports facing the issues of the day. It is not supposed to fundraise. It is not supposed to send ten percenters out, slamming members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Its members are not supposed to be flying across the country in business class on the taxpayers' dime raising funds for the Conservative Party. That is not what the Senate is about.

Yet, when the Senate was asked to actually do its job, it did not even do that. It killed legislation before it even discussed it. Why? It is because we have a female senator of the Conservative persuasion who says, “Why would we vote for anything that wasn't in the throne speech---

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning.

First, I want to talk about the concern expressed by Mr. Farrell. We feel that we need to differentiate between what comes under the bill and what comes under collective agreements or agreements between parties. For instance, when there is no union involved, the Minimum Wage Act or the Act respecting labour standards apply. You are worried about retirement. If someone is over the age of 60 or 65—depending on the retirement age set by the employer—and they continue working, they continue contributing to the pension plan and do not receive benefits until they stop working, unless the parties have come to another agreement. So, the two parties continue contributing to the pension plan as they would in the case of any other salaried employee. This person's benefits will be higher when they leave their employment at 68 instead of at 65 years of age because of an additional three-year contribution period. The same goes for other social benefits, such as sick leave. From what I understand, you are talking specifically about leave prescribed by collective agreements or leave also prescribed by the Act respecting labour standards.

This does not increase costs because individuals who leave their employment are usually replaced at the same cost. What may sometimes differ are health-related absences. However, as I have been the employer of 120 people, I can tell you that the oldest employees are not necessarily the ones who take the most sick leave. So, there is an age-related prejudice involved. I am not accusing you of being prejudiced, but this is what often comes to mind.

This bill seems interesting to me, and I believe that we will support it. Amendments will probably have to be introduced, in light of your comments. However, I don't believe that the amendments moved will reflect your position, Mr. Farrell. We are talking about age discrimination. In any company, when employees—whether they are 30 or 40 years old—become unfit to do their job, the employer has the right to let them go, to demote them or to offer them another position. This can also happen with 65-year-old employees. They can be told that their job description has changed and that the position now requires technical skills they do not possess, that the company cannot provide them with the necessary training, that they will not be able to adapt and that they must leave their job. All employers will always have this right, whether the employee is 40 or 68 years of age. I think that we must understand this fact.

There is another consideration here, which will be the topic of my question. Is there an age for retirement when we say that there should be no age discrimination? I will give you the example of the Canadian Senate. Senators are active until the age of 75. Recently, the Senate made a decision not to debate Bill C-311, which had been adopted by the House of Commons. I have seen the vote and can tell you that it was not the oldest members who refused to do the work. Senators are appointed by one person, and they went against a decision made by the elected representatives of 33 million citizens.

This analysis brings us to the question my colleague asked airplane pilots earlier. Who determines when we must leave our job? I think that this decision should always be based on employees' ability to do their job properly. Do you agree with me?

If you do, we will base ourselves on this principle.

Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act

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

Madam Speaker, the answer is quite simple. If the government wishes to avoid an election, there are several things the government can do. One, it can adopt our new veterans charter, which was voted on twice. It could also look at the NDP's proposal with regard to the Canada pension plan. It could also look at the NDP's proposal regarding old age security. It could put the F-35 contract under a competitive bid. It could reintroduce our Bill C-311 on climate change introduced by my colleague from Ontario.

There are many more things. If the government wishes to avoid an election, it should take those great New Democratic Party ideas, incorporate them in the budget, and then we will have that conversation.

Andrée Champagne

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to an open letter I sent to Conservative Senator Andrée Champagne, asking her to explain her refusal to support Bill C-232 regarding bilingual judges and Bill C-311 on climate change, she replied with comments that bordered on racist.

She said that I lacked loyalty to Canada, “the country that welcomed me and that I wanted to see torn apart”. Is the Conservative Senator trying to say that a citizen who was not born here does not have the same right to an opinion as other Quebeckers and that he or she does not have the right to vote or be involved in a sovereignist party? She added that she was a "purebred Quebecker,” as evidenced by her genealogy.

The Bloc Québécois believes in openness and believes that all Quebeckers, regardless of where they come from, should have full rights of citizenship, including the right to decide Quebec's future.

Foreign Affairs

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since I am not getting a straight answer I will change the subject.

In March, the House passed a bill on Supreme Court justices. A majority of the representatives elected by the people passed a bill and sent it to the Senate. The bill has been languishing there ever since. The Conservative senators refuse even to refer the bill to committee to allow people to discuss it. As the old adage goes, things come in threes.

Two or three weeks ago, they killed Bill C-311. This week Bill S-216 got the axe.

Will Bill C-332 be the next victim of the Conservatives in the Senate?

The Environment

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised not to appoint unaccountable members to the Senate, but in reality he has appointed more of them than any prime minister in our history.

Canadians are downright angry that the government is using unelected, unaccountable senators to kill legislation like Bill C-311 that was passed in the House by a majority of members representing a majority of Canadians. It is undemocratic and it is unacceptable.

When will the Prime Minister stop using the unelected, unaccountable Conservative Senate to thwart the will of the elected and accountable House of Commons?

Ensuring Safe Vehicles Imported from Mexico for Canadians Act

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of the speeches that were given today certainly indicate that members are in favour of moving this legislation along. Of course, it is long overdue. NAFTA was put in place quite a while back and this is just an entity to move us a little closer to what NAFTA actually directed people to do.

At the end of the day, we heard the government side trying to boast that this was almost a climate change bill. I am assuming the government brought this before the House because it is on its way to Cancun. It would have been much better for the government to go to Cancun with Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill. I am sure that my colleague would support my comment that that would have been a better bill to be going to Cancun with.

Could the member elaborate on the fact that this would create jobs in Canada when we put this forward?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was contemplating this issue, I realized that some of the comments I would like to make regarding the motion apply to the amendment also. I got a little concerned in thinking about it in that if I didn't put my hand up and make them now, in fact, there might be some procedural tactic employed to shut down debate on the motion later, and I won't get my chance to make these comments.

So because my comments really apply overall to the question of how much time we should spend debating Bill C-469, I'm going to make them now.

I'll mention that I've now sat on this committee for well over two lovely and enjoyable years, and I cannot think of any time in the last two years or so when we have been faced with a motion like this to shut down and limit debate.

Historically, we have had a lot of lengthy debates on this committee. There were many times when I might have wished that I could shut down debate, but it would never have occurred to me to do that, because I do respect the right of members and in fact the duty of members to speak their mind. In fact, I don't think that in the two years that I've sat on this committee I have ever seen a Conservative member move for a limitation of debate.

I think the question has to be asked: why now? Why, after two years of considering a great many important bills, like Bill C-311--not important because I agreed with it, but important because of the consequences it would have inflicted on our country--like the SARA study, and like the oil sands and water study? During the hours and hours we spent debating those things, never once did anybody suggest that we should limit our comments, presumably because we all wanted to have a full and fair debate that the public could listen in on. I think that's the way that we should operate.

So why now would the NDP member want to stop debate on her bill? Is it because she doesn't want people to know how bad this bill really is? Is it because she doesn't want some of the problems that are inherent in this bill to be exposed to the light? We have had literally pages and pages of submissions. We have had hours and hours of testimony. Why would the NDP member want to straitjacket our debate at this time, rather than letting people express themselves?

Even when we don't agree with ideas, and in fact especially when we don't agree with ideas, we should let them be heard and let people decide for themselves. If you don't, if you try to shut down debate, if you try to hide the facts and opinions, you leave yourself open to the accusation that your bill is flawed because it didn't cover all the bases.

I heard someone say that this is an important bill and that's why we should truncate debate. I would say that it's just the opposite: this bill is so important that we owe it to Canadians to have a full hearing and to take the time to understand what the terms in the bill mean, what the implications are, and what the legal aspects are. It's important because there are jobs at stake. There is development at stake.

I've heard people say that this is just about industry, but the reality is that it's not just industry that will suffer as a result of this bill. There are hunters, there are trappers, there are people who want to build houses, and there are people who want to rehabilitate their land. All of these people are going to be affected by what's in this bill and, quite frankly, they won't know what any of it means because I'm willing to bet that most of the people around this table don't know what most of it means.

I will mention one specific issue that bothers me a lot. Every time I look at this bill, I see something new. When we come to discuss clause 3 of the bill, I'm going to point out that it says this bill has to be interpreted in accordance “with existing and emerging principles of environmental law”. Well, who around this table knows what “emerging principles of environmental law” means? I venture to suggest that the drafter of the bill doesn't know what “emerging principles of environmental law” means.

I'll reserve the rest of my comments...well, actually, I won't have the time. I won't have the time to talk about my concerns, because if this motion passes unamended, at most I will have five minutes to speak for the whole Conservative Party.

So maybe I should just take a moment and say, for example, that I don't know whether that means principles of law that are emerging today when we pass the bill, or principles of law that are emerging when a matter happens to get to court, whether that's five, or ten, or twenty years from now.

I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging in Canada or whether it means principles of law that are emerging in North America, or indeed, whether some Hungarian environmentalist can propose a principle and this bill will need to be interpreted in accordance with that. In fact, I don't know whether it means principles of law that are emerging only in the courts or also academically.

It really behooves us as legislators when we pass laws to pass them with sufficient precision such that everybody knows what we mean. And it doesn't even help, quite frankly, if all of us around this table know what we mean, because you have to be able to read a law and know what it means.

I can guarantee you that no one will know what it means when we say, “emerging principles of environmental law”. At the very best, this is what I would describe as a lawyer's nightmare--or maybe it's an environmental lawyer's dream, because that clause can mean whatever you want it to mean.

There's a line from Alice in Wonderland to that effect. I don't know if it was the Red Queen...it might have been Humpty Dumpty who said, “Words mean what I say they do”. The point is that “emerging principles of environmental law” has no meaning and all meaning, and that concerns me.

And as I mentioned a moment ago, every time I put my eye to paper and look at this bill, I see something more like that, which gives me great concern. I have taken a little bit of time to speak about that particular one because if Ms. Duncan's motion passes--in fact, even if it passes with the amendment that I have proposed--there won't be enough time to talk about all of these issues. We would be delinquent, derelict, and shamefully disregarding our duties as legislators.

Thank you very much.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we could also compare Canada's and China's economic stimulus plans. There would be a difference there.

Instead of trying to sabotage environmental summits, the minister should produce a credible plan for reducing greenhouse gases. If we look at the fact that Conservative senators rejected Bill C-311 and that the government's continental approach is nothing more than a red herring to justify its inaction, it is clear that the minister is not truly ready to implement a plan to combat climate change.

Why is he undermining international negotiations? Why is he undermining negotiations and why does he not introduce a plan—

Opposition Motion—West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona not only for sharing her time with me, but also for sharing her space with me here.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on today's opposition day motion moved by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I wanted to join this debate because I have a few comments to make from a slightly different perspective than those offered today by my New Democratic colleagues. We have heard their forceful and informative presentations on the severe environmental consequences of hundreds of oil supertankers sailing through sensitive marine ecosystems, threatening the livelihood and way of life our beautiful western coastal communities and first nations.

We have also heard that a moratorium is not good enough. We need legislation and we need it now. Let me explain why a moratorium is not good enough any more. The Conservative government's recent reinterpretation of the moratorium has meant that Methanex and Encana have been allowed to import condensate in tankers to the port of Kitimat.

Since 2006, over 30 tankers carrying condensate have been allowed to travel through the inside passage to Kitimat, B.C. For those who do not know, condensate is a highly flammable hydrocarbon used to thin the tar-like oil extracted from the tar sands. It is classified as a dangerous good by the federal government and is so toxic that it kills marine life on contact.

Allowing oil supertankers into the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound would jeopardize the $1.7 billion Pacific coast fishery, the 13,000 commercial fisheries jobs, the approximate 10,000 jobs in the cruise ship and recreational tourism industry, and entire coastal cultures from the threat of oil spills.

For the record, Enbridge Inc. says its pipeline project, the northern gateway project, which will send 400,000 barrels of oil per day from Edmonton to Kitimat to be exported to Asia and the U.S. coast by tanker, will create approximately 200 long-term jobs across the entire route. To threaten tens of thousands of jobs for just 200 jobs, I do not know about my Conservative business-minded colleagues here in the House, but this makes absolutely no sense. As I have said, we need legislation to ban those tankers now.

As we have seen throughout this Parliament, New Democrats have even written the legislation and offered it up to the government to make it its own. I say to the government, if it is really interested in efficiencies, it should not reinvent the wheel, but turn Bill C-502 by my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam into a government bill. New Democrats would help the government pass it right away.

Canadians have repeatedly told us that as legislators we have a responsibility to future generations of Canadians to conserve our non-renewable energy resources now while developing sustainable renewable energy sources for the future.

We know the Conservative members have absolutely no commitment whatsoever to our environment, no matter what they say. Their actions, such as getting their unelected, unrepresented, undemocratic senators to kill, without debate, Bill C-311, the NDP's landmark environmental legislation, is all the proof we need of their dangerous backward thinking.

I will offer a different reason as to why the proposed northern gateway project which is dependent on a reversal of the moratorium on oil tankers is a bad idea.

Currently we produce more oil than we consume, exporting over 65% of it to the U.S., mostly as crude, unprocessed bitumen. The proposed Enbridge northern gateway pipeline would carry 525,000 barrels of crude oil daily from Alberta's tar sands to the port of Kitimat for shipment to Asia, via as many as 220 tankers each year. It would allow unprecedented tar sands expansion, some say by as much as 30%.

The pipeline would cross more than a thousand rivers and streams that make up some of the world's most productive wild salmon habitat, including the great Skeena and Fraser rivers, upon which many communities and first nations depend. The pipeline would also cross the territory of more than 50 first nations.

Here is an important fact. Current pipelines are already operating under capacity.

Instead of going west, we need a pipeline entirely located in Canada that brings oil from western Canada to the east. Instead of securing our energy supply and creating good-paying jobs in Canada, we currently have 36 pipeline projects under way or awaiting approval, none of which would send oil across Canada for Canadian consumption. In fact, for many Atlantic Canadians, Ontarians and Quebecers, Canadian-sourced oil comes to them after travelling through thousands of miles of pipelines in the United States.

This makes the need for the Enbridge northern gateway pipelines project and its associated tanker traffic highly questionable.

Further, there is already an existing pipeline and terminal in Burnaby, B.C. shipping tar sands oil to Asian markets.

Here is some food for thought. In allowing more north-south or western pipelines, we are allowing, on a daily basis, millions of barrels of crude oil to be shipped out of Canada for processing in the U.S. Now Enbridge wants to ship another half a million barrels a day of unprocessed oil to Asia for processing. Allowing tanker traffic in the Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound would essentially expand the number of foreign companies which now control and profit from the processing of crude Canadian oil. It begs the question, why is the government not creating the value-added jobs in Canada? Why are we creating these jobs overseas? Canada needs its own capacity to process oil and create value-added jobs in Canada before exporting it.

Is the government aware that Canada is virtually alone among oil-producing countries in not having the means to supply our own needs? Ontario and Quebec in particular are completely landlocked from oil supplies. The government likes to talk about how Canada is open for business and how we need to attract foreign investment in Canada, when in fact, the effect of all these pipelines is to guarantee long-term investment in foreign countries, not in Canada. The processing facilities are in the U.S.A. and Asia, not in Canada. The processing jobs are in the U.S.A. and Asia, not in Canada. I would love answers on how this foreign investment is good for Canadians. Should we not be securing these jobs for Canadians? After all, is this not Canadian oil?

Canada needs a comprehensive energy policy, one that places emphasis on securing renewable sources of energy, one that supports the creation of homegrown green technology, which could bring thousands of high-paying jobs for Canadians and one that ensures that all future energy projects are consistent with our national interests. This is where the government's priority should lie. Instead, the Conservative government continues to rely on dirty oil while supporting foreign efforts to ship processing jobs out of Canada.

We in the New Democratic Party say no to more pipelines that ship unprocessed bitumen out of Canada, no to super oil tankers plying through sensitive marine ecosystems, no to increased reliance on oil, and yes to focusing on securing our country's energy needs through investments in clean, renewable energy. We owe it to those who elected us. We owe it to our kids and our grandkids.

I urge all members to support this motion.

Opposition Motion--West Coast Oil Tanker Traffic

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reverse the order of the member's questions.

With respect to the two things the government could do, it could immediately look at implementing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, and implement the environmental bill of rights put forward by the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. Those would be two good steps in demonstrating Canada's position on climate change.

With regard to the twinning of the pipeline, I will come back to the first nations' perspective. I know we are talking about twinning here, but any additional construction is going to have an impact on territories. Before any consideration of expansion of even existing projects is considered, first nations must be at the table, must be appropriately consulted, must be included in any implementation of any decision. That is the appropriate step to take on that particular project.

Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could give a whole speech on that, but perhaps I will concentrate on one aspect. That is Bill C-311, which was summarily defeated by the Conservative majority in the Senate.

The bill was intended to try to get Canada to commit to a strategy to deal with our environmental issues. We needed to have some hope, but that bill, after it passed here and went to the Senate, was not even debated. There was not one word of debate.

The orders came directly from the Prime Minister's office to those senators he had appointed, to say “This is what we are going to do”. I do not have to explain why, because I think Canadians know why. It is because the Prime Minister still thinks the issue of greenhouse gases is a socialist plot.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note that this member voted for Bill C-311.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope of course that in spite of the comments of the previous speaker, this bill will pass with the unanimous support of all members.

It is very important to me that we proceed with environmental legislation in a democratic way. I urge the House to resist all efforts to judicialize environmental policy and instead to allow the members of this House, duly representing Canadians across the land, to consider the economic and social objectives of our people and to reconcile that with scientifically recommended options for the environment.

There has been some debate in the course of this morning's proceedings about the Senate, and of course this bill is about making sure that the reports under the federal sustainable development strategy are in fact delivered in the Senate. There are those in this House who would like to abolish the Senate. I myself, from time to time, have expressed the view that I am not a big fan of the Senate; however it is important for all of us, if we wish to maintain a law-abiding attitude, to recognize that the Constitution of Canada, the law of our land, does in fact establish a Senate and does give the Senate a role to play, and until the Senate is either abolished or reformed, the people who are placed in the Senate are very conscientiously trying to do the job that is assigned to them.

It is rather unfortunate that anyone would stand in this House and say that we will completely disregard the Constitution of Canada and say that senators do not have any role in our government, because of course that would be unlawful and I myself do not like to hear members of Parliament talking about proceeding in an unlawful manner.

In particular, when the Senate is faced with a terrible environmental bill such as Bill C-311, it is necessary for the senators to consider that legislation and to determine how they will dispose of it. It is completely irrelevant and in some ways irreverent and lawless to suggest that senators should not accept their responsibility to consider legislation from the House. As much as some of us would like not to have a Senate, as long as there is a Senate, senators have to be commended for conscientiously approaching their duties.

When it comes to Bill C-311, I spent hours and hours listening to evidence on that bill in committee, time that could have been spent much more productively actually talking about ways in which we can achieve environmental benefits for Canada, and in point of fact, the federal sustainable development strategy would do exactly that, whereas Bill C-311 would not have done that.

The previous speaker was somewhat disingenuous in saying that all Bill C-311 would have done was to require reporting. In fact Bill C-311 would have required unrealistic and unattainable greenhouse gas reductions. Bill C-311 itself did not propose any mechanisms or any means to achieve those reductions. In fact the evidence we heard at committee, from the Pembina Institute among others, was that the cost of reaching the goals that were set in Bill C-311 would have been about $70 billion between now and 2020. This would have been about twice the cost of the government's existing greenhouse gas program and would have only achieved a 16% difference in greenhouse gas reduction. It was a terrible bill, and whatever we think of the Senate, we can all rest a little easier tonight knowing that that bill has been deep-sixed and sent to an early grave.

Having said all of that, of course this is very partisan and I hope we will all focus on Bill S-210 and that we will all get behind it in a spirit of non-partisan attention to the concerns that really all Canadians have across the country.

National Tree Day

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to motion.

First, it was interesting that the mover of the motion said that this was not political. We are in the House of Commons. When one raises issues related to the tree, puts forward a loving, caring motion and then talks about the use of the tree in our forestry sector and its value to society, we have to look at the policies of the government related to it and whether there is true meaning behind a 17-word motion that needs to be amended. It is important that we talk about those things and not ignore them.

If this motion is to have meaning, we have to raise serious issues.

The first serious issue is it is a motion and not a bill. A bill is a different thing. A bill has considerably more weight than a motion. When in opposition, the Prime Minister used to say in the chamber that there was a moral responsibility to act when a motion in Parliament was passed. Since that time, all kinds of motions have been passed in the chamber and have never been acted upon.

One motion I worked on was the seniors' charter of rights, which eventually was in the name of the member for Hamilton Mountain. It dealt with seniors issues, such as housing, poverty and pensions. It was an important motion, yet it was not been acted upon.

Previous to that, Ed Broadbent, a respected Canadian from all party persuasions, had a motion passed to end child poverty. Sadly, nothing has been done on child poverty to get to the targets in the motion.

Recently, a motion by the member for Toronto—Danforthon the Investment Canada Act was passed. The Investment Canada Act is something we heard about recently during the potash deal and other types of unfortunate takeovers, including those in the forestry sector, in which Canadians have lost their jobs. The forestry sector is very important because we are losing our value added.

The government was part of the softwood lumber sellout. Despite winning under the dispute mechanisms of NAFTA and several lawsuits, as well as Canadians footing the bill for over $100 million in lawyer fees, we lost the $1 billion that was awarded to us out of the $5 billion, which was illegally taken from Canadian companies.

I understand the member is trying to do something nice in recognizing the tree and I appreciate that. I am the former vice-chair of the Essex Region Conservation Authority. Industrialization caused devastating effects to the environment and our ecosystems in my area. I live in a Carolinian forest area in southern Ontario, one of the few places in North America that has this diversity, and we are trying to build it back.

It is important that we talk about this. If there is to meaning, the government policies have to be solid.

I talked about the ash borer beetle in southern Ontario that came up through Michigan. The Liberal government of the day was very slow to act and did not take it seriously. By the time the firewall was built, basically by knocking other trees down, the borer beetle was already past it.

The publicity and notification campaigns were late, despite the warnings for years and years, and the beetle got out. It is in northern Ontario and other parts of Canada now. We have seen the devastating effect of that beetle. It goes underneath the skin of the elm tree, burrows and destroys the tree. We have lost thousands upon thousands of trees not only in the forests but in our cities. They have caused great economic damage, as well as critical environmental damage, not only in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The member noted that, but he did not want to talk about the fact that his party killed a climate change bill. Bill C-311, put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the first one the world had seen, was killed by the unelected Senate. Once again, it gives meaning to the words.

Democratic Reform

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing up this important issue.

We do have a situation where the Senate of Canada is not consistent with the democratic values of the 21st century. That is why we are bringing forward our legislation for eight-year term limits. This is why we are bringing in Senate elections.

What we cannot have is a Senate that has appointments made three decades ago holding up government priorities, like a strong economy, and Bill C-311 was bad for the Canadian economy.

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits)

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-10 and the amendment proposed by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley today.

I would like to read the motion proposed by the member, which was:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits), because the term limits do not go far enough in addressing the problems with the Senate of Canada, and do not lead quickly enough to the abolition of the upper chamber, as recent events have shown to be necessary.”

As I said and as was indicated by our previous speaker in regard to Bill C-10, the New Democrats had indicated that we would be supporting that bill to get it to committee, but things have changed in the last week with regard to developments at the Senate on Bill C-311, Climate Change Accountability Act.

This bill was passed not only once in this Parliament but had also passed in a previous Parliament. Of course, because of the election, it came back and had to be reintroduced and passed a second time. It then went to the Senate.

Now the unelected, appointed, Conservative-dominated Senate killed Bill C-311 without so much as giving it the proper debate and allowing it to go to a committee of the Senate and go through the proper process. Had it gone through the proper process and had they found some problem with it, perhaps they could have amended it. There were ways to deal with the bill in a proper way as opposed to the way it was treated. It was basically killed in the dead of night.

The Senate has not done something like this for many years. If this is setting a new precedent for how the Senate is going to operate, it is not very good.

Yesterday I listened to the Liberal member for Random—Burin—St. George's give the Liberal position on this bill. She was talking about the lack of consultation, as far as the provinces were concerned. I wanted to draw her attention and the attention of the House to a consultation process that occurred in my home province of Manitoba.

By the way, Manitoba did have a Senate created in 1870. Manitobans had the good sense to abolish it in 1876. Members should also know that four other provinces had senates as well. New Brunswick abolished its in 1982. Nova Scotia abolished its in 1928. Quebec created one in 1867 and abolished it in 1968. Prince Edward Island created its in 1873 and abolished it in 1893.

So we have the experience of five of our provinces that have had senates and have gotten rid of them, not to mention other examples in the Commonwealth. I fail to see any examples where jurisdictions are actually bringing forth and introducing new senates. If anything, there seems to be a move towards getting rid of them.

What happened in Manitoba on June 13, 2006, was Bill 22 passed the legislature. Bill 22, the Elections Reform Act, was approved by all parties in the legislature, including the Liberal Party. The act stated that they preferred abolishing the Senate but if the Senate could not be abolished then it should consist of democratically elected members rather than members appointed by a process involving patronage appointments.

As I had indicated, the Manitoba Senate was abolished in 1876. The feeling of the committee was that the province had been served quite well without having the Senate around.

An all-party committee was set up. Membership included the NDP, Conservatives, and a Liberal member, Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, who is currently running for the Liberals in the byelection in Winnipeg North. He may possibly be one of our colleagues in the future. Mr. Lamoureux was part of the committee that came up with final recommendations, which I will deal with in a few minutes.

This all-party committee met in Brandon, Carman, Dauphin, Flin Flon, Norway House, Russell, St. Laurent, Steinbach and Winnipeg. This has been a tradition for the last number of years in Manitoba whenever there is a controversial issue, whether it be Meech Lake, smoking in public places, or the Charlottetown accord. We have tended to get all the parties involved in an all-party committee process. We found that works quite well.

In fact, the committee heard 51 presentations at its public hearings. It had 32 written submissions sent in via mail. In fact, one of the written submissions was sent in by Senator Terry Stratton.

In terms of the people who presented at the public meetings held across the province, I will mention names that people in the House will recognize. We had the recent former MP, Inky Mark, make a presentation at the meeting in Dauphin. Also, there was Senator Sharon Carstairs, Senator Bert Brown and Daniel Boucher from the Société franco-manitobaine. As well, there was the former Conservative MP, and a chairperson for many years, Dorothy Dobbie. There was quite a substantial group of interested parties making presentations to this committee.

The question is, what did members of this all-party committee recommend after hearing from the presenters?

In the area of the term limits they were agreeable to the federal government's proposal. They did not have strong opinions one way or the other on it, but they felt the eight-year term for senators was reasonable. They had these recommendations.

Elections should be held in the province to elect nominees to the Senate to be forwarded to Ottawa.

The elections should be administered through Elections Canada with the cost being the responsibility of the federal government.

The method of voting they decided on was first-past-the-post. They looked at proportional representation and they ruled that out as that had been ruled out by several provinces in the past.

There should be regional representation among Manitoba's allotment of six Senate seats. They decided they wanted to have three in the city of Winnipeg with two in southern Manitoba and one in the north.

In addition, the current proposal of an eight-year term by the federal government is in keeping with what was heard from the presenters, as I indicated before.

What we have here is a process that was started in 2006, four years ago, involving all parties. So for the Liberal Party to suggest that somehow there has been no consultation on this issue, that it is being rammed through the House, is absolute nonsense. In Manitoba their member was part of the all-party committee. How can they say that somehow there needs to be more consultation?

It seems to me what the Liberals are interested in doing is coming up with all sorts of delay tactics to tie this idea up in knots as long as possible so another ten years will go by and things will just carry on their merry way and nothing will substantially change as a result of it.

I would suggest that the Manitoba experience seems to me to be the sort of direction upon which we should be looking to proceed in terms of consultations and involving as many people in the process as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity. It is good to have a chance to speak to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits). This bill actually seeks to establish a term limit of eight years for senators in Canada. That is the key part of this legislation.

What we are actually debating today is an amendment to the main motion that was moved by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. The amendment motion reads:

“the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits), because the term limits do not go far enough in addressing the problems with the Senate of Canada, and do not lead quickly enough to the abolition of the upper chamber, as recent events have shown to be necessary”.

It is an unusual step for us to move that kind of motion in debate on a bill like this, especially a bill that we had indicated we would support to get to committee for further discussion and for improvement. We were already saying that, even though we have very serious problems with the Senate and even though we have called for the abolition of the Senate, we were prepared to see this bill debated further and hopefully improved at committee.

The events of the past week have certainly changed our opinion about what should be done about the Senate at the present time and the government's attitude towards Canada's democracy and how this Parliament functions.

What I am referring to there is the decision by the government and by the Prime Minister to call on his senators to defeat the climate change accountability act, a private member's bill that moved all the way through the House of Commons. It was debated here in the House. It went to committee and had lengthy hearings.

It was a lengthy process on that bill by the elected representatives of the Canadian people here in the House of Commons. It passed all stages here in the House and was sent to the Senate, where it languished for months.

It was finally passed back in the spring of this year and sat in the Senate without any action until earlier this week when, out of the blue, the bill was called and defeated. It was without a hearing, without reference to a committee, nothing. There was no activity and no debate whatsoever at the Senate.

This is clearly an action by the government to defeat the only possibility of Canadian action on climate change that was in the works. This bill was something that New Democrats had put forward. It was put forward in the last Parliament.

Our earlier attempt at the climate change accountability act in the last Parliament, the 39th Parliament, was Bill C-377. After a great deal of hard work on the part of many members of the House of Commons with input from environmental leaders and other leaders from across Canada, that actually passed through the House of Commons in 2008. That was a cause for celebration among Canadians who are concerned about climate change and the environment.

That was the first time any legislature in the world had actually passed legislation that would deal with the post-Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Canada, this Parliament, this House of Commons took an extremely important step in the last Parliament, in 2008, with the passage of the climate change accountability act. Unfortunately the election was called and interrupted that progress. It stopped the bill in its tracks, and that meant it had to start all over again when we returned after the election in 2008.

New Democrats did put it back on the agenda. Our member from Thunder Bay put that bill back on the agenda and had it debated here in the House. It went through the same long, laborious process and was again passed in May 2010.

On two occasions, the elected representatives of the Canadian people, the members of the House of Commons, have dealt with this important piece of legislation and have passed it. When it was finally sent off to the Senate, where in our process it needs to be dealt with further, going through the same kind of process, the unelected and unaccountable members of the Senate, presumably under marching orders from the Prime Minister, killed the bill without so much as a debate, without so much as a referral to committee for further study.

It is an absolutely outrageous affront to our democracy and an unconscionable use of the power of the Senate, of the unelected and unaccountable appointed Senate.

This bill, the climate change accountability act, would have established greenhouse gas reduction targets 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It was hailed as important legislation by many respected people.

I have to point out that Mark Jaccard and Associates, an independent environmental assessment firm, did a survey of this bill. Mr. Jaccard is an important environment scientist from Simon Fraser University. Its conclusion about Bill C-311, the NDP's climate change accountability act, was that the targets it established would also encourage growing economy, increasing jobs and improving the quality of life for Canadians. It said there was a positive impact of this bill, an analysis that flies in the face of the government's blanket denunciation and rejection of the proposals in the NDP's climate change accountability act.

Unfortunately, this action has stopped. Any reasonable, effective or appropriate Canadian response to climate change was stopped dead in its tracks. It was our best opportunity and it is gone. It was done by unaccountable, unelected senators appointed by a Prime Minister who at one time did not seem to have much regard for the unelected, accountable Senate.

On a number of occasions, we have seen the Prime Minister and his Reform predecessors have had great criticism for the Senate. In December 2005, the Prime Minister said, “An appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century”. I have to agree with the Prime Minister. It is not often that I do, but on that I certainly do. An unelected, appointed body is a relic of another era. It is an anti-democratic relic of a colonial era.

Some of the requirements to be a senator are relics of that era as well, such as the fact that senators have to be 30 years old before being appointed and that people have to own property outright in Canada before becoming a senator. Even though the threshold is now really low, the intention years ago was to make sure that senators were from the moneyed classes. They had the expectation that they would represent that class in Canada.

Today the threshold is low, but the requirement is still there. We have even seen in the past an interesting example when a nun was appointed to the Senate and, because of vows of poverty, did not have any property. Her order had to actually transfer some land into her name so she could take her seat in the Senate.

It points out the ridiculousness of that requirement. If it were a legitimate body, any Canadian of voting age, no matter what the individual's personal economic circumstances, should be able to serve in a body in the Canadian Parliament. However, not in Canada and not with the Senate. The Prime Minister was right. This unelected, unaccountable body is a relic of another era and of the 19th century.

In March 2004, the Prime Minister also said, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent”. How many times has the Prime Minister broken that promise and turned his back on that important statement of principle that came out of the convictions of the Reform Party, his predecessors? It boggles the mind the number of times he has chosen to ignore that advice.

In this corner, we are very concerned and outraged by what happened this week. It is ironic that we have this bill that would establish a term limit for senators, but that is not the issue. The issue is still that they are unelected, appointed by the Prime Minister and unaccountable to anybody. Whether they are there for 8 or 45 years, it is still an inappropriate, unelected and unaccountable body, and it should not be part of our system. It is an affront to democracy, and we need to abolish this relic of the past.

This is a very important issue. I am glad we were able to debate it this week, given that Bill C-10 was on the agenda when the inappropriate use of the Senate's power was mandated by the Prime Minister to kill the climate change accountability act. We are very lucky to have had this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House and Canadians why this body is inappropriate and why this proposed Senate reform bill does nothing to address the main problems with the Senate.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and comments.

I basically agree with the hon. member in that this week, the Senate breached a tacit agreement between the House of Commons and the Senate whereby the House of Commons makes a decision and the Senate takes a second look. There have been times when the Senate has made amendments that have improved bills and that is great.

However, it is not up to the Senate to make decisions on behalf of the Canadian nation or the Quebec nation. It is not representative. It is not elected. It is an archaic institution, a legacy of the colonial period. I think what happened this week with Bill C-311 is extremely serious and makes the case for abolishing the Senate. I am glad to hear that the hon. member would agree to abolishing the Senate through constitutional negotiations, which is the only way that is possible under the Canadian Constitution. The Supreme Court has reiterated that, as have the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly.

I will close by saying that, in recent months, the Senate has been extremely partisan both in terms of the bills before us and the appointments made by the Prime Minister. In fact, he had said that he would not make appointments until there was Senate reform. When there was a threat to his partisan interests, he again broke his promise and appointed senators to ensure that the Senate would be a conduit for the will of the Prime Minister's Office and the government. That is deplorable. This strengthens the case for abolishing the Senate. Once again, we will be voting against Bill C-10.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is really outrageous about this situation that we saw with Bill C-311 is that it was almost as if the Prime Minister had a lever in his office that he pulled and Bill C-311 dropped through the floor.

The intent of the Senate originally was as a place of sober second thought. Now we have a situation, and we have had it with previous governments, where the government in power stacks the Senate so it has control of that lever, whichever way it wants a bill or a motion to go.

This was an offence to the Parliament of this country. We have not taken Bill C-311 forward just once; we took it forward twice. It was passed twice in this House, and we still saw the Prime Minister's office pull that lever and dump that bill.

If there has ever been a case for the abolition of the Senate in this country, this is it. If we have to go to constitutional negotiations to do so, so be it. It is time to put an end to the Senate of Canada.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of that. When the hon. member from the Liberal Party was giving us his speech a while ago, he was blaming the Conservatives for what happened to Bill C-311. In reality, he should be looking in the mirror and blaming the Liberals, especially the Liberal senators. All they had to do was stand up and say, “No, we are going to debate the bill”. That would have been the democratic process. Instead, they sat in their chairs and the bill was killed.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Quebec abolished their senates years and years ago. In the vote we just had on Bill C-311, we heard the Liberals talk about it in the House in a very defensive way. I understand that is because it was the Liberals who called for the vote in the Senate that set this situation up. Is the member aware of this?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the amendment to Bill C-10, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding Senate term limits.

For the record, the amendment calls for striking out all of the words in the motion after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits), because the term limits do not go far enough in addressing the problems with the Senate of Canada, and do not lead quickly enough to the abolition of the upper chamber, as recent events have shown to be necessary.

The New Democrats' position is clear. This bill falls far short on the changes necessary if the Senate is ever to be effective.

I wanted to rise during this debate because there are some important points that need to be made.

At the outset, I want to address the cynical workings of the government. It knows, as does every MP in this chamber, that the length of time that the senators stay in their appointed seats is not the real issue. The real issue is how they got to the Senate in the first place.

We know that the 35 unelected senators appointed by this Prime Minister were instrumental in killing, without debate, Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act by my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North.

Bill C-311 would have committed the federal government to achieving practical, science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Bill C-311 was passed by a majority of the elected members of Parliament, representing the majority of Canadians.

This Prime Minister said in 2004, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent”.

For the record, let me name those unelected Conservative senators who voted to kill Bill C-311. They include David Angus, unelected, unaccountable; Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, unelected, unaccountable; David Braley, unelected, unaccountable; Patrick Brazeau, unelected, unaccountable.

I would like to talk a little about Senator Brazeau. I would like to quote Don Martin in an article he wrote, from February 3, 2009:

It's hard to imagine how such a thoroughly damaged resumé could've survived the supposedly ruthless scrutiny of the Prime Minister's Office, particularly when the job is a 40-year guaranteed Senate gig with an annual salary of $130,000 plus perks....

The man described in his bio as a loving father of three is darn close to qualifying to be a deadbeat dad with the mother of one offspring telling CTV that Brazeau hasn't seen or properly supported his 14-year-old son in eight years.

He questions whether this is the calibre of individual the Prime Minister had in mind when he set out to reform the Senate.

The list continues with Bert Brown, unelected, unaccountable; Claude Carignan, unelected, unaccountable; Andrée Champagne, unelected, unaccountable; Ethel Cochrane, unelected, unaccountable; Gerald Comeau, unelected, unaccountable; Anne Cools, unelected, unaccountable; Consiglio Di Nino, unelected, unaccountable; Fred Dickson, unelected, unaccountable; Mike Duffy, unelected, unaccountable, and it must be pretty tough for this guy, carrying the party line instead of asking tough questions of politicians; Nicole Eaton, unelected, unaccountable; Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, unelected, unaccountable; and Linda Frum, unelected, unaccountable.

As well, there was Irving Gerstein, and I will expand a little on this senator.

In his 2007 book on the Prime Minister's team, subtitled Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, Tom Flanagan, a former top PM adviser, had this to say:

Under Irving Gerstein's direction, the grassroots model of fundraising has built the Conservative Party into a financial powerhouse

What is his reward? It is $130,000 plus perks, all on the taxpayers' dime. What a slap in the face to Canadians. This is the senator who is going from community to community, province to province, raising funds for the Conservative Party.

The list continues with Stephen Greene, unelected, unaccountable; Leo Housakos, unelected, unaccountable; Janis Johnson, unelected, unaccountable; Noël Kinsella, unelected, unaccountable; Vim Kochhar, unelected, unaccountable; Daniel Lang, unelected, unaccountable; Marjory LeBreton, unelected, unaccountable; Elizabeth Marshall, unelected, unaccountable; Yonah Martin, unelected, unaccountable; Michael Meighen, unelected, unaccountable; Ruth Nancy, unelected, unaccountable; Richard Neufeld, unelected, unaccountable; Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie, unelected, unaccountable; Donald Oliver, unelected, unaccountable; Dennis Glen Patterson, unelected, unaccountable to the Canadian people; Donald Neil Plett, unelected, unaccountable; Rose-May Poirier, unelected, unaccountable; Bob Runciman, unelected, unaccountable; Hugh Segal, unelected, unaccountable; Judith Seidman, unelected, unaccountable; Gerry St. Germain, unelected, unaccountable; Carolyn Stewart Olsen, unelected, unaccountable; David Tkachuk, unelected, unaccountable; John Wallace, unelected, unaccountable; and Pamela Wallin, unelected, unaccountable.

These are all the senators who killed Bill C-311.

Let me speak a bit about another senator who was not present for the vote, Senator Doug Finley.

Bill C-311 was killed by this unaccountable Senate.

How about Michael Douglas Finley, who had to be escorted by security out of the House of Commons committee because he showed up uninvited and refused to leave, displaying such utter disrespect for this great institution?

We could spend a lot of time on all the other worthy services he delivered for the Conservative Party, but we do not have time to go there.

The Conservative committee that searches for these candidates should take a lesson from DND and advertise on the Internet for candidates, on such sites as craigslist and soft porn sites, like DND did. It may end up with better candidates to appoint to the unelected, unaccountable Senate.

I notice the growing discomfort on the faces of Conservative members as I read the names of these unelected, unaccountable and unrepresentative senators into the record of this chamber.

Is it any wonder that even in the Conservative-friendly corners criticism is mounting about the Prime Minister's unbelievable record of broken promises.

Let me quote John Ivison, who wrote in the National Post this week:

All politicians are haunted by things they’ve said in the past. All governments are buffeted by events and forced to shift position.

But how many times can a politician say something and then do the precise opposite before even his strongest supporters start to doubt him? The bond of trust between Mr. Harper and Canadians is eroding, according to opinion polls by Nik Nanos.

The list of those broken promises is long.

Can members imagine how Preston Manning must feel about the actions of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister is betraying all those who voted for him and the Reform Party.

He is betraying all those who thought they were getting a new form of government, one that was not as morally corrupt as the previous Liberal government.

Instead, we have a hyper-partisan, morally bankrupt, anti-democratic government that is thumbing its nose at every institution that upholds democracy.

Democracy--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the member has said. The bill does not deal with the real problem. The real problem is that the Prime Minister has a problem with democracy. He knows that whenever he gets in trouble, all he has to do is bring up a bill like this or bring up another justice bill, something like getting tough on crime week, so we switch the channel and take the focus off the real issues, the real problems facing the nation.

The Conservatives do not want the bill passed. They have been playing around with it like a cat with a ball of wool, and they will continue to do that. They know this has better political mileage because they can continue to use their slogans like “undemocratic, unelected, useless people”. Yet every member in this place will go to an event to say goodbye to a senator when he or she retires because they respect the work that has been done.

The Conservatives cannot deny that. We have some work to do, but the Senate did not make decision to defeat Bill C-311. It was the Prime Minister himself.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I agree, Mr. Speaker, but the bill is not the solution when we consider some of the work that has been done, such as the work on mental health, the work on climate change in the Senate, the work on euthanasia.

Everybody in this place knows that the Conservative majority in the Senate did not make the decision to defeat Bill C-311 before it completed second reading. The direction came straight from the Prime Minister of Canada, who believes that Kyoto was a socialist plot.

The members know that.They should not blame the Senate for it. They should blame the Prime Minister and the Conservatives who cannot even hold on to an environment minister because they have no policy, no interest in the environment.

The Environment

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week we have seen the government use an unelected, undemocratic body to override the democratic will of the Canadian people.

Bill C-311 was passed in the House by a majority of members representing a majority of Canadians. The country then witnessed the indignity of seeing it killed by the unelected, unaccountable members of that other place.

Will the government agree to a new bill to be passed at all stages that sets hard, accountable targets for pollution reduction so the majority position of Canadians will also be heard at Cancun?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's actions on climate change, or inactions, are undemocratic, short-sighted and out of touch. Canadians are contacting me, shocked by the Prime Minister's use of the Senate to kill Bill C-311. They are saying that the Conservatives have betrayed future generations on climate change.

Today's poll shows a majority of Canadians, including 87% of Conservative supporters, believe we have a moral responsibility to lead on reducing greenhouse gas initiatives.

With Cancun just around the corner, will the government respond to the will of Canadians and deliver on climate change?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very consistent and very clear in their opposition to Bill C-311, a completely irresponsible bill. It sets irresponsible targets, does not lay out any measure of achieving them, other than by shutting down sections of the Canadian economy and throwing hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people out of work.

Of course, we will never support such legislation.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-210. It is a bill, as we were saying earlier, that originated in the Senate, was introduced in the Senate, and is today being studied in this House.

This bill is quite simple. It amends two acts, the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act. It makes two amendments, including one that simply would have the commissioner table reports not only in the House of Commons but also in the Senate. That is the first amendment in the bill we are studying today.

The second amendment would give the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development the possibility of tabling reports more than once a year on the progress made by the government in matters of the environment and sustainable development.

We will support this bill. Why? Because these amendments are quite simple. This is part of what we might call a new environmental governance that leaves more room for independence and assessment. Why? Because Canada has given itself a number of tools and instruments in the past few years.

For example, Canada now has environmental indicators it can use to assess the government's progress in a number of sectors from water to forestry. These tools are available to us.

We have to ensure that there is more accountability and more independent auditing, and that the commissioner can play an increasingly significant role.

I remember when a sustainable development bill was passed a few years ago. It was a Liberal member, John Godfrey, who introduced the initiative. He received the support of all political parties, with a few amendments of course. Why? Because it was high time we responded to all of the big international summits, all of the Earth summits from Johannesburg to Rio, by coming up with a sustainable development strategy.

However, a few months ago, after the government decided to respond to the passing of the bill, we realized that it had introduced its own sustainable development strategy. A close look at that strategy reveals that it contains no quantitative or numerical targets that would make it possible to really assess the government's progress. It does contain targets, but they are not clear and quantitative targets. They are just qualitative targets.

We have to give the auditor more tools to assess sustainable development progress.

This is not the first time we have wanted the Commissioner of the Environment to pay a larger part in various laws. Among others, I am thinking of Bill C-288, which was introduced by the member for Honoré-Mercier. That was a bill to implement the Kyoto accord and to get the Commissioner of the Environment involved. There was also Bill C-311, the climate change bill, which was a response given at the end of the Kyoto accord and an attempt to follow up on it.

Once again, parliamentarians tried to give the commissioner more tools to assess the government's progress.

This is important, because the Commissioner of the Environment has already looked at how the government carries out and applies its sustainable development policy.

I remember a report from the Commissioner of the Environment, when the government was examining the application of the strategic environmental assessment as part of its sustainable development policy. There is a directive from the Prime Minister's Office, dating back to 1994, which requires all departments to carry out impact assessments. Those are what we refer to as strategic environmental assessments.

These ensure that all departments' three Ps—policies, plans and programs—are consistent with sustainable development. Each policy, plan and program must be assessed by the department, looking not only at sustainable development, but also at environmental protection and social development.

What did the Commissioner of the Environment observe a few years ago? I remember the title of one of the chapters from the commissioner's report. It had to do with assessing the application of sustainable development within the Department of Finance. Talking about strategic environmental assessments, the commissioner at the time, Johanne Gélinas, titled the chapter, “Greening the tax system: Finance Canada dragging its feet”. If there is one fundamental department within a government, it is the finance department. And the tabling of the budget is a crucial time for parliamentarians, because the budget makes it possible to guide policies and utilize the tax system to bring about social and environmental governance.

What the commissioner basically indicated was that the Department of Finance was not applying the strategic environmental assessment to its policies, programs and plans. What are the consequences? The Canadian government tells us that it is important to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, at the same time, the finance minister provides tax breaks to the oil industry. On the one hand, the government says we must protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change but, on the other, it uses an available tool, taxation, to give breaks such as depreciation deductions to an industry that is a major contributor to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Had the Department of Finance respected the 1994 directive from the Prime Minister's Office requiring the Department of Finance to conduct an environmental assessment of its policies, governance would probably be quite different.

That is why we have to give the Commissioner of the Environment a bigger role to play. We have to make sure that we really get independent audits, independent being the operative word because that is what will be used to guide all sectors in Canadian and Quebec society. I am talking about independent audits, but also independence for the media and scientists. The point is that we have to make sure policy is not influenced by vested interests.

That is why we have to amend the Sustainable Development Act to give the commissioner more powers, and at the same time, the government has to be aware that when the so-called environmental watchdog sends out clear messages and strongly recommends that the government do something different, the government has to listen. The more reports the Commissioner of the Environment produces, the better governance will be, as long as this government decides to listen to independent advice and respect the people's wishes to build a sustainable society for the future.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, what has the NDP proposed? Bill C-311, a publicity stunt on climate change, would drive Canada back into recession and isolate Canada internationally.

We are working with the Obama administration. We are working with our international partners. We are moving forward and are already seeing positive results. We have a cleaner environment, emissions are going down and we have more jobs in Canada. What do those members not understand about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? The facts are that for the first time in Canada, under this government, greenhouse gas emissions have stabilized and are going down. How much are they going down? They are going down by 2.1%. What happened under the previous Liberal government? The Liberals signed Kyoto and emissions skyrocketed to 26% above their commitments.

Now the opposition is pushing the NDP's Bill C-311 publicity stunt, which would throw Canada back into recession.

They did not get it done. We are getting it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to table. The first petition is on clean air and clean energy.

I am presenting this petition on behalf of the residents of Thunder Bay—Superior North who support clean air and clean energy. These petitioners want the government to do the following things: First, make the necessary investments in renewable energy to ensure we reduce our greenhouse gas pollution. Toward that end, they want to restore the valuable eco-energy program which the Conservatives cancelled on one day's notice. They want us to stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the oil and gas industry. They want us to legislate tougher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and caps for big polluters. They want the House to support Bill C-311, Climate Change Accountability Act, which has now passed three readings in the House.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House to support a historic federal bill, Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights. The bill would give Canadians the legal right to a healthy environment.

National governments across the globe are stepping forward to recognize the right to a healthy environment in their national constitutions. International bodies, regional authorities and local municipalities all over the planet are declaring rights to clean air, clean water and uncontaminated land. Environmental rights are enjoyed in over half the countries of the world, either through international agreement or by provisions of national constitutions.

Despite this global trend, environmental rights remain largely unconfirmed in Canada. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not address environmental protection or environmental health. In light of the momentous vote in favour of Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act last night, now is the time for Canada to step up to the plate.

Environmental rights are recognized by only four provincial and territorial laws: Quebec, Ontario, Northwest Territories and Yukon. I would like to congratulate these provinces and territories for being ahead of the federal government on this issue. In fact, Quebec's environmental quality act has been in place since 1978. The act recognizes the right to a healthy environment and to effective environmental protection. It allows for Quebec residents to seek an injunction or to stop unauthorized activity that is harming the environment.

The bill would create a federal and therefore national-wide framework to recognize and seek to protect the quality and health of the environment essential to human life and dignity. The bill recognizes that it is simply not enough to tell people that the government will protect the environment on their behalf. Instead, it would compel the government to protect the environment and it would give Canadians the ability to hold the government to account, not only at election time but whenever environmental offences occur.

Specifically, Bill C-469 would require the federal government to take action to protect the right of all Canadians to a healthy environment. It would ensure access to environmental information and grant the right for all Canadians to participate in environment-related decisions. It would compel the government to investigate and prosecute environmental offences. It would give all citizens the ability to take the government to court if it failed to enforce environmental laws. It would provide whistleblower protection to employees who reported environmental offences. These rights and duties are already found in the laws of over 130 other countries.

Let me provide the House and Canadians watching some examples. The constitution of Argentina recognizes that all inhabitants enjoy the right to a healthy, balanced environment which is fit for human development so that productive activity satisfy current needs without compromising those of future generations, and have the duty to preserve the environment. Damaging the environment generates the obligation to repair it as a priority in the manner that is established by law.

In 2005 France amended its constitution to include a charter for the environment that recognizes, among other things, a person's right to live in a balanced environment that shows due respect for health.

Most recently Ecuador passed a new constitution that recognizes the individual and community right to a healthy environment as well as direct rights for nature.

Recognizing environmental rights in Canada gives a voice and power to those most vulnerable to the harmful effects of environmental degradation.

For example, the Argentinian court ordered the government to provide drinking water to poor families living along the Suquia River after years of ongoing pollution from a malfunctioning sewage treatment plant. A court in the Philippines has ordered the cleanup of the highly-polluted Manila Harbour based on the constitutional right to a balanced and healthy environment.

There is support from the other opposition parties on this bill, in addition to prominent members of the environmental community who helped author this bill: Ecojustice, the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. Let us review what these environmental champions have to say about this legislation.

Margot Venton, an Ecojustice lawyer who played an instrumental role in this legislation, stated:

We are calling on our political leaders to rise above the gridlock of a minority government to embrace this transformative piece of legislation. Passing the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights is both a rare and urgent opportunity for all parties to show political leadership at a time when it is sorely needed.

Jean Langlois, the national campaigns director of the Sierra Club of Canada, stated:

This is a historic opportunity for Parliament. The interests of individual Canadians are compromised when decisions run roughshod over our common natural legacy. Our legal system currently provides limited and costly opportunities for the public to address such injustices. The CEBR [this bill] would finally give all Canadians the tools necessary to protect their environmental rights.

Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, stated:

It’s time that Canada caught up with the rest of the world in recognizing the rights of citizens to a healthy environment. Canadians, everywhere in this country, deserve protection against environmental destruction and its negative impacts on their health.

We must listen and we must show leadership. It is time we caught up with the rest of the world in recognizing the rights of Canadians to a healthy environment.

By voting against Bill C-311 last night, the government again showed its complete disregard for the environment. The government has already weakened the environmental assessment process, silenced scientists who disagree with it and failed to act to protect species at risk. Yesterday, parliamentarians showed they can act when the government will not.

It is vital that we, as representatives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, work together to act to protect the environment and pass this bill for the future of all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate, which is very important—fundamental even. I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for having introduced Bill C-469.

First of all, we support the underlying principle of the bill. We need to thank and congratulate a number of civil society groups, such as Ecojustice, which the Bloc Québécois leader and I met with over a year ago. The group helped us understand how important it is to have a Canadian environmental bill of rights.

We wholeheartedly support the five principles stated in this bill because we need to make fundamental changes to what I would call governance. We need to move toward a new form of environmental governance. Bill C-469 clearly moves us toward that goal because it incorporates the precautionary principle. This principle was developed in 1972 as part of the Stockholm convention, and it took root in 1992 at the Rio summit. This principle is fundamental. Lacking scientific certainty in various fields of human activity, we must act according to the precautionary principle.

This issue has been incorporated into some legislation. We would like to see it included in even more laws. Several environmental laws include the precautionary principle in their preamble, but we would like to see it in the laws themselves. That would force departments to make decisions about issues such as genetically modified organisms, for example. The precautionary principle is therefore fundamental.

The polluter pays principle triggers an important debate about what I call a green tax system. We have to ensure that every dollar spent is invested in renewable economies. That is not what Canada has done in the past. Since 1970, over $60 billion has been spent on tax breaks for the oil industry, while renewable energy has received just a few hundred million. We need changes to taxation in Canada; we need a green tax system.

If we undertake this change, we would respect the second principle in this bill, which is the polluter pays principle, and encourage true sustainable development. We have some tools at our disposition. For one, we have the strategic environmental assessment, which was passed in the early 1990s and which is a directive in the Prime Minister's Office. In theory, it forces each department to evaluate its plans, policies and programs to ensure that more than just economic issues are taken into consideration. Social and environmental aspects must be considered as well.

The third main principle in the bill is intergenerational equity. How can we guarantee that the resources we use today will also be available for future generations? We cannot make decisions based on a short-term outlook. We have to look at each decision and ensure that it will allow us to ensure a future, and better intergenerational equity as well as environmental justice.

We agree with part 1 of the bill, which says that every citizen has a right to a healthy environment. That is obvious. It is the right to life. It is the right to live in an environment where the air and water are of the highest quality so as to ensure human survival.

This is a fundamental right in part 1 of the bill.

Second, we agree with the principle in part 2 of the bill, which would put in place various mechanisms allowing for legal and civil action against the federal government and entities under its exclusive jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that. We support this bill because we believe that it and the bills of rights would apply to areas under federal jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons we are supporting this bill.

The third principle is the protection of employees. Mechanisms to protect employees are clearly set out in part 3 of this bill, and they are important. Why? Because scientists who become aware of a situation have to be able to tell the public about it when it poses a threat to humankind or the environment. Europe and especially France have what are known as “whistleblowers”. These people, who are sometimes ordinary citizens but more often scientists who work in government and become aware of something that could have a negative impact on the environment and humankind, decide to speak out publicly. We have to ensure that these scientists and ordinary citizens are not fired the next day, because in becoming aware of a situation they would run afoul of a government approach or ideological policy. So scientists are protected. I would hope that part 3 also protects these whistleblowers so that the public can find out about the real state of our environment.

Part 4 of the bill ensures greater independence by subjecting the government's messages and policies to analysis by independent parties. The Auditor General has a greater role to play. We have seen this in three bills: first, Bill C-288 on the application of the Kyoto protocol; second, Bill C-311 which aimed at following through on the Kyoto protocol; and finally, the sustainable development strategy that was adopted and that gives the Auditor General a clear mandate to independently analyze and verify the government's policies.

This is important because this independence is not always a given. We saw this with the instructions given to scientists. As we saw, scientists were not necessarily allowed to speak up. So this is about allowing independence. In a new environmental governance, independence is important. The media, businesses and scientists must all be independent in order to really engage in this new approach towards a real vision of sustainable development and to give scientists a chance.

I am thinking of GMOs in particular. Over the past several years, successive governments have refused to ask the Royal Society of Canada, an association of Canada's best and most eminent scientists, to assess the impact of GMOs on health and the environment. A government that valued independent thought and allowed scientists to do their work would have referred the GMO issue to the Royal Society of Canada for a truly independent analysis.

I will close with a brief quote from Albert Jacquard's latest book, entitled Le compte à rebours a-t-il commencé?, or “Has the countdown begun?”

For ages, humans have lived as though their time would never run out, as though progress would never cease to make the world a better place for us, as though humans would always grow richer, more beautiful and more capable, as though we could create an infinite number of nuclear bombs without ever having to use them, as though we had the right to plunder the planet's riches at will without ever making a dent in an endless supply. Those days are past. We now know that our time is running out and that if we continue to work against ourselves, we may well create a planet on which none of us want to live.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona.

Previously, the New Democratic Party brought forward Bill C-311, which was just going through the process here in the House. At committee, we heard from various experts and witnesses, some of whom said that they produced the costing associated with Bill C-311 through their various reports.

Has the member asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer or any other third party, or any party at all, for a cost analysis of what this proposed bill would cost the taxpayers of Canada?

Climate Change Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-311 under private members' business.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the third time and passed.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member, when he was at committee, heard from every scientist and witness who spoke at committee that Bill C-311, or whatever plan, to be successful, had to be done with a continental approach. That is exactly what we are doing. Bill C-311 does not take into account a continental approach.

His constituents also want to know how he is going to vote on the gun registry. He promised his constituents that he was going to cancel the wasteful long-gun registry. Is he going to respect the wishes of and his promise to his constituents, or he is going to--

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

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP really believed in climate change, it would not be supporting this publicity stunt that is called Bill C-311.

The Copenhagen accord represents a major step forward. It is an international climate change dialogue, laying the foundation for a post-2012 international climate change agreement that includes commitments from all the major emitters.

Bill C-311 is out of step with this development. The approach being taken by our major trading partners under the accord, including the commitments being made by our largest trading partner and market, the United States, is in no way reflected in Bill C-311.

Canada is aligning its efforts to address climate change with those of the United States to ensure environmental progress while preserving a competitive Canadian economy. In accordance with this commitment, Canada has identified an economy-wide emissions target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It is only 10 years from now and that is fully aligned with the emission targets of the United States.

We are also aligning our efforts in other areas. For example, we published new proposed regulations for automobile and light trucks that are consistent with the national fuel economy standards announced in the United States. Actions such as these will foster significant technical improvements and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a manner which minimizes the burden on Canadian industry. That means jobs.

In contrast, Bill C-311's targets would undermine Canada's competitive position in the North American market, devastate the economic recovery and be divorced from the actions being taken by others under the Copenhagen accord. The bill's 2020 target is too aggressive and enacts policies to achieve that would be fundamentally undermined, devastating the recovery of the Canadian economy.

To put it into perspective, the target of 25% below 1990 levels is equivalent to 39% below 2005 levels. According to the report released by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation, GDP costs of up to 3.2% can be expected from adopting Bill C-311. This is a much greater impact than any other developed country that is considering its commitments to climate change.

As currently drafted, Bill C-311 is likely ultra vires under the Constitution, therefore exceeding federal authority.

For these reasons, the government does not support Bill C-311. We are sticking up for Canada, for jobs, and for the environment. Instead we will continue to deploy a full range of instruments to combat climate change.

We are making investments in renewable energy, which the member constantly votes against.

We are using incentives and regulations to accelerate the development and deployment of green technologies, which the member votes against.

We will take every opportunity to engage with our international partners, working toward a global solution to a global problem.

The member needs to stop the publicity stunts and the photo ops, and get serious about fighting climate change. Let us do it internationally. It is a global problem with a global solution. Bill C-311 is not the solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to follow up on a question that I posed to the government on its lack of support for Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act.

This bill, the only climate change bill before this House, will now face a final vote here tomorrow evening.

It is a first necessary step on the road to tackling dangerous climate change, what many consider to be the greatest threat confronting our civilization today.

A recent Harris/Decima survey found that two-thirds of Canadians think that climate change is the defining challenge of our times. The same number of Canadians want Canada to adopt ambitious targets, regardless of what many other countries may do. They know that how we safeguard our planet and our future, in the face of climate change, for our children and generations to come, will be the test of our mettle.

The government keeps repeating the deception, the delusion, that it will be too costly to take the needed action. In fact, the parliamentary secretary said as much in his incomplete reply to my question the other day.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Fiscal prudence tells us that we cannot afford not to take action. Other countries agree. Europe, the U.S., and even China, are all moving quickly to invest in renewable energy technologies and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me quote from a report released today in Washington by the United Steelworkers and Environmental Defence Canada, called “Falling Behind: Canada's Lost Clean Energy Jobs”. It states:

At every opportunity, the Canadian government emphasizes that it is harmonizing its energy and climate policies with the United States. Yet, when it comes to investing in clean energy jobs, Canada does not even come close to matching U.S. efforts.

The study found that the U.S. is investing at least eight times more per capita than this government is in energy efficiency, public transit and renewable power. It is estimated that we are losing out on 66,000 jobs because we are so far behind.

In fact, the current government has recently shut down the eco-energy programs for renewable power and green home retrofits.

Here is just one example of the impacts of these cancellations. The ground source heating industry in this country, a fledgling industry, has had its knees cut out from underneath it. Homeowners who installed ground source heat pump systems cut their energy use by 40% to 60%, but needed the eco-energy program to help with the initial installation costs, which will not be available now.

Now that the eco-energy program has been stopped, installations of this energy-conserving technology have already plummeted. This is moving in the opposite direction of where we should be going.

The climate crisis we face has become urgent. We are approaching the eleventh hour.

I would like to quote a parliamentarian from history whose country faced no less of a threat:

The era of procrastination, of half-measure of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences

Just like when Winston Churchill spoke those prophetic words in the 1930s, our time for debate is drawing to a close.

My question is simple. Since the Conservative government has not tabled any serious proposals of its own, will any Conservative parliamentarians show the courage and the vision to support Bill C-311 becoming law before more precious time is lost?

Climate Change Accountability Bill

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from constituents who support NDP Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. They want mandatory fuel efficiency standards for vehicles, a hard cap on big polluters like the coal-fired electricity plants and oil sands projects and developments, and an end to tax subsidies on big oil and gas companies. They want to use the funds to invest in renewable energy and green technologies.

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank all the members who have commented today and at other times. I especially thank the member for Halifax for her insightful and eloquent words.

Members' consideration is very important, given the urgent climate crisis that our country and the world faces. I was dismayed to hear the speech from the Conservative side, which had a number of non sequiturs, but I will pick just three. One was the idea that somehow carbon capture and storage has the potential to obviate the need for Bill C-311. I do not get that.

If the Conservatives truly believe that carbon capture and storage will be effective, then they should not be worried about the bill. It would be the way the bill was implemented. The bill says nothing about how we are going to do it. It sets targets, timetables and processes in place to set those targets and if carbon capture and storage can help do it, more power to us all.

The second one was when he talked about all the wonderful things that various departments are doing that eliminate the need for the bill. He specifically mentioned eco-energy. Unfortunately, we had expert testimony from the departments that actually put eco-energy into place. They made it very clear that they would be continuing the eco-energy program because it was a real winner, except that the government decided to remove and eliminate the funding. The Conservatives killed the program they are talking about. If they are really proud of it, they should reinstitute that funding.

The thing that bothers me the most is when I hear, again and again, the Conservatives say that they will just rubber stamp, although they do not use those words, but it amounts to rubber stamping U.S. policy. I find that particularly ironic given that the first prime minister of Canada, who was a Conservative, fought to keep other weaker-kneed politicians from allowing the Americans to build the Trans-Canada railroad and build the Canada that we have today. John A. Macdonald fought hard every time other parties and other people tried to say, “Just let the Americans do it, it will be easier”. It has been a while since we have had a prime minister with the courage to stand up to the Americans. I hope we get one soon.

As I mentioned in the House when I introduced this bill over a year ago, we need to have a clear destination if we want to get anywhere. The destination that Bill C-311 gives us is a temperature rise of 2°C or less. That is what the science tells us we need in order to avoid the truly disastrous effects of climate change.

We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a prompt and orderly fashion if we hope to keep to that 2° limit. The bill legislates achievable targets and keeps the government accountable to them.

Canadians do not want more delay. They know they will not reach the needed reductions if we do not start soon. The bill requires immediate action. Interim targets will need to be in place within six months of the bill being adopted after it passes.

I was pleased to hear in the House and over the many months that the bill was in committee that just about all members spoke about the need, even members on the Conservative side, for real action to tackle climate change. I, personally, have taken a constructive approach with this private member's bill, open to working with all parties on possible amendments and ways forward. After all, climate changes poses such a huge threat that we cannot afford to slow or sacrifice the only climate change bill before Parliament to mere partisan politics. This issue is just too important to the future health and prosperity of all Canadians.

As I mentioned earlier, we can never be 100% scientifically sure of anything, certainly not something as complex as climate science, but what we can do is make an ethical choice using the abundant evidence we already have and err on the side of caution. We can weigh the costs and benefits of the thing we do to control, which is our response. Do we act or not act?

We need to transform our economy to one that is more efficient, more productive, more competitive and less carbon-intensive. Investments that will see our economy grow almost as much as if we continue with business as usual. I think most of us know what will happen--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, we are at a critical point where we need to confront climate change head on but we are also at a critical point where we as a country can seize this moment and see it as an opportunity.

My friends across the House have tried to scare Canadians into believing that committing to reducing greenhouse gases will be bad for jobs, bad for communities and bad for the economy. They are very carefully constructing a culture of fear. We know this has to be a fear campaign because making a commitment to fight climate change is actually an opportunity.

It is an opportunity to grow our economy, to foster innovation and to be leaders when it comes to research and development of renewables, energy efficiency and other green technologies. We know historically that certain technologies have created waves of innovation and that if nations can position themselves strategically within these dynamics, they will achieve economic performance.

The moment is happening right now. This is a period of change when new technologies break through. An event like this is an opportunity to position Canada for the next wave of innovation and the next wave will be one based on ecologically friendly technologies. It needs to be if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change and it will be because we are seeing governments take bold action around the world. This is where Canada should be: building new knowledge and expertise and encouraging entrepreneurship.

I am one of the younger members of the House. Not many of us are under the age of 40 and we have only two members under the age of 30. That means that we often talk about subjects that leave out youth and we leave out subjects that youth often talk about. We talk about pensions all the time but when do we talk about post-secondary education, about jobs for youth or the fact that the next generation is the generation that will inherit a planet on the verge of catastrophic climate change?

This is a matter of intergenerational equity. Our governments are making decisions that those decision makers do not have to live with. We are being left with the legacy of those decisions: a crumbling education system, scraps of a social safety net and a poisoned planet. Young Canadians deserve better than this. All Canadians deserve better than this and Canadians want better than this.

One of the most exciting things about this bill has been that it has captured the hearts and minds of Canadians. Since this bill was introduced, I have been getting emails and phone calls non-stop from people asking how they can help to get this bill passed. The result has been such an incredible demonstration of what democracy is all about.

I have been cc'd on letters to the Prime Minister and opposition members asking for swift passage of this bill. I have read countless letters to the editor by concerned constituents. I have attended panel presentations, workshops and information sessions hosted by concerned citizens and grassroots organizations, all of whom are trying to educate their neighbours about this bill and are working together as a community to try and get it passed. I have been a part of marches, candlelight vigils and church services, all in the name of Bill C-311.

Change happens when a variety of communities work together to demand it. We need lawyers to challenge unjust laws. We need artists to tell our stories. We need organizations mobilizing communities around issues. We need citizens writing letters to the editor. We need street theatre, protest songs, articles, chants, teach-ins, policy debates and film screenings, and we need elected officials introducing good legislation, raising the level of debate and speaking the truth. I support Bill C-311 because it speaks the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the very important Bill C-311 today. I will probably not take all the time I am allowed, because I want to give more of my colleagues the opportunity to speak.

This bill is very crucial because it is part of a strategy to fight climate change. Yes, it is a Canadian strategy, but it is first and foremost an international one.

I remember when Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 1997. A few years later, the protocol was consolidated by the introduction of Bill C-288 by the Liberal Party. Countries like Canada must not just sign international agreements or an international protocol on climate change. They must follow up with legislation supporting these agreements. That was the reasoning behind Bill C-288, introduced by our Liberal colleague at the time.

With only months before the important conference on climate change to be held in Cancun in December, Canada must wake up and be a leader on the international stage. The government must immediately invite its counterparts to discuss climate change at the G8 and G20 summits. Discussions will focus on three aspects—financial reform, banking reform and international assistance—but the issue of climate change must also be addressed.

For that reason, the Minister of the Environment must invite his G8 and G20 counterparts to a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the issue of climate change. Why? Because the discussions prior to a conference of the parties on climate change are vital. If the major players—the industrialized countries or the emerging countries—are unable to come to an agreement in the weeks or months ahead, the success of the Copenhagen summit will be compromised.

We must also send a message to Canadians and Quebeckers indicating that we are prepared to adopt legislative measures to fight climate change. A law must be passed to engage in this fight. Section 5 of Bill C-311 provides all that is needed to send a clear message.

First, we must prevent temperatures from rising more than 2°C above industrial era temperatures. This must be very clear because a number of international studies, in particular those conducted by the IPCC, no longer refer to a 2° increase in temperature, but an increase of 4°C or 5°C. We must make it very clear to our partners, and to all those concerned, that we must prevent temperatures from increasing by more than 2°C.

Now, how can we limit that increase? By setting clear objectives and specific targets. Bill C-311 goes beyond other bills that I have read or motions that have been passed in the House. It does not just set a long-term goal like 2050. An 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 is fine, but there need to be short- and medium-term goals. The proposal is for a 25% reduction by 2020, in relation to 1990 levels.

This is what experts and scientists are recommending in order to limit the increase in temperature. The bill has the advantage of using all available options to reach these objectives.

One of these options is the creation of a carbon exchange to cap greenhouse gas emissions. We have been proposing this for a decade or so.

The entire Montreal market was ready. At the end of the 1990s, when an agreement was signed with the Toronto Stock Exchange and Montreal decided to specialize in derivatives, some specialists in the Quebec financial sector brought up the carbon exchange. They knew that it was an attractive derivative and that Montreal could make a significant contribution to this specialization. And that laid the foundation for the Montreal climate exchange.

Then two weeks ago, the government announced that we would have to wait at least a year, if not two, before a carbon exchange could be set up in Canada. Two years ago, the environment minister at the time was so pleased with himself when he launched the Montreal climate exchange. Two years later, his successor announced that the whole thing was being put on hold. The government has refused to set targets that respect scientific recommendations and has decided to ignore all of the options set out in the Kyoto protocol. Yet it is allowing some large groups to contribute to the fight against climate change. Basically, this government has decided to give up.

I remember making similar speeches in the House in the 1990s. I was sitting in more or less the same place, but about four rows back. Back then, Reform and Alliance MPs said that climate change was a natural phenomenon and that there was no link between human activity and rising temperatures.

Now we are back at square one. We are back to having to discuss the issue yet again. How long will that last? Nobody knows. But one thing is for sure: the G20 summit in June will provide a golden opportunity to put this issue on the agenda and to make sure that the G20, which is made up of important partners, can agree on a plan for the Cancun conference in December.

That is why I see this bill as part of a comprehensive strategy to fight climate change that starts with getting the G8 ministers together as soon as possible and ensuring strong support in the House for Bill C-311.

I thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We will be very happy to vote in favour of it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the third time and passed.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate. I am going to lay out the effective systematic measures our government has delivered to deal with climate change.

Internationally, Canada joined the Copenhagen accord, a significant breakthrough. Thanks to Canada's efforts, major emitters have committed to climate change action for the first time in history. Canada pledged in the accord economy-wide emission reductions by 2020 of 17% below 2005 levels.

Copenhagen may have generated the most public attention, but it is only one part of our government's strategy to combat climate change, which includes extensive work from the departments of the environment, transport, industry, public works, agriculture, foreign affairs and natural resources.

Another crucial part of our approach to climate change is our government's ambitious conservation initiatives. Parks are not only a spectacular part of Canada's natural heritage and a habitat for many species but they also help to combat the effects of greenhouse gases.

We recently created a new 11,000 square kilometre national park at Mealy Mountain in Labrador. Last year we expanded Nahanni National Park in the Northwest Territories by more than 30,000 square kilometres. Our close partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada has already resulted in the protection of more than 300,000 hectares of sensitive areas across the country.

The government's view is that Canada's ability to forge a strong national policy is significantly enhanced if we equitably accommodate differing energy and environmental profiles across our vast land. That means ensuring that provinces and territories can implement whichever initiatives work best for their circumstances, as long as they avoid measures with adverse environmental or economic consequences.

We have also consulted representatives from a wide range of industry associations and environmental groups, and we consult with first nations communities on all projects that affect them.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles, we have introduced tough regulations that align with the U.S. standards beginning with the 2011 model year. This will create significant emission reductions, since transportation accounts for over one-quarter of Canada's total emissions.

Canada has long been committed to increasing energy efficiency. Building on the success of the eco-energy initiative, which was an investment of $4.1 billion, Canada achieved significant improvements in energy efficiency in every sector.

The eco-energy efficiency initiative, for example, is investing more than $675 million to promote smarter energy use in our homes, in our buildings and on the road.

In 2009 alone, the government earmarked $1 billion over two years to support renovations and energy retrofits to make social housing more energy efficient. We also introduced energy efficiency standards for a number of new products and set higher standards for several existing products.

Canada is a world leader in the use of renewable energy. Our electricity supply is the cleanest and the most renewable in the world. Renewable hydroelectricity accounts for 60% of our electricity generation, making Canada the world's second largest producer of hydro power. Our government is deliberately building that capacity.

Canadian federal and provincial governments have committed $11 billion to support clean energy and technology, just since 2008. Since 2005, annual federal investment in clean energy and technology has increased by about 50%.

A big part of Canada's stimulus spending in 2009 focused on developing and deploying clean energy technologies in areas where Canada can make the greatest contribution. These include carbon capture and storage, electricity grid efficiency, fuel-efficient vehicles, bio-energy and renewable energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

We invested $1.5 billion in the eco-energy for biofuels program to encourage the development of a competitive domestic industry for renewable fuels. This provides an operating incentive to facilities that produce renewable alternatives to gas and diesel.

Canada's federal and provincial governments have committed approximately $3 billion in funding for carbon capture and storage alone.

We are going to support large-scale CCS demonstration projects in Canada. One of these will be the construction of one of the world's first fully integrated CCS projects, in partnership with the province of Alberta. The world is counting on Canada to make carbon capture and storage work.

Other federal investments in clean energy technology include $500 million to establish commercial-scale facilities for the production of next-generation renewable fuels; $1 billion over five years for improved public transit, sustainable energy and waste-management infrastructure; $1 billion over two years to support renovations and energy retrofits; and $3.4 billion for eco-energy initiatives, helping Canadians use energy more efficiently, boost renewable energy supplies and develop cleaner energy technologies.

We share a common environment with the United States. Our efforts will be harmonized, consistent with the close integration of our economies and our geographic proximity.

We have worked closely with the United States and launched the Canada-U.S. clean energy dialogue in February 2009 to collaborate in the development and deployment of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gases.

On the continental stage, Canada is engaging with the United States and Mexico on key climate change programs. At their summit in August 2009, the leaders of our three countries agreed to collaborate in areas such as carbon capture and storage, gas flaring and energy efficiency. They also agreed to work toward a 21st century continental smart power grid.

We are also working actively with other international partners through multi-lateral channels, such as the G8 and the major economies forum and through bilateral agreements. For example, Canada and China signed a memo of understanding on climate change on December 6, 2009. This strengthens Canada-China co-operation in energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, CCS, methane recovery and sustainable land management.

Canada is also a member of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a public-private partnership of seven countries that will accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. To date Canada has pledged $12 million to 28 projects under the APP.

We are also helping developing countries adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. The government has made significant contributions to adaptation, including $318 million under the global environmental facility trust fund between 2002 and 2010. About one-third of this funding went to climate change activities. One hundred million dollars was allocated to the World Bank's pilot program for climate resilience between 2008 and 2010 alone. This makes Canada the largest donor to that program.

The Copenhagen accord provides significant international adaptation funding, including a commitment by developed countries to provide new resources approaching $30 billion U.S. for the 2010 to 2012 period, focused on those who need it most.

The accord also established the Copenhagen green climate fund to mobilize $100 billion U.S. per year by 2020 in public and private investments for the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries.

Canada will deliver its share. We will continue to support action that strengthens the capacity of the most vulnerable to adapt to climate change.

The challenges posed by climate change are very real. As a developed northern nation, Canada embraces its leadership role in addressing them. It is a long-term undertaking. There are no quick and easy fixes, especially when it comes to balancing the needs of the environment and the economy.

The government is confident in its strategy. I would rather have this kind of concrete action than a thousand empty target-setting exercises such as those proposed in Bill C-311. I urge the House to reject this misleading and ineffective bill and join us in delivering the real solutions Canadians want.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague across the way and appreciate his dream of seeing a cleaner environment. He made a very important statement. He said we can choose to act or not. He is actually very right.

Unfortunately, Bill C-311 is all about a photo op, a publicity stunt. It does not act on the environment. The fact is, the Liberals called it the “tiddlywinks bill”. They said at committee it was so bad that we should just sent it back to the House because it was not supportable and not even bother amending it. That is how bad it was.

We heard from scientists at committee that what we needed was a continental approach, as Europe had a continental approach by tackling climate change and setting targets, and that is exactly what the government is doing. We are acting aggressively. Every year the NDP votes against the good environmental programs, which makes no sense and again shows this is just about photo ops and publicity stunts.

Why would the members support Bill C-311, which is now no longer relevant? Canada has moved on to the Copenhagen accord. The Kyoto accord is over. Why would he support something that is just a photo op?

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

moved that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, before its final vote here in the House of Commons. It is a private member's bill and should be non-partisan. It has taken a long time to get here. Essentially, we are in the same place, deciding on the climate change bill, as we were two years ago before the 2008 election killed Bill C-377.

We have lost many valuable years, years in which action could have been taken, years in which Canadian businesses could have had some sense of direction from the government, something they have been demanding for a long time, years in which Canada's international reputation could have been enhanced instead of damaged, years in which we could have shifted beyond stagnant questions like, “Is there really a problem”, or “Will we set science-based targets and timetables”, to “How will we meet targets in a timely fashion?”

A month ago Canada joined 126 other countries in the fourth global Earth Hour, where we turned off electric lights for one hour. However, it is not just about saving electricity. The annual event was started just a few years ago to send a message to leaders to get moving on tackling climate change. It has grown quickly, with just two million people taking part in 2007 to this year when more than a billion people took part. They include millions of Canadians in more than 300 municipalities. In towns and cities, large and small, there were concerts, candlelight parties, educational events and all manner of people getting together across Canada to send us, here in this House, a message to please show leadership on climate change.

These events are becoming more common and they will not stop. A few months ago Canadians joined in a global day of climate action in every major city. A clear majority of Canadians demand action. Naysayers and cynics will not stop them. A minority prime minister intent on delay and obfuscation will not stop them either.

I sincerely hope that a clear majority of members will stand in favour of action on climate change. I also hold out hope that Conservative members who disagree with the Prime Minister on this issue will demand a free vote and vote in favour of a sustainable energy future. Historically, private members' bills such as this are not whipped votes.

Many members are weighing their options on what legacy they will leave, how they will be judged by history. Regardless of the rhetoric on either side of the debate, members must decide if the right choice is to stand up for action on climate change, even if they are unsure of some of the scientific details, while considering the consequences of making the wrong decision.

Here are the choices. Climate change is either substantially caused by human activity, or it is not. The vast majority of scientists, most Canadian citizens and, indeed, most of the world, now agree that humans have influenced the climate. However, for the sake of argument, let us entertain some of the remaining naysayers in this House who cling to the belief that it is purely a natural phenomenon.

Faced with these two possibilities, that human-caused climate change is either the scientific truth or it is not, there is something we do control. We can either act or not act. That is the real question before us in this House.

Imagine a chart or a table with the intersection of two rows versus two columns, with action versus non-action on one axis; and climate change, true or false, on the other axis. Thus the risk and benefits could be reduced to four possible outcomes. First, human-influenced climate change is real, and we take decisive action. Second, climate science is wrong, but we take decisive action anyway. Third, the science is wrong, and we take no action. Fourth, it is here, it is real, but we do not act.

Each of the four scenarios is a window to a different Canada of the future. Because the fate of our country and indeed the world is potentially held in the balance by this decision, it is important to consider objectively each of the four future possibilities for our country in turn.

Here is the first scenario. Consider the option that the science is reasonably accurate and humans could have, and have, influenced the climate. Canada and other countries move to take decisive action. It costs money and resources. Our economies are transformed with new industries, and consumption habits change. The world is a different place and it is a lot more sustainable. It took hard work, and sometimes we stumbled along the way, but we averted disaster.

Will it have been worth it? We would end up with a liveable, comfortable, and prosperous Canada to leave to future generations. In the face of possible dangerous and destabilizing climate change, the majority of citizens, scientists, and businesses believed that it was the logical thing to do.

Here is a second scenario. What if the world's economies devote serious resources to mitigating climate change, but they do not have to? Science is imperfect, and there is a tiny possibility that human influenced climate change might not be significant. Yes, if this scenario is realized, there is no question there will be changes to our economies.

Our Prime Minister has argued that these changes would be unaffordable, while other countries, like the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and a growing pantheon of other nations, see them as more of an economic opportunity.

However, even if we took action that we did not need to take, what will we have done? We will have increased fuel efficiency standards and improved energy conservation. We will have reduced our dependence on coal, and oil and gas, and increased our use of clean renewable energy. We will have shifted from old industries to new green technologies and have been able to compete in the global economy of the future. We will have reduced waste and pollution. We will have increased our national productivity and efficiency. Will that all be so bad? These things are worth doing even if we did not have the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.

Our final two scenarios paint bleak pictures of the Canada of the future. They are what will come about if we continue to do nothing to tackle the threat of climate change.

The third possible future, for the sake of argument, is that climate change is a vast scientific conspiracy, aided and abetted by everyone from industry to three Liberal provincial governments, to conservation organizations, to ordinary citizens, both in Canada and the world. Maybe 99% of the world's climate scientists have all read their graphs upside down by mistake.

Either way, the Government of Canada would be one of the few governments in the world that continued to do nothing, and in this hypothetical scenario, they would happen to be right. In that case, we would still have to deal with our drooping economic productivity and the problems associated with peak oil, while most other countries will have greened their economies. It is obvious that this scenario is where our Prime Minister is placing his bets, but then our Prime Minister seems inclined to place the demands of big oil ahead of the needs of Canadian citizens and a truly sustainable Canadian economy.

Finally, the fourth possible future is that climate change is real, but we do not act. The consequences we have all heard about will be disastrous: drought; famine; skyrocketing food prices; new pests; coastal cities drowned; fire storms decimating our forests; and worldwide, millions will become desperate refugees; bloody wars will be waged over dwindling resources; and there will extinction of countless species. Future generations will look upon us with dismay and disgust. We knew the consequences, yet selfishly and indecisively, we did nothing. We feasted on oil and gas and coal and passed the bill along to our grandchildren.

Considering all of these options, there is only one thing we can control: we can choose to act or not to act. Let us consider taking action. By acting, we either devote the effort and resources to get a liveable and more productive Canada if climate change is not as serious as most fear, or we devote the effort and resources to build a prosperous, green and efficient Canada that has averted catastrophe, if what science has told us is real. Either way, Canada would be a productive country that we could feel proud to pass on to our grandchildren. Yes, there is a small possibility that we were misled in our good intentions, but let not history say that we were malicious or cowardly.

Let us consider inaction. By not acting or by delaying, we would continue the steady increase in greenhouse gas pollution that previous governments have delivered for 20 years. If human influenced climate change is not real and we do not act, then the best that may happen is that we will be way behind other nations in the competitive industries of tomorrow. The worst case scenario of inaction, the one that science tells us is most likely, is truly catastrophic. It would be an economic and ecological disaster.

I would urge parliamentarians to do everything they can do to avoid this scenario even being a possibility for us. The only way to eliminate this terrible outcome from our future is to act, and to act now. Decisive action is the only logical thing to do. It is the most economical thing to do and it is the only moral thing to do.

In one week, we will face a choice here in the House. We can vote at third reading to take the first steps with this private member's bill, Bill C-311. The bill gives us clear targets. It requires the government to ensure that Canada reduces its absolute greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It introduces real accountability by requiring the government to publish five-year target plans, starting in 2015, and report on progress every two years. The independent National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will review and report on the feasibility of each and every target plan.

This bill gives us flexibility. The government will have the option of setting flexible interim targets, if changes are needed. The bill gives us certainty, with published plans, long timelines, and much greater predictability for business and industry. It gives municipalities less risk and enhances investor confidence.

In the complete and total absence of any government plan, Bill C-311 remains the only climate change legislation the House is considering and voting on. Unfortunately, it was held up for half a year, when some Liberals voted with the Conservatives to delay the bill at committee until after the Copenhagen summit.

That being said, during the better part of a year of committee deliberations, no party proposed any amendments to the bill before it was finally returned to the House. I hope this means that the official opposition is satisfied with it as is. I hope all opposition parties will be fully present for the vote to ensure that this most vital legislation is passed.

The choice is up to us in this Parliament what Canada we want in the future. Yes, there have been a few isolated incidents in the research that do raise questions, but when thousands of scientists build any complex scientific picture of a world, there will undoubtedly be a few gaps, misperceptions, and mistakes that are made. Cynics will focus on specific incidents and bits of data rather than the bigger picture.

As a scientist, I realize that most citizens and many politicians want proof and certainty from science. Unfortunately, science can never conclusively prove or disprove anything. The best it can do is to give us a probability that we almost proved or disproved something. Even that requires an experimental design that has dozens of replications and many controls.

However, fellow members of the House, we have only one earth, with no replications and no experimental controls. We never know the future of climate change with certainty. The best we can do is to make educated predictions and then err on the side of caution and survival. Last year, the prestigious magazine, The Economist, said, “The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction.” It continued that most research supported the idea that warming was man-made, and that while uncertainty remained, that argued for—not against—action. Moreover, while the range of possible outcomes was huge, with catastrophe one possibility, The Economist noted that the costs of averting climate change were comparatively small.

It is not too late. We can still leave better options and a better Canada for our children and grandchildren, but we must take the first real steps now. The costs of inaction, on the other hand, are likely so great that if we fail in this one moment of truth, we will have broken our sacred duty that all parents have to their children and grandchildren to leave them better options and a better world.

I encourage the members of the House to show up for the vote on the third reading of this historic bill next week, and to vote for the climate change accountability act.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the environmental piece in this budget, which is fundamentally one of the hidden poison pills, is in fact one of the most disturbing.

Our party has done a great deal to provide leadership through Bill C-311 and truly to guide the government into regaining some credibility when it comes to the environment. Unfortunately, we have not seen it do so. It was embarrassing that we went to Copenhagen in the way we did. Quite frankly, the state in which the rest of the world views Canada when it comes to the environment is embarrassing.

As a young Canadian and somebody who grew up in a school system that talked about the need for the next generation to care, become involved and be environmentally conscious, this is not the kind of Canada we would imagine. This is not the kind of Canada that most young Canadians view. By and large, it is young people who are increasingly very concerned about the environment. We have seen different displays of that concern. The Conservative government is letting down Canada's next generation.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, with whom I sit on the environment committee, if she has heard the fantastic news that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, for the first time in a number of years, have actually been decreased to the tune of 2.1%.

That report was file today. It is good news for Canadians. It is clearly a signal that the government understands, after a previous Liberal government failed and signed on to these glorified numbers, much like what we saw in Bill C-311, which passed yesterday. The Liberals did not do anything about it, other than attempt to ruin Canada's economy and, in particular, Alberta's economy.

I wonder if the member can stand in her place and actually congratulate the government for getting greenhouse gas emissions down with all the investments that we put into the budgets previous to budget 2010, which her party voted against.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-311, under private members' business.

The House resumed from March 31 consideration of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to share my time today with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. As time will be tight, I would like to at least thank him for his tireless work on behalf of Canadians to finally seek action on climate change around the globe.

I wish to voice my support for the motion presented by the member for Ottawa South and hope that all members in the House see fit to support these measures, which are necessary and long overdue. Although I do concur with the hon. member who spoke previously that it would have been useful to include the short and medium term targets, those are fortunately included in my colleague's bill, Bill C-311.

I concur with the member that the government has the full constitutional authority to take expeditious action to fulfill our country's responsibilities and undertakings to address climate change. Action on addressing climate change has been delayed, first by the suggestion that we needed a new law, which was then amended, brought forward, enacted and ignored. Then, the government dragged on endless consultations, which had been going on for the previous 15 years.

The next excuse was the need to await action by all nations of the world at Copenhagen. The latest excuse is the need to wait for the United States to dictate our targets and actions on climate change. Yet, while the government claims to be waiting for U.S. actions, the Obama administration is leaving us in the dust. President Obama's 2009 budget invested 14 times per capita what this country invested in its budget. This year, Obama's budget is 18 times per capita the investment of Canada. So much for synchronicity in North America.

Obama's budget also set aside $85 million for green job training for about 14,000 workers and $75 million in the re-energize education effort. Now that is what I call an education investment for the future. What did the government invest? It invested nothing. The government has set aside nothing for green jobs and training, and it would have been welcomed as a constructive addition to this member's motion.

New Democrats believe that green jobs, training and just transition programs for workers are all vital to a strong, sustainable economic recovery. The U.S. law specifies improved energy efficiency for government buildings as a way to jump start job creation and long-term growth. There is a commitment to retrofit 75% of government buildings in two years, saving billions for taxpayers in the United States.

In Canada, in response to a request for information that I submitted last year, we were told by the federal government that only six out of 26,000 federal buildings were so much as in the process of beginning retrofitting. Where is the synchronicity? I concur that the legislative and fiscal authorities have long been in place to enable action by the government. Many of those laws have been intentionally ignored. This despite international obligations under the Kyoto accord and, most recently, the Copenhagen agreement.

The government continues to ignore the pleas of Canadians from across the country to take action on climate change. Even the government's own studies show the impacts on the Canadian Prairies, the Canadian Arctic, the pine beetle expansion and record flooding. Yet still, it fails to act.

Many are suffering the economic toll already. Canadians are now having to turn to the courts to make the government comply with legal duties to reduce greenhouse gases.

I will be looking to the member for Ottawa South and his colleagues to support Bill C-311, which prescribes science-based reduction targets and requires accountability to Parliament for actions taken to meet the targets. In his 2009 audit, the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reported serious flaws with the government's initiatives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including the transit tax credit and the climate trust fund.

I concur fully with the assertion that while the government has the necessary fiscal tools at its disposal, it has also failed miserably on their application. The 2010 government budget entitled “Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth” says it all. Gone is any semblance of adherence to the government's mantra of balancing economy and the environment.

The selfsame budget, where the government proclaims Canada to be a clean energy superpower, kills the only main programs to incent development and deployment of our once burgeoning renewable energy sector. It kills the eco-energy home retrofit program. It deals a severe blow to environmental impact assessments of major energy and infrastructure projects. The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association calls it “shortsighted” to cancel the energy retrofit program, which brought benefits to homeowners, the economy and the environment. So much for its affiliation with business in Canada.

The most perverse of all, though, is the budget grants a further tax reduction to the already profitable yet under regulated major energy corporations, while gifting hundreds of millions of dollars to those industries merely to test a technology. Why cut the very initiatives that are bringing reductions and, instead, putting the money into something we do not know will work?

This contradicts Canada's commitment made at the 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh to end subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The U.S. cut subsidies for oil and gas industry by 2020 to restore almost $37 billion U.S. to its government coffers.

Where is the action on the promised aid to address climate adaptation faced by many developing nations? Canada is disgraced by being the only G8 nation that has not committed a dollar figure, despite commitments at Copenhagen. Canadians are expressing grave concern that with the coming cutbacks to foreign aid next year, the new commitment will fall by the wayside.

Finance for action to address climate change must be new and additional to existing ODA commitments and it must be predictable. Funding must be substantial and adequate and meet the scale of needs identified for developing nations.

Financing and technology support for developing country mitigation and adaptations is the lynchpin to achieving a global agreement on climate change.

Overcoming past failures on both fronts will be essential to a strong climate agreement and must be at the table at the G8 meeting in June. If we are to put the world on a path to avoiding dangerous climate change, we need the assurance Canada will meet those commitments.

Finally, it has been the custom at all previous G8 meetings to host a meeting of environment ministers. Why is this expected—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today to the Liberal opposition motion on climate change. In the next 20 minutes I will try to show that, as we look ahead to the climate change conference in Cancún eight months from now, we must take real action to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through.

I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not, but it is a bit paradoxical that the Liberal opposition motion comes just a few hours before an important vote on NDP Bill C-311. It is as if the Liberal Party were trying to show that a parliamentary motion was the best response to a legislative initiative. There is nothing stronger legislatively than a bill, whether it comes from the government or from a private member.

The Liberal Party showed leadership on this issue in the past. I remember when the Liberals introduced Bill C-288, which was sponsored by the member for Honoré-Mercier. The purpose of this bill was to implement the Kyoto protocol. At the time, the Liberal Party understood that it took a bill to ensure that international climate change agreements, and the Kyoto protocol in particular, had some regulatory teeth. This is what the NDP has understood in recent years, and a parliamentary motion is no substitute for a private member's bill.

That is why, in a few hours, we will support Bill C-311, just as we supported Bill C-288 introduced by the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier.

We think the Liberal Party motion, which I would describe as epic in length, is commendable. In the 13 years I have been sitting in Parliament, I have rarely seen such a long motion. I have read it and re-read it. There are no less than 10 points in this motion. The position of this Parliament could very well have been summed up in just three or four points, as the Bloc Québécois did on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change conference.

What did the Bloc Québécois say a few weeks before the Copenhagen climate change conference? The Bloc limited its opposition motion to three points. First, Canada must commit to doing everything in its power to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2^oC higher than in the pre-industrial period. Second, it must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 25% lower than 1990 levels by 2020. Third, it must commit to giving developing countries the technological and financial means to adapt to climate change.

The motion could have stopped there, but no, here we have a 10 point motion, which we support, of course. Nevertheless, the motion could have been clearer.

Let us look at the first point. The Liberal Party wants the government to:

...use the legislative, regulatory and fiscal authorities already available to the Government of Canada to put in place immediately a national climate change plan that implements economy-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and invests in renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency in order for Canada to compete in the new green economy;

How could we be against this first point of the motion? We are somewhat surprised that today, in 2010, the Liberal Party is proposing regulation. I remember what the Liberal Party was proposing in 1997-98. I was here in the House at the time. It was not proposing a regulatory approach to fight climate change. It was proposing a voluntary approach.

It proposed sector-by-sector negotiations of greenhouse gas reduction agreements that would not have the force of law. This was done in the pulp and paper sector and the steel industry. However, it became evident that the voluntary approach put forward by the Chrétien government made it impossible to respect our international commitments on greenhouse gas reductions. Today, the Liberal Party realizes that the voluntary approach proposed by the Liberal government at that time has not achieved its objectives and that a regulatory approach is needed.

We have before us a Conservative government that does have a regulatory framework for fighting climate change. However, after all these years, we are still waiting for greenhouse gas reduction regulations. We have not found an approach that could have resulted in substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The government has two means at its disposal: the regulatory approach and implementation of a greener tax system, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide tax incentives to environmental industries that contribute to those reductions. I will come back to that later.

However, we only have a regulatory framework before us, one without targets and without greenhouse gas emission regulations. We support the climate change regulations. However, we do not want to adopt the sectoral approach proposed by the federal government, which consists of putting all Canadian industrial sectors on an equal footing, especially the major industrial emitters.

In Quebec, we figure that we have been taking responsibility since the beginning of the 1990s. Manitoba was one of the first provinces to implement a plan to fight climate change. These plans have produced concrete results: in 2007, we saw a 23.6% reduction in greenhouse gases in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, compared to the 1990 levels.

Now, all the federal parties seem to be proposing putting the Quebec manufacturing sector, which has cut its greenhouse gas emissions, on an equal footing with the other major industrial emitters. I am referring, of course, to Canada's oil and gas industry. This is unacceptable, because this approach favours the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

We are saying yes to regulations, but as my colleagues said earlier, we must use the triptych approach that was developed at a university in Austria, which puts responsibility on the provinces. Canada can obviously negotiate greenhouse gas reductions on the international scene, as Europe did with an 8% reduction as part of the Kyoto protocol. But let the provinces achieve their targets in their own way, in their own jurisdictions. We must remember that under the Constitution, natural resources are a provincial jurisdiction.

The government has been proposing this asymmetrical approach for so many years within the Canadian federation. Yes to a Canada-wide target for reducing greenhouse gases, but let us keep our provincial reduction targets.

The Liberal Party's second point is that the government should “stop putting Canada’s environmental and economic future at risk by insisting that Canada must wait for the United States to act first before showing our own leadership on this most vital issue.” Over the past few years we have seen the central federal government's complacency and lack of leadership when it comes to climate change. This is why the provinces decided to negotiate agreements with American states as part of climate groups.

This demonstrates that nations, that the Quebec nation, can negotiate with American states and move the climate issue forward more quickly than the federal government has been able to do over the past few years.

The best example is most likely that of automobile regulations. For years Ottawa refused to implement automobile manufacturing standards similar to those in California. Quebec decided to harmonize its standards with those in California. It was successful in pressuring central governments to adopt more acceptable federal environmental standards.

This shows that Quebec is better than the federal government at influencing the fight against climate change on a continental scale.

The third point of the motion talks about setting “a domestic legally-binding long-term greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050”. This is probably the weakest aspect of the motion, which is unfortunate. We would have expected more from the Liberal Party.

We can set long term targets, but we also need to set short and medium term targets. Where are the greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020? For the past few years scientists have been saying that if we want to limit temperature increases to two degrees Celsius, industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below the 1990 level by 2020, and not by 2050.

With this motion and this government we will be putting off dealing with these problems. They refuse to tackle climate change in the short and medium term and are deferring efforts until 2050. We cannot accept this, especially at a time when industrialized countries are meeting in Canada for the G20. We must send a clear message: in eight months in Cancún, we will be ready to make short and medium term commitments.

Unfortunately, this motion gives no indication of any short and medium term efforts. It talks about long term efforts, which are commendable and which we do not oppose. However, this is an urgent problem that requires short and medium term targets.

The fourth point of the motion has to do with reporting “to Parliament annually on its policies and proposals to achieve the trajectory toward the 80 percent target and revise as necessary”. I think these aspects were taken from Bill C-288, at the time introduced by the Liberal Party. The purpose is probably to allow the environment commissioner to play a greater role. Parliament must focus on achieving these targets. We completely agree with this proposal.

The motion goes on to talk about establishing “a non-partisan expert group approved by Parliament to set a science-based emissions trajectory to reach that 80 percent reduction target”. Clearly, we must ensure that any targets we set are not subject to the vagaries of political change in Ottawa. Science has to resume a leading role in helping elected officials make good decisions.

The budget for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences was cut. The government is trying to muzzle Environment Canada scientists by giving them a communications guide and telling them that their research, reports and documents have to be relevant to the government's goals and policies. That is nonsensical. A healthy government should ensure that scientists have complete independence to do their scientific work.

That is why we need an independent group of scientific experts to make recommendations to parliamentarians and government free from the influence of political vagaries in Ottawa.

The sixth point calls on the government to “reverse the decision to cut the ecoENERGY program”. The first thing this government did when it came to power was initiate a program review. It directed the Treasury Board to assess the ecoenergy programs and divide them into three categories: programs to cut, programs to maintain and programs to improve.

That was terrible for the economy itself, and especially for the desire and the vision to stimulate a greener economy. The ecoauto program was eliminated. The program was not perfect. It provided tax incentives to people who purchased vehicles that consumed around 9 litres of gas per 100 kilometres. The government wanted to change the tax paradigm to give people who bought energy-efficient vehicles a refund. I strongly believe that the measure was in line with what I would call strategic environmental assessment to achieve better governance and greener taxation.

Environmental companies told us that under the wind power production incentive or WPPI, they received tax assistance of 1¢ to 1.5¢ per kilowatt hour produced using wind energy. This program was very successful and promoted wind energy. Subsequent budgets have not provided any money for the WPPI or any tax assistance for the wind industry, and Canadian companies are now telling us that they are going to leave Canada for certain U.S. states, because the American taxation system is more beneficial.

The green shift is failing. Canada does not realize the impact of the decisions it is making, at a time when all the world economies that are going through financial, climate or food crises all agree that what is needed is a green new deal. The basis for our economic recovery must be such that we can build an economy that is not in the stone age, but really turned toward the future.

That is why, in October 2008, the UN sent a clear message to industrialized countries about a green new deal. We must reinvest in renewable energy, promote energy efficiency and make our buildings greener. Sadly, the government has missed this opportunity.

I could go on at length, but I will keep my remarks to just a few minutes. This official opposition motion is clearly commendable and worthwhile. We will support this motion, but we would have liked it to go further and be more in keeping with the principles in Bill C-311 in order to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through now, eight months before the major climate change conference in Cancún.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Liberal Party will be abandoning Bill C-311 and finally admit that such a bill would be devastating both to our working relationship with the Obama administration and to our economy.

I also want to thank the Liberal Party for its support regarding the Copenhagen accord. I believe within the motion, written by the member for Ottawa South, credit is given to the accomplishment of the Conservative government for achieving in Copenhagen an accord for which Canada can be proud and for which, after 13 years of inaction by the Liberal Party that tarnished our reputation as stewards of the environment, Canada can now return to its natural proud post as a great steward of the environment.

I will take a few minutes to address each of the elements of the motion item by item, the first being item (a). When it comes to addressing the issue of climate change, the government has a number of tools at its disposal, many of which it has already used. It is using its regulatory authorities to set tough new tailpipe emission standards harmonized with the United States. We are regulating renewable fuel content, and that is out for comment right now, and we are broadening and deepening energy efficiency standards.

The government has made investments in the form of eco-energy and ecotransport programs and through investments in energy-related green infrastructure . The government is also using tax incentives to promote green technologies and encourage the use of public transit. We also have transferred funds directly to provinces and territories to assist them in reducing emissions.

The government will continue to use these instruments in a responsible, effective and successful manner that promotes both environmental progress and a competitive Canadian economy.

Direct program spending is another area where the government can and has acted effectively. In 2009, Pew Research noted that Canada ranked sixth in terms of clean energy investment intensity compared to the United States, which is back in eleventh place.

When it comes to aligning Canada's climate change efforts with those in the United States, as discussed in item (b) of the motion, it is purely a practical matter.

Our economies and, in fact, our physical environment are so closely integrated that it makes no sense for us to move forward in isolation. That is all the more true at a time when economies on both sides of the border are starting to recover after the worst financial crisis in recent memory.

The reality is that if Canada does more than the U.S. in addressing climate change, it becomes uncompetitive. If it does less, it runs the risk of punitive trade sanctions. Neither scenario is desirable or necessary.

The Government of Canada is an active and supportive player in international climate change negotiations under the Copenhagen accord, as discussed in item (c). We are at an early stage of discussion under the accord and, in that context, it makes no sense for Canada to legislate a 2050 target. Any decision to legislate a target should follow a broader discussion, both within Canada and reflect our ongoing international discussions that started in Copenhagen.

In item (d) the government has already been completely transparent about the actions it is taking to address climate change. It is already reporting annually to Parliament on all the actions it is taking to address climate change and providing detailed information on their impact. Just today we released a national inventory report for 2008 which shows that greenhouse gas emissions are down 2.1% from 2007, or 16 megatonnes of C0_2. . That is an incredible achievement in just a few short years in government. Our government has acted on climate change and has got results. We admit that more needs to be done, and we will do that, but compare that to the Liberals who just sat back for 13 years and did nothing and watched emissions increase by almost 30%.

The Government of Canada will continue to take a consultative approach in developing future actions to address climate change, in reference to item (e). That said, it is the government that is ultimately accountable to Parliament and the people of Canada and it cannot abrogate its responsibility to set a course for meeting emissions targets.

Contrary to item (f) of the motion before the House, the eco-energy retrofit homes program has not been cut. It is still functioning and will continue to benefit Canadians with incentives to adopt energy saving retrofits until March 31, 2011.

What has occurred is that like all other energy efficiency and emissions reductions programs, the retrofit homes program is being assessed to ensure it continues to be an effective and efficient use of Canadian tax dollars. In short, under its existing budget, the eco-energy retrofit homes program will continue to operate until March 31, 2011 as originally planned. This has not changed. The program still has $300 million to be paid to homeowners currently in the program to support their home retrofits.

What has changed is that until final decisions are made concerning the continuation of the program, effective March 31 of this year, the program will not accept new bookings for the first stage of the program, which is the pre-retrofit evaluation.

Regarding item (g), I want to talk about the terms of the Copenhagen Accord. Canada has already agreed to do its fair share to help developing nations adapt to the impact of climate change. We will make our contributions to the $3 billion quick-start fund as soon as the amount for Canada has been pegged. The latest federal budget contains a provision for that contribution.

To discuss item (h) about the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, the Prime Minister has already committed to phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. These act to encourage wasteful consumption. The Minister of Finance and Natural Resources Canada have been working as part of international efforts to examine these subsidies. I should point out that this government has already acted. In budget 2007, we started the process to remove the accelerated capital cost allowances for the oil sands.

Finally, in regard to item (i), in addition to the establishment of a cooperative framework on the international stage, the Copenhagen process has also had a beneficial effect on the domestic policy front. Leading up to the Copenhagen summit, the environment minister met with each provincial and territorial leader, reaching a new degree of understanding on climate change policy and programs with most of them.

I trust that this account of the government's actions on climate change addresses the issues raised by the opposition motion. We appreciate and share the interest in finding solutions that are as sustainable as the environment we seek to protect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake, a man who is also passionate about the environment.

First, I hope the Liberal Party will finally abandon its support of the NDP Bill C-311. We will find out. Bill C-311 would have Canada divert from the North American harmonized target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It would also isolate Canada economically and throw us back into a deep recession. The Liberal Party might finally be coming to its senses, somewhat. We will have to wait and see.

We learned throughout our hearings at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, through hours of testimony from witnesses from all over Canada, that Bill C-311 was irresponsible and would harm Canada. The Liberals, as I said before, even called it the tiddlywink bill and an irresponsible bill.

The Copenhagen accord, the climate change agreement, which was forged during an intense two week period last December, represents a major turning point for Canada and for each of the 117 nations that signed it. It creates a functional international community with one shared goal, namely addressing climate change in a principled comprehensive fashion. Canada is a respected and fully engaged member of that international community facing the challenge.

This agreement acknowledges that climate change is a global issue requiring a global response. It provides for specific mitigation commitments by all major emitters. It provides for international reporting and review of the progress all parties are making toward their commitments. It provides for a predictable ramped up flows of support to help mitigation and adaptation efforts globally. Those are all good.

Going forward, the Copenhagen accord will be the foundation for the international and domestic policies of Canada and for all other signatories. It is the first time that there has been a comprehensive global agreement that deals with climate change and includes commitments from all the major emitters, including the United States, China and India. That is what we have asked for and that is what we have achieved.

Getting that many countries and all those agendas even close to the same page is a remarkable accomplishment. Ultimately the Copenhagen accord will be successful, not only because it moves us all forward but because of how it moves us all forward. It is based on the efforts of national governments on the inclusion of all the major players and on practical solutions.

The Speech from the Throne repeated the government's Copenhagen commitment to contribute our fair share of the $30 billion quick start funding agreed to in the accord to support developing countries in their efforts to address climate change.

That is why this past weekend in Bonn Canada participated in a meeting where the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change gathered to discuss the next steps on how to transform the Copenhagen accord into a binding international treaty.

Next week the Minister of the Environment will be in Washington, D.C., where the Major Economies Forum will meet to discuss climate change and the road forward. This is the 17 member group of the major developed and developing countries, where considerable progress was made before the Copenhagen climate change summit to advance key issues under negotiation.

That is why the opposition's motion is a step backward, not forward. Maybe the Liberals have not come to their senses. Their motion is predicated on an exclusively domestic target for Canada and blatantly disregards the reality that climate change is a problem requiring a co-operatively, coordinated approach and a binding international treaty. Climate change is not something that one country can tackle on its own, especially a country like Canada that accounts for 2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Let us take, for example, the harmonized approach of Canada and the United States. The Copenhagen accord has the support of Canada and the United States, which means that our stated objective of aligning our policies with their policies, not identical but aligning them, now has an enforceable international framework, a foundation. A man I respect, Mike Holmes, says “do it right the first time”. What the Liberals are proposing is to build something without a framework, without a foundation, and that makes no sense. That is illogical.

The reason for our approach, the international approach, is straightforward and logical. Our economies are so integrated that any effectual continental efforts of reducing emissions must include the close Canada-U.S. co-operation and alignment of our policies, regulations and standards.

Harmonizing our approach to climate change with that of the United States would optimize the progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining economic competitiveness and prosperity. That means jobs, which is what Canadians want, and that is what we are providing.

Co-operating on our climate change approach also benefits Canada in terms of joint research and development of clean energy technology.

At the North American leaders summit last August, our Prime Minister and Presidents Obama and Calderon agreed to a program of collaborative work, including initiatives in carbon capture and storage, gas flaring and energy efficiency. Agreement was also reached to begin work toward a 21st century continental electricity smart grid, again continental.

We do not want to pursue an illogical path as proposed by the Liberals that would create barriers to trade and put us at a competitive disadvantage. We also do not want to do less than our most important trading partners and risk facing new border barriers into the American market.

At a time when the world is recovering from the worst financial crisis in memory, a Liberal proposal of increasing taxes and isolation is not what Canadians want and not what Canada needs.

On the continental front we have made excellent progress working with the U.S.. We recently made a joint announcement of stringent new vehicle tailpipe emission standards starting with the 2011 model, which is next year. That reality and the fact that the United States has committed to the Copenhagen accord will also see us work even more closely to further enhance the clean energy dialogue.

The clean energy dialogue was established when our Prime Minister met with President Obama more than a year ago to optimize co-operation on emerging technologies, such as carbon capture storage, smart electricity grids, clean energy research and development, all of which we are making significant progress on.

Not all of the work on climate change will be on the international and continental front. There is plenty that we are already doing right here in Canada.

Since 2007, the government has invested in a range of eco-action programs, many of which promote the use of new technologies.

In 2009, Canada's economic action plan included billions of dollars in spending on initiatives like the clean energy fund and the green infrastructure fund. They provide close to $2 billion for the development of promising clean energy technologies and green infrastructure projects, all benefiting Canada and the world. That focus on technology and innovation relating to climate change will be sustained.

The government intends to stay the course on the path it has chosen: to join hands around the world to combat climate change. We will also continue to use the tools at hand to ensure that our approach to climate change is sustainable, meeting the needs of this present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

I would like to share a quote by Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who made this comment before Copenhagen. He said:

Canada has a tough period behind it in terms that Canada did rise and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but its main trading partner the United States, did not, which left it in a very unbalanced situation.

He went on to say, “What I see Canada doing is encouraging. It is very constructive in these negotiations”. He brought to light that the previous Liberal government did nothing. It created an environmental mess and we are working hard to clean that up. The Liberals need to support our good plans.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for particularly including in his motion praise for the agreement that our government negotiated at Copenhagen and recognizing that the agreement our government negotiated is going to restore our international environmental reputation, which was tarnished by the inaction of the former Liberal government for so many years.

I would also like to point out that we learned in good news today that our reputation will be restored by the fact that Canadian greenhouse gases have been reduced by 2.1% since 2007, primarily due to the increased hydro power encouraged by our government. However, the Liberal coalition environment critic is now really only proposing a watered-down version of Bill C-311, which he previously criticized as a tiddlywink bill. In fact, it is almost an insult to Bill C-311.

Does he plan to support Bill C-311?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we are pursuing a continental approach under the Reform-Conservative government, why is the United States investing 18 times more per capita than we are in renewable power?

If, for example, the parliamentary secretary wants to go back to the committee work on Bill C-311, it was he and his colleagues who demanded a full costing of Bill C-311, but it was so steeped in irony and hypocrisy. The government has no plan. It has a target, but it has absolutely no costing. It has no pathway and no trajectory. It has nothing.

For the parliamentary secretary to stand and talk about harmonization and continental approach, I am really reminded by some of the comments made by the Minister of the Environment, who some days, to be quite honest, I think I am hearing an undersecretary of environment from Washington speaking.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague across the way. My question for him is this. How will he vote on Bill C-311, which we will vote on very shortly? We will also vote on his motion. There seems to be some inconsistencies of what he said today and I hope he can clarify them.

When we listened to the witnesses on Bill C-311, every one of them said that there should be a continental approach. Bill C-311 did not support that. From what the member has just said, it appears he does not support a continental approach. Europe did a continental approach. Canada and the United States, in harmonizing our policies, took a continental approach to attack the issue of climate change.

Therefore, does he support having a continental approach and will he be supporting Bill C-311? Hopefully he will not because it is a bad bill and it would devastate our economy.

The Liberals have been famous on making announcements. The fact is the commissioner of the environment said that they made great announcements, but before the confetti hit the ground, they forgot those promises.

The Liberal leader said, “We made a mess on the environment” and “We didn't get it done?” Will the member answer that question? Will he support Bill C-311, a bad bill that he himself has called the tiddlywink bill?

Climate Change

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions in support of Bill C-311, the New Democratic Party's bill on climate change accountability. It is based on science-based targets, not politically watered-down ones, and they ask, in this petition, for a national plan to achieve them.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-311 is an NDP climate change bill that would devastate the economic recovery. It would force Canada to diverge from the aggressive targets that our government and President Obama have identified.

The NDP does not get it. An effective climate change plan must be done in partnership with our international trading partners and it must be done with economic realities.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Wednesday Canada's only federal climate change legislation, Bill C-311, will face a crucial vote here in this House. All the opposition members have supported this bill. Canadians want to know where we are going on climate change.

Since the government has no credible plan of its own, will the government join us in supporting this non-partisan bill on Wednesday so that it can have the vigorous debate it deserves?

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I was totally impressed with the homework, the eloquence, and the rhetoric of the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

My question for him is this. Will he be working hard to ensure that his fellow Liberals follow through on second reading and move to third reading, and through the Senate on Bill C-311 to ensure that we set the targets and the timetables to force the government to do what he has so eloquently expressed?

Environment and Sustainable Development

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

The committee agreed to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Provincial Choice Tax Framework Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. She talked about the insane price of gasoline in the northwest part of Ontario.

Today Bill C-311 passed out of the environment committee and went back to the House. That is the NDP's climate change bill. Experts told us that would peg gas at about $2.50 a litre, about triple the price of gas in Ottawa today.

I wonder if the member is as concerned with that and if she has been as honest with the same people on fixed incomes about what the NDP's climate change bill will do as she has been about what she thinks the effects of the HST will be.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-62, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act. This bill is the culmination of an operation that the Conservatives began four years ago that has brought about the largest shift in Canadian history of taxes from the corporate sector on to the backs of ordinary hard-working Canadians. That is what the Liberals are supporting. That is what this bill is about.

To understand the scam, it has often been said that for a swindle to work, it requires two dishonest people, the person who is putting the scam together and a dishonest person on the other side who thinks he or she will actually gain from it. That is what we have here. The swindle put together by the Conservatives is the ideological continuation of what they have been doing for the past four years. The dupes in the Liberal Party are supporting them of course, and the numbskull premiers of British Columbia and Ontario think that somehow they are going to be putting money in their pockets, whereas in fact they are just further damaging the economies that have already been undermined by the Conservatives' actions.

Let us look at the genesis of this problem and how it began with the arrival of the Conservatives, shall we? Their ideology is that governments should play no role in the economy, that there is a pristine marketplace that makes all of the right choices, that anyone who thinks that governments or the state has a role in this is trying to pick winners. Let us look at it for what it is.

The Conservatives have decided there is one winner in the Canadian economy and it is the oil sector in Alberta. That is what has been destabilizing an erstwhile balanced economy that was built up in this country since the second world war. Successive governments always understood that to give value to the second largest country in the world with a minor population, today just in the order of 30 million, we required vision. We required the government to play a role in ensuring that we could develop our primary sector, forestry in particular and mining, that we could have a strong manufacturing sector as well, and that we could develop as modern times have allowed us to do, a tertiary sector, the service sector.

A lot of people look at the unemployment created since the fall of 2008 when the current recession began, but what we saw was that as a direct result of the Conservatives' choices, because governing is a reflection of one's choices and one's priorities, as a result of the Conservatives' choices backed every step of the way by their henchmen in the Liberal Party, they have reduced corporate taxes by $60 billion. The effect of that has been to provide that fiscal space of $60 billion to the most profitable corporations. I say the most profitable corporations because it should be obvious, but for some people it is not, that by definition if a company had not made a profit, if it was breaking even or losing money, it did not get any of the money from those tax reductions. Who did? Mostly the very profitable oil sector. Companies like EnCana saw windfall profits of hundreds of millions of dollars, which was totally unexpected and certainly unnecessary for it in terms of its operations, as did Canada's major chartered banks.

Who suffered? The manufacturing sector and the forestry sector centred in Ontario and Quebec for the manufacturing and the forestry sector which included a lot of lost jobs in British Columbia and in New Brunswick on top of those mostly in Ontario and in Quebec. That was a choice. Before the current recession hit, we had already bled off hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors in Ontario and Quebec.

One of the primary reasons for that was the high Canadian dollar which was being stoked by the petrodollars coming into Alberta that does not even internalize the environmental and social costs of the exploitation of the tar sands. There are three basic principles of sustainable development that have to apply to any exploitation of that nature. They are internalization of costs, polluter pay and user pay. Of course the Conservatives apply none of it. The Liberals are ill-placed to even discuss the subject. They signed Kyoto, and as Eddie Goldenberg, the former chief of staff for Jean Chrétien correctly pointed out, the only reason they signed it is for public relations purposes. That is why under the Liberals for 13 years Canada had the worst record in the world in terms of greenhouse gas reduction and that has simply become worse under the Conservatives.

The Liberals did nothing, the Conservatives do not want to do anything and the Bloc cannot do anything. It is a good thing that our leader, the leader of the NDP, is heading to Copenhagen. That at least offers some hope. I am told that this very morning, Bill C-311, which scandalously the Liberals have been holding up in committee, was finally allowed to go through, so there is a ray of hope on the horizon being provided by the New Democratic Party.

The $60 billion of tax reductions was only possible by creating a similar fiscal space. How was that fiscal space created? It was created by pillaging $57 billion in the employment insurance account and turning it into general revenues of the government. Again, it was with the culpable complicity of the spineless Liberals who have no principles and no beliefs. They backed the Conservatives every step of the way.

It should be remembered, as one of my colleagues said earlier, that the Bloc Québécois also voted for the first two Conservative budgets. That is something the New Democratic Party of Canada has never done. We have always stood up against the Conservative vision for the economy. We have always resolutely voted against the Conservative budgets and we are very proud of that record.

Some people have said that they may be taking $57 billion from the EI account, but it is a notional amount. They are turning it into general revenue, so who really cares, because it does not change anything; it is all still government money. There is a huge mistake in that analysis. Every single company in Canada, whether it was making money, breaking even or losing money, had to pay into that employment insurance account for every single one of its employees.

That money was paid in by employers and employees for a dedicated purpose, to take care of the cyclical nature of our economy for a day like today in the middle of a recession when there are dramatic job losses. The fund would be there. That is what it was put in for. To add insult to injury, $19 billion is calculated to be missing from the account now, because they have frozen contributions as part of the recession.

That means that the very same companies that were losing money in forestry or manufacturing and had made their compulsory contributions for every single employee into that fund saw that fund turned into a fiscal space that was given in the form of tax reductions for the most profitable corporations in Canada, stimulating even more rapidly the Canadian economy, with regard to the oil sector, at least, and pushing the Canadian dollar higher as those petrodollars came in.

The result, in the clearest possible terms, is that companies that were already losing money in the forestry and manufacturing sectors were directly subsidizing the very petroleum sector that was causing the high dollar and making their exports even more difficult because of the very high Canadian dollar. It is similar to one being asked to pay one's executioner. That is exactly what happened here with regard to the Canadian economy.

That is the Conservatives' way of doing business. That is what they wanted to do. That is what they set out to do. They set out to destroy the manufacturing and forestry sectors at the altar of the expediency of the rapid exploitation of the tar sands. As if that were not enough, projects like Keystone, one of the many pipeline projects that the Conservatives have put in place in the west since they arrived in government, are exporting the rawest form of the production of the tar sands straight to the United States.

We are exporting jobs. Keystone alone represents 18,000 lost jobs for Canada. We are not only stupid enough to send all of this south without any added value here, but we are sending it so fast that we are not even holding on to anything. We are not even internalizing the costs to the environment today and the costs for future generations.

The internalization of costs is a principle that Canadians all understand. When we buy tires for our car, the province adds a $3 fee to take care of the recycling of the tires. That is the environmental cost of the tires being paid by the person who is buying the tires. That is only fair. If people take the metro or the bus to work, or they take their bike or walk and they do not own a car, why should they pay for that recycling out of their general tax obligations? Why should they be paying to recycle their neighbour's tires? Everybody gets that.

It should be the same thing with the tar sands. It is an important resource, but it is not immune from the application of general principles of sustainable development. What one does is internalize the cost on a barrel of petroleum produced out of the tar sands. That would be the equivalent of approximately $3 to $4 a barrel. The internalization of the cost of sequestration of the greenhouse gases or their reduction and the treatment of all the pollution that is now being held back is going to be a problem that we are shovelling forward for future generations.

It is wonderful to watch the Conservatives, those great moralizers, wagging their index fingers under our collective noses, always telling us how to be and allowing the worst pollution on the planet to take place here in Canada in the Athabasca tar sands. Right now, the dykes at the tar ponds are the longest dams in the world. They are holding back what is not seeping right into the underground water. This is the greatest source of pollution right now in Canada.

We are destroying ecosystems. We are destroying groundwater. We are causing cancers that are exceptional, that can only be traced back to the chemical products being produced in the tar sands. At the very least, we should be internalizing the cost of that, instead of sending the bill to future generations.

Contrary to their theoretical position on all these matters, what we are doing with the Conservatives is enjoying ourselves today, taking everything we can for ourselves and letting the future generations of tomorrow fend for themselves. At the very least, a fund could be put aside out of those important revenues.

Both the internalization of costs and the setting aside of that fund would reduce the pressure on the Canadian dollar. This would make it possible to go back to a more balanced economy like the one we had built up since the second world war. It would be easier to export than it is right now with the high Canadian dollar. We could at the same time put in place an infrastructure of green renewables, hydrogen, wind, hydro and others that can be developed in this great country of ours.

However, there is a singular lack of vision among the government benches on this issue. The Conservatives do not care about future generations. They love to pose with future generations. There is nothing easier than to get a Conservative to pose at a hockey rink on a Saturday with a bunch of kids. What about the day when we will no longer be able to play hockey outdoors in Canada because of global warming and because of their incompetence and their negligence? That is the issue that has to be discussed.

We in Canada are in a unique position in the world. We have extraordinary resources that we can and should be developing, but we should be doing it cleanly.

The Conservatives are so much at the beck and call of our American neighbours. They are in such a hurry to get everything through the National Energy Board. They are in such a hurry to get all their approvals for these pipelines straight south, the raw agreement, to export not only our wealth but also jobs. That is the scandal of the Conservative approach. There is $60 billion in tax decreases for the richest corporations. Some $57 billion has been pillaged from the employment insurance account. Businesses that have already subsidized the oil patch are going to be asked to re-contribute in the order of $19 billion.

Right now, the government is saying, “We have a plan. We are going to look at the premiers of Ontario and British Columbia, the provinces which were the hardest hit by our previous plan to destroy the manufacturing and forestry sectors. Now, we are going to bring them to the table. It has been part of the plan since day one”.

The current finance minister said four years ago in his first budget:

The Government invites all provinces that have not yet done so to engage in discussions on the harmonization of their provincial retail sales taxes with the federal GST.

Do not try to convince anyone who has looked at the file that this is not the responsibility of the Conservative government. It is the Conservatives' plan. This has been laid out for the past four years. Without the Liberals, it would not be possible. That is the real problem.

In Ontario and British Columbia, the pusillanimous Liberals, because they have allowed the Conservatives every step of the way to destroy their manufacturing base, to destroy their primary resources, mostly in forestry, are now saying, “We are too broke. We have to give in to their plan”.

A regressive tax is one that hits the poorest hardest. By definition, this HST is a regressive tax. People have no choice. A retired couple living on a modest fixed income in northern Ontario or B.C. who have to buy home heating oil is going to be spending 8% more for that heating oil. That is what the Conservatives are doing.

It has nothing to do with one's revenue. It is not like an income tax, which is progressive: the more one earns, the higher the percentage; that has been accepted and understood in our country for a long time. This is a direct hit on the people who can least afford it.

What is interesting is it is not just those of us who work every day with people and with communities and groups who are saying this. I have a letter that was sent to me by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is really worth noting that it is as opposed as we are to this new HST. This used to be the bailiwick of the Conservatives.

The CFIB says this, and it is worth reading:

While governments did not consult with small firms in either Ontario or British Columbia, I should note that our members continue to have a mixed reaction to sales tax harmonization. Certainly, the expansion of input tax credits to the provincial portion of sales tax administration is a considerable improvement over the current tax-on-tax system we now have...[however, we have] a lack of trust that tax reforms will, in fact, lower the overall tax burden. We have heard many comments from members in Ontario and British Columbia that suggest concern that sales tax harmonization will not end up as revenue neutral or a tax reduction, but lead to an overall increase in the tax burden on Canadians.

What is interesting is it is bringing up one of the points that everyone has raised, and that is what is happening here today. The government has the temerity to use closure without ever holding any consultation or debate on this tax. It is our irresponsible Minister of Finance who said, “It's not me, it's the Liberals in B.C. and Ontario”.

Let us look at what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says, which is that we have to do five things that are not being done now. It has to be a win for consumers through a lower combined rate.

The CFIB explains, in an interesting manner, how it was able to back the harmonization in the Maritimes and be against this one in B.C. and Ontario. It explains that what was done in the Maritimes actually produced a lower combined rate. What we have here is a tax grab on the backs of those who can least afford it. That is what the Conservatives have concocted this time, with the culpable complicity of the Liberals in both B.C. and Ontario and, of course, their squid in the House.

The validity of the tax and associated revenue stream has to also be one of the important principles, ongoing vendor compensation and introduction of a fairness code. This was said by Dan Kelly, senior vice-president, legislative affairs of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

This is the result of choices. The bleeding off of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing and forestry sectors is a direct result of what the Conservative government chose to do. We are leaving a debt to future generations in terms of the current deficit structure that we are putting in place, which will be one that we will not be able to get away from for decades. At the very least, we should be leaving something that future generations can use. We should be bequeathing them something in terms of clean renewables. We should be moving to an economy less based on carbon.

As George Monbiot pointed out last week in the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, and has been pointed out in a lot of other countries since then, the once diversified economy of Canada is being destroyed actively by the Conservative government. It is the same mistake that people have already seen.

There have been lots of treatises and papers written about this around the world. What Holland went through after the second world war in a similar petroleum bubble, which killed its manufacturing sector, Canada has not had the wisdom to avoid.

We have always understood in our country that it took a balanced approach to building the economy across our huge country. The Conservatives simply do not believe in Canada. They simply do not believe in the importance of maintaining jobs in diverse sectors like manufacturing and forestry. They think by pumping in petrol dollars from the United States that somehow we will be able to maintain the economy that we have had in the past.

In the time I have left, I would like to express my surprise at the Bloc Québécois' support for Bill C-62.

The bill is available on line for anyone who wants to double-check what I am saying. It includes a schedule that lists the participating provinces, and Quebec is not even mentioned. The whole bill is silent on the subject of reimbursing Quebec for harmonizing its tax. Quebec has been owed $2.6 billion for over 15 years now. Monique Jérôme-Forget deserves to be congratulated for having once again raised the issue in debate. Quebec's decision to harmonize its taxes was historic. The minister was twice mistaken when he referred in the House to Quebec's harmonization.

Those of us on this side are against an unfair tax that will hurt the poor. We strongly condemn the Bloc's decision to support this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. I have a motion on the floor. It's a dilatory motion that is non-debatable and immediately votable.

All those in favour of adjourning debate? This is to adjourn debate on the motion. It's not to adjourn the meeting.

(Motion agreed to)

Debate on the motion is now adjourned. Just so everybody is clear, that motion is off the floor, but at the same time, we won't be considering that business now. We've adjourned debate on Bill C-311, so it will be deemed reported back to the House unamended on December 10.

Oh, wait. We vote on the main motion, true enough, which is that Bill C-311 be deemed to have been considered clause by clause and be reported back to the House without amendment. So we're going to vote on the motion itself, since we've adjourned debate.

(Motion agreed to on division)

That's carried, so we'll report that back.

Do we have one motion that has been on the record for Mr. Scarpaleggia?

I understand that you wanted to move this.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I've listened intently to the comments made by my colleagues here. I think what we've seen over the last many years is very concerning. It's a pattern of Liberal flip-flops, not just recently, but over the last 15 years or so, and maybe over 20 years. Maybe it's a pattern that has been consistent.

The Liberals spoke against Bill C-311 when it was in the House and said it was no good. Then they voted for it, which left people scratching their heads. How could they be against it, yet vote for it? That resulted in Bill C-311 being sent to committee.

Then the Liberals said that Bill C-311 needed to be amended. Here we are to discuss amendments, and in spite of them saying it needed to be amended, where are their amendments? There are none.

When the Liberals were in government for 13 long years, they set targets and committed Canada to the Kyoto targets, but they had no plan. Now they have no targets. Today we've seen the Liberals filibuster, and we have protesters taking off their clothes and protesting a Liberal filibuster against climate change. So we've seen it all.

Our government has been honest. We've set the targets. The government is taking many of you to Copenhagen to be part of those international climate discussions and negotiations. We've been honest and we've said we want to have an agreement. The planet needs an international agreement on climate change. Canada will do its fair share.

But all we hear is talk, talk, talk from the Liberals. I think there has been enough talk. We need to move on to action, so I will move that the debate be now adjourned.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I would like to say that we will be supporting the NDP motion that deems Bill C-311 to have been considered clause by clause and reported back to the House without amendment.

Why will we be voting in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair? First, as far as I know, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party has tabled any amendments. So we must accept that, even if we were to make grand speeches in this parliamentary committee, and say that we had to have clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and that it has to be amended because it does not meet our needs, the fact is that no amendments have been tabled in committee. A few weeks or meetings ago, you very clearly indicated the prescribed timelines for such proposals. No amendments have been proposed. Those who wanted to see the bill amended did not come forward with any amendments; they therefore inevitably and indirectly subscribe to the motion as presented. We will see whether or not the speeches and votes reflect the speeches that we will hear today in committee.

Why vote in favour of this motion? Second, because it is urgent that we take action, Mr. Chair. We must make sure that we have a bill, a climate change act, before the minister arrives in Copenhagen. Mr. Chair, it is completely unacceptable to find ourselves with a government that has no strategy, no plan, no regulations, and that has postponed the implementation of its climate change regulations two or three times. In the meantime, south of our border, at least three pieces of legislation, in both chambers, deal with this issue.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearly stated that it considered CO₂ emissions to be dangerous. South of the border, they see the need to take urgent action. They are already working, studying amendments to bills, whereas we find ourselves in a situation where we have an opportunity for a bill... We can agree or not. It is, nevertheless, incumbent on us to amend what is on the table to ensure that we have regulations as quickly as possible. There seems to be some bad faith here.

In all honesty, I think that this bill is consistent with a motion presented by the Bloc Québécois and adopted on November 25, 2009. According to that motion, we must first ensure that any proposal accepts the importance of limiting the rise in temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial era. Second, in order to comply with that scientific opinion, we need a strong commitment to reach a reduction of between 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, which is directly stated in this bill.

Mr. Chair, we are therefore studying a bill aimed at respecting the spirit of a motion adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on November 26, and whose objective was to establish a 25% reduction target using 1990 as the reference year. Members of our government will be going to Copenhagen where they will say that we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. What they are not saying, however, is that the reference year being used is 2006.

I would remind you of all the efforts that have been made in Quebec since 1990. The manufacturing sector in Quebec reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% based on 1990 levels. I should also mention sectors such as pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters, which reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 15%, and all with no mention of intensity. In intensity, the aluminum sector's reductions in Quebec were 50%. In real reductions alone, the figure is 15%.

The Conservative government persists in its desire to use 2006 as the reference year. They want to start from zero. Why start from zero, Mr. Chair? For one reason only: to satisfy the demands of a single sector of Canada's economy, petroleum.

So this is not a fair proposal. In order for it to be fair, we would need to include paragraph 7(1)(b), which is aimed at limiting emissions on a provincial basis. My colleague, David McGuinty, is against it and does not understand why the Bloc is in favour of this provision. I must remind him why this paragraph is in Bill C-311; it was because of discussions with his Liberal Party colleague Pablo Rodriguez, when he introduced Bill C-288.

Surprisingly, at that time, the Liberals were very much in favour of paragraph 7(1)(b) because they felt that it provided greater flexibility. In their opinion, it made for a more asymmetrical federalism. We are proposing that Canada be able to negotiate an international commitment, setting greenhouse gas reduction targets for each province, exactly as is done in Europe. It is important to adopt a common, but differentiated approach, something that both Conservatives and Liberals have always promoted. It would have to apply here in Canada and we would have to use 1990 as the reference year. We would also have to participate in an international carbon market.

On one side, we have political parties suggesting a very weak 3% reduction target based on 1990 levels. On the other, we have a party whose targets are still not known. A great deal of time has been spent educating us about the three bills being debated in United States and we still do not know the target proposed by the official opposition. Is it 20%, 15%, 3%, 25%? Is it even higher? We have no idea.

But we do know—and this must be acknowledged—that the Liberals are adopting 1990 as the reference year, about which we are proud. We are pleased that the official opposition has understood that 1990 must be used as the reference year. So we find ourselves in a situation where the government is presenting us with an unfair, unambitious plan. We are hoping that the official opposition's position will reflect the votes that have already been held. What are these votes? There was the vote on Bill C-288, which sought to implement the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. There was also the vote on the Bloc motion, adopted by this Parliament on November 25, 2009, which called for an objective of no more than 2 degrees Celsius and a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. That is what we agreed to, in principle, by adopting Bill C-311 and this is was we repeated with the motion debated by the Bloc.

To conclude—I do not intend to filibuster—we will be voting in favour of this motion because it is urgent that we take action. The Copenhagen conference is taking place as we speak, and I think that it is important that the vote in this committee and in the House be unequivocally in favour of a bill that goes along with the recommendations made by scientists.

Thank you very much.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

My point is, sir, that in the context of Bill C-311 and its implementability in Canada, it's important to acknowledge where we are today and where we're coming from. That's why it's important for Canadians to revisit the relationship between this government and the previous American administration and the existing one. It's the minister of this government who is apparently heralding his great energy dialogue with the Obama administration, hiding behind it on a daily basis. I think that's completely relevant to this bill and this discussion.

They are Democrats by convenience, Mr. Chair, and they're Democrats by convenience because it's all about hiding and bobbing and weaving and simply not telling Canadians the truth, which is that we have to put a price on carbon emissions, on greenhouse gas emissions; we have to change the economics of fossil fuels and carbon emissions in the country, bring in a full suite of measures: fiscal, spending, support, adjustment, adaptation, both domestically and internationally. All of these have to be embraced in a coherent suite of measures, as has been done in less than six months, yes, by the Obama administration. But four years later we have no such comprehensive suite, and as a result, Canada has no plan.

So Bill C-311 has all kinds of challenges inherent in it. As I said, it is equally irresponsible in its incompleteness, just as irresponsible as the federal government's irresponsibility in, now, 47 months and counting, not delivering a single statutory instrument, not a single bill, not a single proposed law, not a single private member's bill, not a single regulation for consideration by the House of Commons. That is why, at this stage, we will not be supporting sending this bill back to the House unamended, because it is deserving of amendment. It is deserving of us going through this on a clause-by-clause basis to expose for Canadians how important it is for Canada to get a serious climate change plan for this country. Unfortunately, it is too late now, in advance of the negotiations that have already commenced, but post-Copenhagen, Mr. Chair, it will be extraordinarily important for us to come back to this House of Commons and hold this government further to account and drag them out of their corner, reel the government out of its corner again, and get a meaningful plan for climate change for Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes just to put on the record where the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, is right now with respect to this bill.

Our view in the Liberal Party is that Bill C-311 is effectively and essentially a call for a national climate change plan. It in no way constitutes a national climate change plan. It is a call for a national climate change plan. That's an important call, but it's not anything, for example, like the 1,428-page bill before the American Congress, a copy of which I brought here in the last meeting for the minister's interest. It's nowhere near a plan.

The elements, for example, set out in the American legislation are complete. They're complete because they embrace the entire American economy. They embrace different industrial sectors. They embrace the science. The measures embrace a trading system. They embrace the use of international credits. They embrace the proper pricing of carbon. It is a complete bill, and in and of itself, in the United States context, it constitutes a complete plan being negotiated through Capitol Hill today, engaging at least three major committees in the United States Senate. More, of course, Mr. Chair, will be engaged, as we know, post-Copenhagen. More committees and more dialogue will go on in the United States throughout the winter and the spring.

The second point I want to make is that Minister Prentice said this week that in no way would he be swayed by “hype” around the Copenhagen conference. I'm not sure what he means by hype. I don't think the climate change crisis is hype. I'm sure the Bloc Québécois doesn't believe it's hype. I'm quite sure the NDP doesn't believe it's hype. For that matter, I don't think that most Canadians, 82% of whom yesterday revealed that they're not at all happy with the government's performance on climate change, would accept that this is hype either.

If Minister Prentice won't be swayed by hype and international pressure, and in advance of the very international multi-party negotiation that we're entering he announces to the world at large that there is nothing to negotiate, that's hardly the way to start an international multi-party negotiation--“We have nothing to negotiate. That's our position.” So if he's not going to be swayed by hype, and he's not going to be swayed either by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which is Canadian law--in fact, the Conservatives are challenging the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act at Federal Court--then I don't believe that Minister Prentice is going to be swayed by an NDP bill, a private member's bill, which is a call for a plan. Because it's not a plan; it's a call for a plan.

I think at a certain point in time, several years ago, it was important to lay down some track to call for a plan. It's also important for us to remember what's been going on around Bill C-311, and remind Canadians what was done predating Bill C-311, in a previous Parliament, when the government sent a Clean Air Act to a special legislative committee. That Clean Air Act was sent to that special legislative committee and it was rewritten. It was supported by not one, not two, not three, but four political parties in Canada--three of which are represented in the House of Commons, and one, the Green Party, which is not. But four major political parties in the country supported the revamped and improved clean air and climate change act.

The government decided, in its own sense of wisdom, to prorogue Parliament and kill the bill. That's very unfortunate because in that clean air and climate change act was a complete plan for Canada. It spoke about carbon pricing, about how we would allocate permits. It contemplated a domestic and international trading system that reinvested revenues from the allocation and auctioning of permits into different provinces. It created a green investment bank. All of this was killed by the Prime Minister when he decided to prorogue Parliament, for the first time in his short duration as Prime Minister of Canada. That was a plan. That was a plan for Canada that was agreed to by four major political parties, and it was killed using a blunt object called prorogation—killed by the Prime Minister.

Point number three is that we believe Bill C-311 is irresponsible in its incompleteness. It's interesting to see the NDP now looking to rush through a private member's bill, having had the benefit of 33 expert witnesses to speak to the bill and not bringing a single amendment forward to improve a bill that was drafted over three years ago. There was not a single amendment. The leader of the NDP was here and said “Where are yours?” Mr. Chair, this is not a Liberal bill; this is the New Democratic Party's bill. It's their responsibility and the private member's responsibility to improve, to attempt to perfect, to ameliorate, the bill that was drafted over three years ago. But as we've learned this morning, there is not a single amendment being tabled by the NDP.

I think that speaks volumes about whether the NDP is serious about Canada arriving at a credible climate change plan domestically and internationally. In our view, they are not. If they were, they would be addressing a number of issues that I'm going to speak to now. Again for the record, there were 33 witnesses and not a single amendment, even though having reviewed the evidence, in my mind we've heard from at least six witnesses calling for specific changes to improve the bill and arrive at a stronger proposal—not just a call for a plan, but a stronger proposal—to embrace all the essential elements of a plan that should be embraced by a government.

I would like to talk about some of those right now. I want to speak first to what the bill purports to do with respect to interim targets. The bill calls for 25% reductions below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Yet we have heard from extraordinarily competent witnesses, such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the World Resources Institute, the Pew Charitable Trust in Washington, asking for clarification on how we would achieve these very ambitious targets, what the plan would look like, what the price of carbon would be, and whether the price of carbon would be fungible with American and/or Mexican and/or European carbon pricing.

There are serious concerns around these interim targets. If the NDP— and it's the mover of the bill—was seriously concerned about holding everyone to a minimum 25% cut in absolute terms from 1990, then the NDP would properly, right now, be taking to task the premiers of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and every other single provincial administration in the country that has not embraced the 25% reduction from 1990 levels.

Why isn't the NDP chiding the premier of Quebec, Monsieur Charest?

Its reductions, or targets, are only 20% with respect to 1990. Why not attack the premier of Ontario, Mr. McGuinty, whose targets are only 15%, and British Columbia, whose targets are only 13%?

Instead we see that the NDP is holding fast to a number that's very important, a number that we should aspire to be at, but a number that's not backstopped, in this bill, with a plan to achieve it. It's not to say that the Conservative government has a plan, because we've established through the testimony of 33 witnesses that there is absolutely no plan as we enter into these multi-party negotiations in Copenhagen. The bill is irresponsible in its incompleteness, primarily because of the interim targets.

Let us now turn to another part of the bill that is incomplete. I find it difficult to understand how any party, any federal party in our modern federation, could support paragraph 7(1)(b), which has the federal government dictating to provinces the cuts they will be expected to achieve. How is that possible? There is no constitutional authority for this. It would immediately lead to a constitutional crisis. In fact, it would ignite one. It would send different provinces over the top in seeking to clarify where their constitutional authorities begin and end. It would prejudge the outcome of what's already happening, where, in the absence of a federal plan from a Conservative government, provinces have gone it alone. They've gone it alone. Eight out of ten provinces have already committed to cuts averaging 14% below 1990 levels by 2020. Two other provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have not. These are tough challenges for a national government to crack. Unfortunately, this federal government has done nothing to bring together our provinces and territories in advance of this complex multi-party negotiation in Copenhagen.

This bill tramples on provincial jurisdiction. I can't speak for the Bloc Québécois, but I would assume they would be deeply disturbed about having Quebec told that its 20% target was not sufficient or perhaps too aggressive and that the federal government would cut or enhance its target. We don't see that as the way to proceed in a mature federation in the 21st century, and we are concerned.

Take the Province of Ontario. It is drafting its own tradeable permit legislation to join up with the western climate initiative in the western United States. They've had to go it alone, just as they've had to go it alone in negotiations in Washington. They don't work through the federal government anymore; neither does Quebec. They don't even pretend to, because there has been no leadership from this federal regime, none whatsoever. They have their own climate change secretariats, they have a deputy minister equivalent working in the premier's office, and they're pursuing their own negotiations. They are not waiting for the laggard Reform/Conservative Party. It's too late now. They can't pull this together and they know it.

Under paragraph 7(1)(b), there are some serious concerns that Canadians have manifested in testimony. Within the four corners of this statute, there are some fundamental challenges. The NDP has heard these challenges and has failed to address them in the form of amendments. That's the second and profoundly disturbing part of this bill.

We've heard other testimony about the extent of the powers this bill invests in the executive. This transcends the allocation of targets on a province-by-province basis. These haven't been addressed by legal counsel, the NDP, or anyone else. So there are some serious concerns about investing additional powers in the executive, which--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I appreciate having the time to comment.

We have Bill C-311 before us because it passed in the House. We've been consistent as a government with our target of a 20% reduction by 2020, using 2006 as the reference year. We've heard in the discussion of Bill C-311 that it's not a good bill. We've heard from every witness that the government's harmonized continental approach is the correct one. Even every witness who supported Bill C-311--some did and some didn't--said the government's continental harmonized approach was the right one.

There were different opinions on what target we should be using. We heard that Bill C-311 would result in a dramatic increase in costs of energy for Canadians. One of the examples was gasoline going from $1 a litre to $2.50 a litre. Canadians don't want that. We heard that Bill C-311 would kill jobs. There would be a departure of jobs from Canada because we would no longer be competitive.

Bill C-311 is calling for a 39% increase in Canada's commitment. It would not be comparable to what other countries are doing. It would be much more onerous and would put Canada at a disadvantage. As a government, our responsibility is to come up with a balanced approach for a cleaner environment, but also to protect jobs and provide a healthy economy. Bill C-311 does not do that.

We've been consistent from the get-go in expressing those concerns in the House. The Liberals even called it the tiddlywink bill, yet they voted for it and sent it to this standing committee. In hindsight--and hindsight is always 20/20--I'm sure the Liberals are thinking maybe they should not have supported this and sent it to this committee. But here it is. So what do we do with it?

Our government has been consistently opposed to Bill C-311. A preferred route would be to send it back to the House to gut it. Send it back with its title and that would be the end of it. The choice we're now faced with is to send it back unamended, and I think we will support that. It needs to end its life back in the House, and we will be opposing it in the House. But we support sending it back unamended now, with a clear understanding that we will not be supporting it in the House. It needs to die a quick death.

Canada does have a plan. Canada does have targets. We're going to Copenhagen. The minister is heading there and we need to have one united voice. Our plan is a realistic one with realistic targets that will create the balance of a cleaner environment. It will create jobs. Bill C-311 would take us away from that.

We will support the motion reluctantly, but only so the bill gets back to the House where we can kill it.

Thank you.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I move that Bill C-311 be deemed to have been considered clause-by-clause and be reported back to the House without amendment.

Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Of course, I would never suggest that about my namesake. But he is from New Brunswick and perhaps he does not quite understand what happens in Ontario.

To talk about what we are doing here, this opinion piece comes from the Intelligencer, no friend of the New Democrats. To summarize it, it says that the provincial Liberals, supported by the federal Conservatives, want to bring in a new tax to help business. Clearly, there is a linkage between the two. It goes on to say that thanks to the NDP which has kept its traditional stance, NDP leader Andrea Horwath, our leader in the province of Ontario, has slammed the tax recently saying it makes no sense for the province to be handing billions of dollars to large corporations while creating a new 8% tax for the residents of the province of Ontario.

Thank goodness Madam Horwath is working on behalf of the ordinary people of Ontario because clearly the premier of the province is not. With the help of the federal Conservative government he is finding a way to take money out of people's pockets.

One of my constituents sent me a letter. She had written the premier of Ontario because she is very upset about what the HST was going to mean to her and her husband. They are both on pensions. I will be very careful with what I say because I know the language could be unparliamentary if I were to repeat it verbatim. In talking about a letter that came from Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, she said, “This letter is 100% bulls---. I hope you and your MP friends can do something about this pile of,” and the word begins with a “c” and is referred to as manure in more pleasant circumstances. I quote the premier, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you why we are making these important changes together” and he goes on to say together with whom. What is the federal government opinion of this b.s. idea? Clearly we now know that the federal government is in total agreement with the harmonized sales tax.

In fact, the Conservatives are so much in agreement with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia they have used the draconian measure of closure, not after the bill was put before us. Perhaps they were concerned that things were being delayed unduly and it would go back to committee, as has happened with other bills. We did not get up in arms when the Conservatives with their Liberal friends took the decision to send Bill C-311 back to committee. But this is a bill we have not seen yet and they want to use closure.

It seems really unfortunate that before we even get a chance to debate it, there is a decision to limit debate, which is not what the residents in my constituency sent me here to do. They sent me here to debate measures important to them. No measure that has come before this House since it convened last year is more important to my constituents and other residents in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia than this dreaded HST.

Far and away, the greatest return to me personally, as far as calling me, emailing me and indeed taking pen to paper and writing personal letters, is this one seminal issue, yet the government is saying, “We cannot talk about it for very long. We want to move it along. The province is doing likewise. Let us get it over with by Christmas”.

I know I cannot refer to the hon. Prime Minister by name but some would refer to the HST as his tax. Some might call it the “happy sales tax” as we head toward Christmas, except that would be an undue measure on the folks in my riding who are struggling. People are having a great deal of trouble trying to work through these deplorable times when their incomes have been cut by 40% or 50%, in some cases by 100% because their EI has run out. Now they are drawing on what little equity they may have and what little value they have left in their homes or any other things before they apply for social assistance.

It really is reprehensible that we are about to embark upon a major decision in this House without taking the time to have proper debate, without taking into consideration that nearly 80% of Ontarians and British Columbians say no to the HST. Those are the indicators that all of us in the House are getting. I am sure my colleagues on the other side are getting similar responses from their constituents as well.

In fact, the Conservative MPP for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound stayed in the legislature in Toronto, along with a fellow member of the Conservative Party. I know the MP from that riding as well has said on other occasions that he thinks it is the wrong tax. Unfortunately he has not decided to vote against it on behalf of his constituents. I guess that is a decision one always has to make.

I have heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga most of the day say numerous things about the tax package that is before the Ontario Parliament. On a couple of occasions he has actually mentioned that the tax revenue in the province of Ontario will go down. I would remind him that the deficit in Ontario is approaching $25 billion. If this tax were such a great tax that drives revenue down, which I am not so sure that I buy, but if indeed it does, which government in its right mind would impose a tax regime that would decrease its revenue at a time when it cannot afford to pay the bills as it is?

That would be the same as saying that I would like my mortgage to be $100 a month but I only want to make $85 a month so that I cannot pay it. I do not think anybody around here would do that. In fact I am sure the government would scold us and say that we do not understand how to balance our chequebooks. Clearly the member from Mississauga does not understand how to balance a chequebook if he is saying the revenue stream is going to go below what is needed to actually balance the budget. It makes no sense.

There is the debate on the other side. There is the yin and yang of this debate. We are told, “Trust us. It will create jobs and prosperity”. I heard that in the 1980s, and it was called the free trade agreement. What did we get as workers? We got jobs that disappeared by the thousands and now the hundreds of thousands and wages that either went down or stagnated. If the government is going to create prosperity the same way as was done with the free trade agreement, then I am afraid it is a sham.

It is a sham on the constituents that I represent, on Ontarians and British Columbians, perpetrated by a government that basically is going to take those poor taxpayers to the cleaners. I use the word “poor” purposely because indeed they are poor. The constituents in my riding are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. For members to stand in this House and suggest that somehow we will be better off because of this is utter nonsense. It is about time they learned tax policy and economics. I am guessing that a lot of them did not pass economics 101.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the whole world is demanding action on climate change. That is exactly what the NDP asked for and proposed in its Bill C-311.

Yet the Conservatives are treating Copenhagen the same way the Liberals signed Kyoto: as a big public relations stunt, nothing more. We need action, but the government does not have a plan, nor is it taking concrete action.

When will this government show real environmental leadership for Canada?

Comments by Member for Ottawa South

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, at 12:04 p.m., I raised a point of order regarding a false statement made November 20 in the House by the member for Ottawa South on Bill C-311. He stated that it was not two weeks ago that his colleague, referencing me, the critic for the NDP, was in agreement with the extension of 30 days in committee as it was extremely important to hear other expert witnesses. This is, by the way, a complete falsehood. I had voted against the extension and had spoken very clearly in the committee and outside. I wanted an expedited review and vote on that bill.

To my knowledge, the member has not yet withdrawn this false statement and I seek your intervention, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this request.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Thank you very much.

Let me deal with that in a couple of ways. I will come to the clean energy dialogue. As you know, at the last visit on the part of the Prime Minister and me and Minister Cannon and others to Washington, the Secretary of Energy in the United States, Steven Chu, and I provided a report detailing what has been done under the clean energy dialogue.

Let me go back to the essential issue of whether the targets and the approach that Canada is following are sufficiently ambitious. I know that this committee has been wrestling with Bill C-311 and will continue to, and I would just emphasize that given the structure of our economy, our climate, our geography, and the nature of our industrial base, we need to have targets that are aligned with our major trading partner and we need an approach, as represented by the clean energy dialogue, that is aligned with our major trading partner.

If you look at what's taken place around the world in terms of the targets that other countries are agreeing to, Canada's target is, in fact, very ambitious. Our 2020 target is to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 from a 2006 baseline. If you compare that to President Obama's provisional target—and it is provisional upon Senate action in the United States, and provisional on an international binding agreement that applies to all major emitters—the United States is talking about minus 17%. So we are consistent.

If you look at what the European Union is proposing, their targets are equivalent, essentially, to minus 14% from a 2005 level. So again the targets that we are talking about in Canada are quite consistent.

What Bill C-311 puts forward is the notion that Canada would double our reduction targets for 2020 to what is essentially minus 39% below 2005. If our country did that—and I caution the members of the committee on this, because I know you're dealing with this bill—our target would be completely out of line with the targets of all of the other major industrial democracies with whom we compete. This could be done only at an exceedingly high economic cost that is completely out of line with the cost that other countries have found to be acceptable.

If you look even at the most recent Pembina Institute-David Suzuki report, they quantified the cost as being up to 3.2% of GDP. Look at the analysis in the United States. What the United States is prepared to take on as an economic cost is something in the order of 1% of GDP. The European Union targets are in the order of 1% of GDP. All of this is chronicled and detailed in economic analyses in those jurisdictions.

What's being proposed in Bill C-311—the committee needs to know this before you vote on it—is that Canada would take on economic costs that no other industrial country is taking on at the climate change table in Copenhagen. So be careful with this. These targets are completely incompatible with the principles of U.S. harmonization, with which, frankly, everyone I speak with in this country is, broadly speaking, in accord.

All of the premiers support this. All of the environment ministers are consistently talking about the importance of harmonization with the United States, not damaging our economy. Industry is in agreement, and the ENGOs have been in agreement with how we go about that. So that's a caution on that.

In terms of the clean energy dialogue, my friend points out that carbon capture and storage is a critical part of this. We are working together with the United States on carbon capture and storage, the definition and building of a smart grid for the electricity system. These are two extremely important initiatives.

Carbon capture and storage holds the promise of reducing emissions from coal-burning thermal plants. In the next 25 years there will be over 2,000 new coal-burning thermal plants built on the planet--that's 2,000. Some of those will replace existing stock, but reducing our emissions into the atmosphere is largely about constraining coal emissions. CCS is the only known technology that can reduce those emissions, and Canada should lead the way.

And on a per capita basis, no one in the world is investing more in carbon capture and storage than the Canadian federal and provincial governments together.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I want to thank you for being here. You've already been thanked, but not a lot of people realize how busy you are. I do. I realize you had to adjust your very busy schedule.

The committee has been listening to witnesses on Bill C-311, the NDP bill. We heard from every witness that the approach to having a continental, harmonized North American approach was bang on. They all recommended that. There was discussion on the targets, and if you accept a harmonized continental approach, is it realistic to have different targets from the U.S.?

We heard from industry with our last group of witnesses that it could kill our economy, particularly our economic recovery. Everybody said harmonized approach.

I would like you to share a little bit of what has happened since the visit to Canada by President Obama, meeting with our Prime Minister. What has happened since that February visit? Things have changed. There's been a lot of progress. I'm particularly interested in the priority of developing and deploying clean energy technologies. Canada is really excited about what we're doing on carbon capture and storage. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

The other priority is building a more efficient electricity grid based on cleaner renewable generation and expanding clean energy research and development. How important is that?

These are all important to the world. When I was in Copenhagen five weeks ago and in Berlin a year and a half ago, we heard how the world is depending on Canada to develop and commercialize carbon capture and storage. We are a world leader.

Per capita, what kind of contribution is Canada making compared to the rest of the world in some of these incredible technologies the world is relying on? How important is having a harmonized approach, and what is happening? Could you update us on that?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

I will respond in English, if I may.

There certainly has been a great deal of work done with the provinces. You referred to a common front. Certainly, as you are aware, in order to prepare for Copenhagen, I've met with every single premier and every single environment minister over the close of the summer, in essentially face-to-face discussions.

My sense, based on that, is that there is actually quite a degree of commonality among Canadian provinces relative to climate change. I think there's a general acceptance that there is a need for a national climate change approach, one that respects the jurisdictions and roles of the provinces. There is a view that the approach should be fair and equitable and that there should be credit for early action. In particular, it should be an approach that is harmonized with the United States.

I think it's fair to say that this was something that was mentioned to me by every single premier with whom I met, the importance of harmonizing our efforts relative to greenhouse gases on a continental basis. Of course, that's entirely consistent with the government's policy objectives. Our approach to climate change must be harmonized on a continental basis.

Frankly, the concern that we have with Bill C-311 is that it does exactly the opposite. Bill C-311 proposes targets that are entirely discordant with the United States, making it extremely difficult--if not impossible--to implement on a North American basis. We are talking about a continentalized cap and trade system that involves absolute emission reductions, not intensity targets.

So to correct you, there is no suggestion that we are talking about the kinds of intensity targets that you might have seen in Turning the Corner. We are speaking about a cap and trade system.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Right. Voyons donc, as they say.

Mr. Minister, the Waxman-Markey bill, which was introduced less than five months ago in the American Senate, is a 1,428-page plan for the United States.

I've done a complete search of that bill, sir, and there's not a single reference to the word “Canada” in 1,428 pages.

To my knowledge, there's not a single reference to the word “Mexico” in 1,428 pages.

Sir, we've had 33 witnesses come to this committee and speak to us on Bill C-311, which is linked to your energy dialogue in supplementary estimates (B) because you keep talking about a dialogue. We've asked all 33 witnesses on Bill C-311 whether they have in their possession a plan, have seen a plan, could share a plan. Thirty-two of those witnesses have categorically stated there is no plan.

The only witness who has stated there's a plan was your employee, who came here and said that one-page statement was a plan--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing today.

Canadians who are tuning in and listening to the hearings today might get the impression that what this committee is discussing is the government's climate change policy. We're in fact talking about Bill C-311, which is the NDP's bill with respect to climate change. While we appreciate the general discussion on climate change policy, we could have been talking, for example, about the Liberals' failure to meet their minus 20% target over 1988 emissions by 2005 that was in their first red book, for example. But we're not here to talk about that. We are talking about Bill C-311.

Mr. Lloyd, I appreciate your comments with respect to the accelerated capital cost allowance, not only to inform the work this committee does but because of course we are in pre-budget discussions with respect to the upcoming budget in the new year. I assume that you've already made a presentation to that committee, but we can certainly make that a discussion as well. I will point out that it was originally a unanimous resolution by the industry committee that was supported by all parties. Unfortunately, the three opposition parties at one time or another have voted against those measures in budgets.

Going on to Bill C-311, one of the things we've heard in testimony already before this committee, which I think is very important.... It's not the government's opinion; it was an industry opinion. We had the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Environment Northeast before this committee talking about the negative consequences of widely dissimilar targets between Canada and the United States.

Just to get us onto a page where we are comparing apples to apples, the Government of Canada's target, translated to a 1990 baseline, is roughly minus 3%. The U.S. target, depending on which one you take.... Neither target reaches minus 10%. It's a single digit over 1990. The NDP's targets are about minus 25% over 1990 levels by 2020.

Both organizations talked about serious trade problems that could arise and said that this could create political problems as well. I think one of them they mentioned was the flow of investment out of Canada and into the United States if we had a significantly more rigorous target within a cap-and-trade system than the United States.

Can you comment on what widely dissimilar targets within that kind of system would mean to your industries? Can you confirm whether that would mean a capital outflow for the purchase of credits, for example, on the U.S. side, where it might be cheaper? Can you walk us through what that will mean for your sectors?

Mr. Boag, I don't know if you want to start. Or maybe Mr. Lloyd does.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

I think what we've seen is that the targets, whether we're talking about the Bill C-311 targets or these targets proposed by the government, are nothing unless there are concrete measures and proper help for achieving the kinds of things we're trying to do.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Boag. I appreciate that.

Most likely that was the low-hanging fruit, things that you could upgrade. Further reductions, you might say, particularly in the order of Bill C-311, would be significant challenges, I'm sure.

I'd like to talk a little bit about the government's targets of 2006 as a baseline level and a further reduction of 20% from that. How easy is it going to be for you all to reach the 20% from 2006, without looking at any credit for early adoption of what you've done during the 1990s, for example?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate an opportunity to ask some questions.

Just to set it into context, we in this committee have been studying Bill C-311 for what feels like forever, but it has been a couple of months. So far we've heard from countless environmental non-government organizations. We've heard from those influences representing the European Union and other countries, the United States of America, which would obviously give their two cents on how Canada should run its own domestic internal affairs, but which I look at through the eyes of a bit of a skeptic. And we've had the forestry sector and the electricity sector before us. Other than that, this is, finally, the first opportunity to ask real questions of Canadians who actually represent industries, who represent real people who have jobs and are accountable to society.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lloyd, you said earlier that over the long term the emissions reductions provided for in Bill C-311 were very high, but that you did not know how they could be realized. The long-term targets contained in this bill are on the order of 80%, which represents more or less the same targets as the United States will be adopting for the period between now and 2050. That is what Europe and all of the other stakeholders adopted. Contrary to what Mr. Woodworth just said, witnesses have indicated that in Europe, using 1990 as a reference year, the target is 34%.

This bill only refers to a 25% target using 1990 as a reference year. So, we are not talking about 80% within a few years. In the long term everyone agrees. That seemed to be what was bothering you earlier—we don't know how we could reach such a high target. However, everyone has the same target.

Something else was said which is that the Kyoto Accord is no longer being discussed, but rather the Copenhagen agreement, which will be much more demanding. The reductions will be much greater and all countries are preparing for them.

Could you tell me, Mr. Lloyd, why you believe that such a bill would favour the United States?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That, I think, is our government's concern. This cuts across all sectors that are trade exposed and energy intensive.

The other thing I've noticed is that not a single expert this committee has heard from knows of any country in the world being asked to reduce emissions at the drastic rate and cost that Bill C-311 requires. Not a single country in the world is being asked to bear such a cost.

Mr. Lloyd, you made an interesting point about the fact that international credits in Canada are selling at $200 rather than the $75 the Pembina report assumes. I have some real difficulty understanding that. I'm wondering if you might be able to help Canadians understand why carbon costs are so much higher in Canada, for example, than they are in the European Union.

[Ron Watkins]

I'm not sure what their ultimate position would be, for example, on Bill C-311. As I say, we talk to them about the importance of addressing the competitiveness concerns, the sectoral--

[Ron Watkins]

Yes, we have discussed the aspects of climate change policy with the United Steel Workers, which is a principal union in our industry. We have not discussed specifically Bill C-311, but in terms of the issues and the concerns that I've brought forward in this discussion, we've equally had that kind of policy discussion with the unions.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You are all here to testify on Bill C-311. You represent the most important industrial sectors in Canada.

Did you consult your unions with regard to your position on Bill C-311? Do they believe as you do that this bill would devastate your industries and consequently exert downward pressure on the number of jobs in your companies, in your industries? Did you consult your unions, who are stakeholders as well, clearly?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you for that challenge. I appreciate that.

What we've heard from every witness, even those who support Bill C-311.... Some of the environmental groups said they acknowledge that a harmonized approach with the United States, because it's our number one trading partner, would be the preferred way to go.

There was a logic in Europe for why 27 European countries, all with different abilities and some uniqueness, came together with a European target and a European commitment. Canada and the United States together have a harmonized approach and a continental target. We came up with our target of 20% absolute reduction two years ago. The United States has adopted a very similar target, which President Obama will be taking to Copenhagen.

The question I would like to ask--and what makes the hairs go up on the back of my neck--is about what the cost of energy will be for Canadians if we adopt Bill C-311. We heard from the witnesses an encouragement that we have to adopt energy prices similar to Europe's. If we're accepting European targets, we'd be looking at $2.50 a litre for gasoline. We heard that the electricity prices in Denmark were six times what we pay. There would be a massive loss of jobs. We heard that it would be a major burden on industry and therefore there would be a loss of jobs. There's a lot of concern.

Is there any truth to that? If Canada were to adopt the European targets, move away from a harmonized approach, and have massive increases in energy prices, what effect would that have on industry, all your industries?

Mr. Lloyd.

[Tony Macerollo, Vice-President, Public Policy and Communications, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute]

It's a function of demand, simply put. It's a function of demand from your constituents. It's a function of demand from many of the other industry sectors that use our products.

I really want to come back to the issue of Bill C-311, to very specific points of disagreement.

One, we're not talking Kyoto anymore; we're talking Copenhagen.

Two, the rules are going to change. The rules have changed since Kyoto. The U.S. pulled out.

Three, you've given a phenomenal amount of regulation-making power to the government with no accountability or parliamentary oversight. Regulation-making power is done by cabinet. The only mechanism you have is the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. We have specific examples of how that produces unintended consequences in other areas of fuel combination.

Finally, Canada is one economy. To say that you can apportion it from province to province fundamentally defies what we have been doing since Confederation, whether it be forms of equalization, whether it be specialized programs--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses for coming here today and sharing their interesting and important points of view on this subject.

I want to focus back on the bill, because that's what we're here for.

Mr. Lloyd, you indicated that you didn't support the bill. I've been listening to everything that's been said here, and I don't understand in what way Bill C-311 will not allow flexibility in determining which industries are going to provide the greater carbon dioxide reduction targets. Could you tell me a little bit more about why you think this bill is not appropriate?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here today. I would like to begin by asking the same question I ask all the witnesses who have appeared here on Bill C-311. So I put the question directly to Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Boag, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Boucher: do any of you have in your possession a domestic climate change plan for Canada? If you have a copy of that plan, can you share it with us?

Mr. Lloyd.

[Pierre Boucher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cement Association of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning.

My name is Pierre Boucher and I am the president of the Cement Association of Canada. I am accompanied today by Bob Masterson, who is our policy director.

I thank the members of the committee for giving us this opportunity to present the viewpoint of the cement industry on Bill C-311.

The Canadian cement industry has been very engaged in productive consultations with the Canadian government on its environmental agenda. We fully support the efforts of the government to address global climate change.

As you may know, cement is a fine grey powder that is mixed with water, crushed stone, and sand to make concrete. Cement is the glue that holds the concrete together. Cement is a strategic commodity and vital to Canada's infrastructure. Cement is the key ingredient in concrete. Little is built without concrete.

Globally, 2.5 billion tonnes of cement are produced annually. Global cement production is expected to double to five billion tonnes by 2050. In Canada, 14 million tonnes of cement are produced annually, 10 million tonnes are consumed in Canada, and four million tonnes are exported to the U.S.

Every year Canadians on the average use 30 million cubic metres of cement, that is, one cubic metre for each Canadian man and woman.

Cement is an energy-intensive industry. When considering cement emissions reductions, it is important to take into account that 60% of the total emissions associated with cement production are fixed process emissions. These fixed process emissions are a direct consequence of the chemical reaction resulting from heating limestone, the raw material required to make cement. These process emissions cannot be reduced.

The remaining 40% are combustion emissions associated with the use of coal or petroleum coke, our primary energy sources. This 60-40 split is important to fully understand where emission reductions can take place. The good news is that the cement industry can reduce its combustion emissions.

The Canadian and global cement industry is moving forward to implement its plan to reduce combustion emissions. These are: continual improvements in energy efficiency; increasing the use of blended cement and cement substitutes; substituting coal and petroleum coke with low- and zero-carbon energy sources; and research on manufacturing processes and materials.

Regrettably, a number of policy and regulatory barriers at all levels of government impede or squarely prevent the implementation of the cement industry's plan on climate change. Key barriers include: fractured and non-integrated approaches to policy making and the uncertainty in the adoption of harmonized environmental and energy policies to address the specific challenges facing the cement industry; lack of government policy support for fossil fuel substitution with low- or zero-carbon energy sources; a costly, lengthy, and incoherent permitting process; and a slow building code and standards developing process.

Paradoxically, European governments recognize and facilitate the implementation of the cement climate change plan. As an example, in Europe the fossil fuel substitution rate is as high as 80%, but averaging approximately 40%, while the Canadian average is a mere 7%. Quebec, however, is a real leader in this field, and this year we will replace fossil fuels at a level of over 25%.

In order to mitigate investment and emissions leakages, the cement industry calls on the government to address the following issues while developing its climate change regulations.

The Government of Canada must take a coordinated and harmonized national and continental approach to climate change. Cement is an energy-intensive, trade-exposed industry and a price taker. Therefore, we cannot sustain multiple price signals and multiple regulatory regimes within Canada or the U.S., our largest trading partner. The Canadian cement industry must remain globally competitive.

As we speak, British Columbia and Quebec apply a carbon tax on cement production. As a consequence, cement imports, mainly from Asia to Canada, are increasing because cement imports do not have to pay these carbon taxes. The end result is the following: (1) a net increase in global emissions from cement production in countries that oftentimes have less stringent environmental regulations; (2) a net increase in global emissions resulting from the transportation of cement from Asia to Canada; and (3) the creation of an uneven competitive playing field.

The Canadian cement industry cannot be subjected to both a cap-and-trade regime and carbon taxes. All this simply leads to investment and emissions leakages.

In addition, a one-size-fits-all recipe for climate change does not work. The cement industry has been calling for a sector-based approach, since it is essential to take into account the specific characteristics of the cement sector when designing a climate change regulatory regime. The cement industry has developed its globally applied greenhouse gas reporting protocol that will facilitate benchmarking of the North American cement industry.

In the study of Bill C-311, we encourage the committee to take into consideration the following.

First, the Canadian cement industry operates in a global market and faces competition from around the world. These forces are magnified in the Canada-U.S. context. The U.S. is the Canadian cement industry's single export market and of course Canada's most important trade partner. In designing greenhouse gas regulations, the government must align Canada's trade and climate change efforts to those of the U.S. on such issues as price signals and on mid- and long-term climate objectives to avoid disruption of cross-border trade due to differences in the approaches to greenhouse gas mitigation.

Thirdly, the Canadian cement industry cannot have divergent environmental policies imposing unnecessary regulatory frictions or allowing uncertainty when it comes to decisions of where to invest and create jobs.

To conclude, we firmly believe that the cement sector approach based on harmonization and alignment with the U.S. will result in real emissions reduction and sustain the domestic and continental competitive position of the cement industry. Again, this is dependent on getting climate change regulations right.

In addition, all levels of government must also introduce and/or modernize complementary regulatory regimes, fiscal policies, and programs that support the implementation of our climate change plan. The government must now decide on emissions reduction targets for the cement sector and continue to develop a plan with Canadian stakeholders and the U.S. government.

Close cooperation between the cement industry and the government is necessary if we are to implement our common plans and strategies to reduce greenhouse gases.

I thank you for your interest and your attention.

[Ron Watkins, President, Canadian Steel Producers Association]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

The Canadian Steel Producers Association is pleased with this opportunity to contribute to your deliberations.

The Canadian Steel Producers Association represents 10 members who produce steel in five provinces, from Quebec to Alberta.

In 2008, our industry produced approximately 15 million tonnes of steel. It had shipments of $13.5 billion and employed some 30,000 people. While production is down significantly this year, a competitive domestic steel industry is essential to our economic and environmental future. This includes steel products for a greener economy, ranging from wind power to lighter and stronger steels that improve vehicle mileage.

Our climate change policy position reflects a number of principles that are important to our industry.

First, we see climate change as a global challenge that requires significant and concurrent action by all major emitting nations.

Second, targets, regulations, and compliance mechanisms must recognize the competitive and technological realities facing our industry and minimize trade and investment distortions.

Third, climate change plans must integrate environmental and economic objectives, including provisions to accommodate sustainable industry growth.

Fourth, the requirements to reduce emissions must be equitably shared among all sources, including industry, transportation, and consumers.

And fifth, Canadian governments must work to avoid overlap and duplication in establishing climate change regulations. Both the regulators and the regulated will benefit from a single set of regulatory requirements.

Unfortunately, Bill C-311 provides no indication of how these principles and several crucial features would be addressed in practice.

I would like to comment on certain of these key issues from a steel industry perspective. In doing so, I won't comment on some of the additional points we also support that have been raised by our colleagues, including issues related to trading systems, for example.

First, as an industry, we account for fewer than 2% of Canada's total GHGs, and we have made significant improvement over many years. Since 1990, emissions are down over 20% in absolute terms and 25% in intensity. In other words, we grew throughout the period but still reduced below the Kyoto numbers. This betters the Kyoto target, and we are committed to continuous improvement with near-term technological and economic constraints.

Second, steel-making is inherently energy intense. It requires a lot of heat to create virgin steel from iron ore, coal, and other materials, through the integrated or blast furnace method. The other popular method, the electric arc furnace method, applies high-voltage electricity to remelt scrap steel for essential products such as rebar and pipes. This method is less intense from a CO₂ emissions perspective, with the added environmental value of recycling large volumes of steel scrap—a true life cycle benefit for our product. Last year our industry recycled almost 8 million tonnes of scrap steel. As noted, both of these production methods are energy intensive, thus the GHG regulations on our energy inputs will also directly affect the cost of producing steel.

Third, our sector is highly trade exposed. We compete principally in the NAFTA market, but we compete against many others. We must also compete globally for new investment capital. Globally the dominant player in steel trade is China, which today produces close to one-half of the world's steel, more than the next 10 countries combined. A decade ago it was only 15% of this total, less than NAFTA.

China has become a major factor in global steel markets, backed by a national steel policy and, frankly, a web of market-distorting subsidies and other support. Environmentally it has an even more disproportionate impact, both directly and indirectly. Thus comparable action on GHGs by China and other major steel producers is essential, both to achieving significant and balanced reductions globally and to avoiding further economic distortions.

Within North America our market dynamics call for a high degree of Canada-U.S. regulatory compatibility due to the impacts on trade and investment. I will return to this point.

The fourth factor is technology. As mentioned above, our members have already invested in capital equipment and processes to make substantial improvements in energy efficiency and therefore in greenhouse gas emissions. We will continue to make incremental improvements, but the scope for large-scale gains in the near term is limited by commercially viable technologies. We also have a relatively high proportion of fixed process emissions that are irreducible with current technologies.

For the longer term, we are part of a global steel industry effort that is actively working on a range of CO₂ breakthrough technologies to reduce steel emissions by over 50%.

Putting these factors into a policy and regulatory perspective, I would emphasize the following.

First, steel is a primary example of an energy-intense, trade-exposed sector. New CO₂ regulations will impact us directly, and also indirectly, since our major inputs, iron ore, coal, energy, and transportation, will also bear new CO₂-related costs. These will flow through to us as consumers of those particular products and services. If our GHG regulatory costs significantly exceed those facing our competitors, there will be both economic and environmental impacts. Carbon leakage is also economic leakage. That is why Canada's cap-and-trade policies must include provisions and allowances that adequately address the challenges facing the EITE sectors. This factor has been recognized in recent major studies, and it is also reflected directly in the draft plans of the EU, Australia, and the U.S., the latter also including border adjustment measures as a further potential mechanism.

Second, CSPA agrees with the need for a high degree of regulatory alignment between Canada and the U.S. to minimize trade and investment distortions. If our obligations are significantly more demanding, we will be less competitive in the market and in attracting investment to Canada versus the U.S., for example. Conversely, if Canada's regime is judged by the U.S. government as less demanding, we stand to be subject to U.S. border measures. The need for compatibility includes not only caps and timelines, but also important implementation conditions at the sectoral level.

Third, turning to technology, we seek policies to facilitate investments in near-term process improvements and other measures directed at longer-term global efforts to develop new low-carbon breakthrough technologies for steel-making. This has implications for fiscal measures, such as capital cost allowances, conditions for the earlier proposed technology fund, and, in some cases, direct spending on government R and D programs.

Finally, the bill includes provisions that allow subnational jurisdictions to set different climate change policies. This creates potential overlap, duplication, and inconsistency, which will make compliance more costly and investment planning more complex. We encourage the federal and provincial governments to agree, in effect, on one set of rules and compliance procedures.

In summary, Mr. Chair, while our steel industry is a relatively small part of Canada's GHG emissions, we have a significant record of progress to date. We are committed to doing more within a regulatory plan that integrates environmental, economic, and technological factors in our sector.

I trust the steel industry perspectives assist you in your deliberations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We'll call this meeting to order.

We will continue with our study on Bill C-311. This is the last panel we will have on Bill C-311.

Joining us today is an industry panel. I want to welcome to the table, from the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, Gordon Lloyd, the vice-president of technical affairs. From the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, we have Peter Boag, who is the president, and Tony Macerollo, the vice-president of public policy and communications. From the Canadian Steel Producers Association, we have Ron Watkins, who is president, and Katie Chan, manager of environment and energy. From the Cement Association of Canada, we have Pierre Boucher, the president and chief executive officer, and Bob Masterson, the director of policy.

I welcome all of you to the table. We are looking forward to your opening comments.

We are going to kick it off with Mr. Lloyd.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-216, which seeks to amend a bill adopted in the dying days of the 39th Parliament. The bill was sponsored by a former colleague, John Godfrey, who retired from the House just before the fall 2008 election.

Mr. Godfrey was a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I remember that he did everything in his power to ensure that his bill would make it through the committee stage and be passed in the House before the end of the spring 2008 session, because he realized that the Prime Minister was likely to call an election in the fall, which is exactly what happened.

Mr. Godfrey's bill, which is now a Canadian law, requires the federal government to develop a sustainable development strategy for its departments and agencies. Among other things, it requires the federal government to submit a preliminary version of this strategy to a House of Commons committee to be evaluated. Following the evaluation, the preliminary version would become the final version.

The purpose of the bill was to force the federal government to show leadership on environmental issues through its own activities. To that end, it must set an example for the rest of Canada and the world by taking action to protect our environment and fight greenhouse gases.

Bill S-216 would resolve a significant shortcoming in Mr. Godfrey's bill. It states that the government must consult both the House of Commons and the Senate. In other words, if Bill S-216 is passed, the preliminary version of the federal government's sustainable development strategy will be referred to committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate.

It seems very clear to me that the Senate must play a role in evaluating the Government of Canada's sustainable development strategy, and I will explain why.

First, there are many senators who consider the environment a priority and who have been interested in the environment for many years. These senators have something to say about sustainable development, and we need to ensure that their knowledge and experience will be brought to bear in developing the federal government's sustainable development strategy.

There are four senators who come to mind. The first is Senator Grafstein, who will retire from the Senate before the holidays.

Senator Grafstein has a special interest in water and has been working on this issue for years. There is Senator Lapointe, a great Quebec artist, actor and star, who has an awareness of environmental issues. There are also Senator Grant Mitchell of Alberta, who considers the environment a priority, and Senator Banks, who, when he chaired a Senate committee a few years ago—I do not know whether he is still the chair—released an extremely important report on water in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The Senate, in terms of the senators who sit there, is well equipped to take a considered and informed look at a federal sustainable development project.

Second, we know that the Senate is sometimes a bit more representative than the House of Commons, because senators are appointed. For example, aboriginal Canadians represent 1.62% of members of the House of Commons, but nearly 6% of senators. There is also greater representation of women in the Senate than in the House.

The diversity in the Senate's membership is quite interesting. In the case of aboriginal senators, I would like to point out that these senators represent sectors or regions which, unfortunately, suffer the most devastating effects of climate change. We have Senator Watt who represents the Arctic. The Arctic is unfortunately seriously affected by the negative impact of climate change. These aboriginal senators often have a great interest in the environment. Because of the diversity in the Senate's membership, I believe that it is very important that it be consulted on these matters.

I would like to address another point. It is well and good to want to refer a bill on sustainable development to a committee, but we all know that the House committees are swamped. For example, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is presently conducting a number of studies. The work has backed up somewhat like traffic at rush hour on the Turcot interchange in Montreal. We are currently studying Bill C-311 on climate change. Next, we want to study the oil sands and water resources. We are also conducting the five-year statutory review of the Species at Risk Act. And we have other work.

The House committees are very busy. Why not ask a Senate committee to also have a look at it? This is another reason why I believe the Senate should be involved.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Godfrey's bill, which we are attempting to amend, required the federal government to show leadership on environmental issues. It is the type of leadership that the Liberal party has always exercised, especially with respect to climate change. Consequently, I believe that it would be a very good thing for our country if the Senate were to be more involved in this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Before I turn the final questioning over to Mr. Woodworth, I just want to follow up on one comment that Mr. Cullen made and see if you can give clarification. It's the difference in pricing of carbon between us and the United States. In the Waxman-Markey bill they are talking about carbon rising to a cost of $26 a metric tonne by 2019. You guys as economists must be familiar with the recent report that was put together by MK Jaccard, where they are stating that under the Canadian targets the carbon price will be around $100 a tonne, and if we adopt the Bill C-311 targets, carbon will have to go up to $200 a tonne by 2020.

I'm just wondering if you have comments on why there is this discrepancy if we want to have an integrated approach.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

In your presentation you certainly either clearly suggested or implied that the target in Bill C-311, which is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% over 1990 as a base year, is not credible. Our government's goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020, using 2006 as the base year. Is that a credible goal?

[Prof. André Plourde]

In 2020 the target in Bill C-311 is more ambitious than in the U.S., but in 2050 the differences are minor.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You've established credibility both in terms of reachability, first of all, and, second, in terms of alignment with the United States. Those are some of the parameters you've laid down in your testimony today. In that respect the target we're talking about in Bill C-311 is neither credible nor aligned with the United States.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So this is a bill about a target. It's a target that I think you alluded in your testimony is not credible; it may not necessarily be achievable. It's certainly not one that's aligned with the United States.

The Government of Canada's target roughly translates to about minus 3%, 1990; and the target for Bill C-311 is minus 25%, 1990. As I understand from speaking with some people last night, the U.S.'s 17% to 20% below 2005 translates into something just less than 10%, or minus 10%, 1990.

When we're looking at alignment with the United States and a credible target, this bill doesn't put us in the realm of credibility from the starting point. Is that correct? Is there some agreement on that?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In other words, to the question that you can't cost C-311 because it doesn't have a specific policy pathway, the answer is yes. Is that correct?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses. I'm getting a little chuckle out of your last comment, Mr. Plourde.

I'll ask a consistent question with respect to the bill. What is the cost of implementing C-311? I think the answer is that it can't be costed because there hasn't been a specific policy pathway chosen. Would that be a fair assessment?

So this is a bill about a target. You have said, Mr. Plourde, that settling on the target is the proper starting point--

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

One of the things that has been an underlying statement and theme running through this testimony is that without being able to quantify it, we are aware that the cost of doing nothing will be extremely high. Now, how high it will be and what it will look like, obviously, is something we need to watch unfold, but there is an awareness that if we don't do anything, the economic impacts will be huge.

This is why I take a little bit of issue with Mr. Calkins' presentation and question around the perils of capital flight versus the perils of not reducing global emissions. That's because the emissions we are going to be seeing as a cause for the melting of Arctic sea ice, the climate extremes we're going to be facing, the various consequences of a two degrees or more increase in global temperatures means that the priority needs not to be keeping business as usual for as long as we possibly can, but addressing this grand issue and this grand challenge in a way that is going to lead to maximal economic prosperity for, in our case, Canada. That's what we're talking about trying to get.

I think balance needs to be brought back in. We have to look at reducing emissions on a global level. The emissions that come from China, the emissions that come from Russia will affect us here, and therefore we have to be open to reducing the emissions in the most efficient way possible.

I like very much one of the things you've said, that targets are all well and good, but it's the intermediate steps and how we get there that we need to start talking about and looking at.

The discussion we're having around Bill C-311 is very much looking at 25% below 1990 levels. We've heard testimony that the 20% reduction from 2006 levels is in line with returning--more or less, give or take 3%--to 1990 levels.

So my question is--even given the modest targets that the Conservative government has put forward for returning to 1990 levels of C0₂ emissions over the past four years--have C0₂ emissions in Canada decreased or increased?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Both of you touched on the cost to Canadians of moving ahead on Bill C-311.

Professor Dissou, you said the choices would be painful.

Professor Plourde, you asked, are Canadians ready? Do they “appreciate the magnitude of the task underlying the emissions reductions commitments?”

Could you, starting with Professor Plourde, be a little more specific? What kinds of costs would Canada be looking at?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I appreciate that. That's a very good, interesting, and honest answer.

I want to get to the issue of dealing with the costs that are associated with this plan. We heard testimony from the Pembina Institute, which came with a plan that said the assumptions were that there was no capital flight leaving Canada and that if we implemented the plan with Bill C-311 in an environment in which there wasn't any capital flight leaving Canada and there wasn't any wealth transfer, the economic impact upon the province of Alberta would be about a 12% lower GDP. Were you aware of that report?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank both of you for being here today. You have put a smile back on the faces of our friends opposite, especially Mr. Woodworth. I had not seen him smile for two or three weeks. Now he is smiling and he seems happy thanks to you. So I thank you for coming.

I would like to reiterate something Mr. Woodworth said. You see, he is smiling. So I will continue. What is at the heart of the problem? Why is Bill C-311 being proposed? Is it to determine targets or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so as to not increase the earth's temperature by more than two degrees?

It seems to me that what is essential is not the question of targets or savings. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is to maintain the standard of living in Canada, as we have often heard. Perhaps it is to maintain the economy—you are an economist—in its current state as long as possible. Your extraordinary presentation seems to be made for our generation and not for future generations.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I understand that the targets are comparable. But Canada is behind the eight ball in having to achieve as much as a 40% reduction. I'm only asking you about the 2020 level. Has there been anywhere else in the world, to your knowledge, that has set out to achieve the same rate of reduction that Bill C-311 would require Canada to make by 2020?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Professor Green said that if there were a 2.2% per annum growth, the decarbonization rate would need to be increased to 7.7% per annum. One of his comments was that these are rates of decarbonization with no parallels, even in collapsing economies. That seemed to be a reasonable statement. I wonder if you are aware of any collapsing economies with decarbonization rates similar to what is being proposed in our economic analysis of Bill C-311.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

He was working on a 38% cut from current levels rather than the 40% you referred to. He said that even if there were zero growth between now and 2020, Bill C-311 would require a 4.8% carbon intensity decline per annum. Does that figure equate with yours?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to both of our witnesses for coming today. Your credentials are impressive, and what you've had to say has been helpful.

Professor Plourde, you've touched on some things that I think are particularly germane, so I'd like to go through a few of them with you. I will join Mr. McGuinty in saying that I thought your presentation was particularly exceptional and a breath of fresh air, if I might say, compared with some of the evidence I have listened to over the last several months.

I will begin with a comment you made about the Kyoto accord, which sets the stage for us. You said that the Kyoto targets would have meant a cut of about 36 megatonnes in greenhouse gas emissions over a period of 11 years. As we know, we won't get there. By 2007, Canada's emissions had risen by about 155 megatonnes and thus stood at about 125% of 1990 levels. In that statement you set up the crux of the problem.

You also said that the proposed legislation, Bill C-311, would require a 40% reduction in annual emissions to be attained over a period of about 11 years. In other words, in every single year between 2010 and 2020, Canada would need, on average, to reduce emissions by 75% of the total amount of reductions we agreed to deliver under the Kyoto Protocol. We will fail to deliver on this by a wide margin. Again, that sets out the crux of the problem. You end by asking whether the commitments identified in clause 5 are credible in the sense of being likely to be achieved.

I have received some information from Professor Chris Green at McGill University. No doubt there is a collegial atmosphere among economists across the country. He answered that very question for me. He began by pointing out that from 1990 to 2006 there was about a 1.1% per annum average rate of carbon intensity decline. Does that sound accurate to you?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll call this meeting to order.

We'll continue with our study of Bill C-311. This is meeting 40.

Joining us today is Dr. Yazid Dissou, who is an associate professor in department of economics here at the University of Ottawa. Coming all the way from the University of Alberta is André Plourde, who is a professor in the department of economics.

I welcome both of you gentlemen.

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Our time has expired and that wraps up our questioning.

I want to thank all three witnesses for appearing and helping to formulate our report and study of Bill C-311. Mr. Dennis Tirpak, Dr. Janet Peace, and Mr. Derek Murrow, I do appreciate you taking your time out of your hectic schedules to join us. I want to wish all of you a happy Thanksgiving, which you will be celebrating this week in the United States. As you know, we celebrated ours a month ago, but I hope you enjoy your day off.

With that, we do have a committee motion to discuss that deals with our schedule, which we always deal with in camera. So any people who are in the room who aren't tied to a member of Parliament I ask you to exit the room as quickly as possible so that we may be able to move in camera. With that, we're going to suspend.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Regarding the ACES target of 17% below 2005 and the Senate proposal of 20% below 2005, can anybody translate what that would mean in a 1990 baseline for us to compare? The government's 20% below 2006 translates roughly, I think, into a minus 3% in terms of 1990, and Bill C-311 being a minus 25% over 1990.

Does anybody know what the minus 17% and minus 20% over 2005 translate into in a 1990 baseline year?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses, as we continue our discussion of Bill C-311, an NDP private member's bill.

Mr. Tirpak, thank you for your comment that a target without domestic legislation means nothing. Of course, Bill C-311 proposes a target but no specific pathway. It doesn't propose legislation. So I think we can conclude safely that Bill C-311 ultimately means nothing. I'll leave that as my comment on the record. But I do want to get to the question.

Ms. Peace, I think you and Mr. Murrow were talking about the need to have comparable rigour between Canadian and U.S. systems. I presume there are a number of factors that play into driving the rigour of a system. Would the rigour of a target be one of those determining factors in the relative rigour as well? Could you comment on that?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Calkins' point first of all, and remind everyone here and everyone watching on TV that the only reason we are talking at length about Bill C-311, why we've had as many hearings as we have had, is because the government hasn't provided us with anything to talk about on climate change other than this. We're having to address the entire position of Canada's role in climate change negotiations and our plan for the future around a private member's bill because the government has no plan.

So in our dealing with this, we'd love to be debating the specifics of a detailed plan put forward by the government on climate change, but as we've seen time and time again, there is no plan from the government side. So we make do with what we can, unfortunately.

Now, the one thing that we have heard very often from this government is that we're looking at a continental approach--to try to harmonize, that Canada shouldn't be going at it alone. First of all, that does not recognize the fact that Canada is not similar to the United States in an awful lot of ways. Our economies are very different. Our energy uses are very different. Our production of energy is greatly different. There is very much room for a Canadian approach and not just taking a made-in-U.S. plan.

What concerns me, from our testimony here and our excellent witnesses who are giving us a very appealing look at what is happening in the United States, is that the focus in the United States, in both houses, is very much on their own constituencies. The focus in the U.S. is very much on what the U.S. needs to have happen. So for me, the idea that the U.S. will come up with something that is somehow a good fit for Canada is just completely irresponsible as a position. I very much appreciate your positions, where you've recommended that it would be much easier for Canada to create a plan and the U.S. to create a plan, and then look around the elements of rigorousness, coverage, price controls, as a way of bringing those plans together. I thank you for reminding us of that. And I hope the government here has been paying attention to what you've said about the fact that we cannot simply wait for the U.S., and then make sure that whatever happens could then be imported exactly into Canada. That is irresponsible.

I would like to ask a question, however. In the discussion of what we're doing, on actual movement, targets have come back an awful lot--in international discussions, in our local discussions. How important are targets now, in 2009, and how do they weigh against the need to act immediately, irrespective of targets that we set?

I'd like to hear from each of you on that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's quite interesting, because when I had the chance to read Bill C-311, which is the bill we're currently debating, I actually read it twice in the time it took me to drink a coffee. It's about 13 clauses long, I believe.

Parliament is going through the debate about this bill and trying to set Canada's target levels. We've heard from the European Commission. We've heard from various other outside agencies and NGOs, environmental non-governmental organizations, that have brought testimony here criticizing the Government of Canada's current position, which is to be 20% below 2006 levels by the year 2020, with significantly higher targets for 2050, yet all we have is this exercise of setting targets with no real plan. It sounds as though the United States obviously has some intentions there in the legislative process for a plan.

Maybe somebody would like to help me out with this. If we're going to go as a North American unit, and we've established that we are each other's largest trading partners, and we see what's happening in the European Union, does it make any sense to have different levels of targets for Canada and the United States at a time when the European Union--and Mr. Tirpak has just said this--is looking at what the rest of the world is doing when it decides its own target levels? Would it make any sense at all for Canada to have a go-it-alone approach with Bill C-311, when the American administration is shooting for a target similar to what we announced years before President Obama was elected to office?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

All three of the witnesses, Mr. Chair, have given testimony that is actually really disturbing, in the sense that Canada seems to be now so far behind.

Mr. Tirpak, you talked about this bill, and Ms. Peace as well, about this congressional process under way, which is absolutely extensive. It's a bill, as Mr. Murrow put, that is trying to embrace everything, including the design of a cap and trade system, ultimately pricing carbon, and lots of debates.

Ms. Peace, you told us that the agricultural committees, natural resources committee, foreign affairs committee, and other committees in the American Congress are fully engaged in this race.

Can I go back to something you said, though, Mr. Murrow, that is really concerning? You said that if Canada and the United States were going to have a serious integration on an approach to a continental response to climate change, you would put down a couple of conditions. You said, for example, that the caps have to be fixed in absolute terms, similar between countries. You said all gases sectors, fossil fuels, have to be included. There would have to be offset standards for international offsets and credits, something this Conservative government rejects. There has to be a price control mechanism and a similar carbon price.

How is it possible that Canada is going to find its way through the Copenhagen round of negotiations when the United States is so far ahead in terms of the design of a comprehensive response to climate change and we have gone to Copenhagen now with a blank sheet of paper?

We have nothing going on in Canada. None of these elements of this debate are being put forward in the House of Commons. No committees are being engaged, not even this committee, except through Bill C-311 because we extended the debate.

Can I get your reactions, Mr. Tirpak, Mr. Murrow, and Ms. Peace, to the state of the situation in Canada? Mr. Tirpak?

[Dr. Janet Peace, Vice-President, Markets and Business Strategy, Pew Center on Global Climate Change]

Certainly. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

I'm Janet Peace. I'm vice-president for markets and business strategy at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. For those of you who are not familiar with the Pew Center, we're a non-profit, non-partisan think-tank, if you will, dedicated to climate policy. Our goal is mandatory climate policy in the U.S. and internationally. We work very closely with industry. We work very closely with policy-makers at the federal, state, and international levels. We're funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. We don't take dues from the companies we work with. We are independent in that way.

Let me congratulate you on Bill C-311. It's a very ambitious bill, and I look forward to the day that Canada has a federal climate policy.

I worked in Calgary on climate change for a number of years. I taught at the University of Calgary. And I believe Canada can do this, and that addressing climate change is in Canadians' best interest, as it is globally.

Addressing climate change is essential. The science demands it, industry expects it, the general public is becoming engaged, and policy-makers in the U.S. and globally are considering their options. As has been mentioned before, the U.S. policy agenda has definitely changed. It's changed at the state level. It's changed at the municipal level. Within the last year, as you know, it's changed at the federal level.

You've also heard that we have a bill that's been passed out of the House of Representatives, but I have to say at this stage it would be an understatement to say the U.S. climate policy's in flux. Policy deliberations are ongoing and they seem to change daily at the federal level in Congress, within the administration and its agencies, at the state level, and even at the municipal level. How all these multiple policies will develop and work together is very much still an unknown. Rumours abound, and policy experts everywhere seem to have different takes on possible outcomes.

With that in mind, I'd like to spend the next few minutes giving you my take and that of the organization I represent, our take on U.S. climate policy and where we think this issue stands in light of the upcoming meeting in Copenhagen.

You've heard that clean energy is a signature issue for President Obama, in speech after speech, in appointment after appointment. And as Mr. Tirpak noted, he even committed $80 billion in clean energy programs in the recent stimulus package. But President Obama can't enact climate legislation in isolation; he has to work with Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to develop policy that all can support and that he can sign into law.

I'm not going to spend much time on HR2454, because Mr. Tirpak and also Mr. Murrow have spent some time on those things. You know the bill covers 85% of the emissions in the economy and it seeks to reduce emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

It's important to note that this bill passed June 26 by a very narrow margin, 219 to 212. Passing of the bill marked the first time that a body of the Congress has passed legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but it was close: 44 Democrats voted against the bill and only eight Republicans voted in favour.

Now that the House has passed the bill, the Senate needs to act before the bill can be sent to the President. We at the Pew Center do believe it is possible to get an energy and climate bill that includes cap-and-trade enacted in this Congress, but we have to be realistic about the timing. The Senate debate on energy and climate is absolutely, without question, waiting for a health care debate to be finished here in the U.S., and it looks as if the health care debate could extend into the new year. Even if the Senate passes the health care bill, the bill from the House and the Senate has to be reconciled in a conference committee, and that's not likely to happen until early 2010. We've also heard recently that the Senate intends to take up a financial services modernization bill before it takes up the energy and climate bill, and that would delay a climate bill even more.

That doesn't mean that no one is working on climate legislation in the Senate. The energy and public works committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer, recently passed Bill S. 1733 out of its committee. It's commonly called the Kerry-Boxer bill, but notably, it only had Democratic support.

A number of other Senate committees are also actively considering climate legislation. The agriculture committee and the finance committee will have key components to add. Earlier this year the energy and natural resources committee already produced energy legislation that may be complementary to a climate bill. The commerce committee and the foreign affairs committee also have jurisdiction over relevant topics that could be incorporated in the bill.

In addition to this committee work, I think it's very encouraging that Senator Graham from South Carolina, Senator Kerry, and Senator Lieberman have also begun talking about crafting a bill outside of the environment and public works committee process. They believe this will enable a wider bipartisan group of individuals to participate. In this way they're hoping they can ensure there will be the 60 votes necessary to get this bill passed.

Some of you may have seen the op-ed that Kerry and Graham wrote in The New York Times in which they basically outlined what they thought this bill would look like. Again, it's a market-based carbon regime. They believe it needs nuclear provisions; financial incentives for carbon capture and storage; a compromise on offshore oil and gas leasing; a border tax consistent with WTO obligations for countries without environmental standards; and a carbon-price floor and ceiling.

What happens with this framework? We hope that it will incorporate the work of the other committees and that it becomes a bill in the new year. We think that it will get debated early in the new year. But given the constraints of other congressional priorities and budget timing, action is most likely going to be March or April. If it happens much later than this we'll run into the 2010 mid-term election cycle, which will make congressional action on climate change even more challenging. It's important to note that there are some out there who say that a bill can't happen in 2010 because it's an election year, but every major piece of environmental legislation that's passed in the U.S. Congress, except for the Clean Water Act, passed during an election year. It's important to realize that this is possible. It will be challenging, and it has to happen probably within the first quarter if this is going to get through this Congress.

There are two things that are critical for an energy climate bill to emerge from the Congress. First, because we can't expect every Democratic senator to vote for an energy climate bill, the bill can pass only with a solid number of Republican votes. Right now even Republican senators with years of leadership on climate change have been reluctant to return to the leadership role. That's because the mood in our Congress right now is deeply partisan. That has to change. We'd have to see a number of Republican senators work constructively with the Democrats and the administration to develop and pass a bill. That's why having Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman work together is so important.

Second, and we think this may be the most important, the Obama administration has to advance a fairly detailed vision for what must be in the bill. They need to generally become more involved in the legislative process, much as President Bush Senior did during his administration in the process of enacting the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. The President's vision would have to include solid answers to questions like how will key manufacturing industries not be disadvantaged, and how will low-carbon energy technologies such as CCS, nuclear power, and renewables be advanced in this bill? We can see this happening. There is a window of opportunity, and we are hoping for the first quarter of 2010.

Clearly, what the U.S. Congress does on climate legislation has implications for what happens in the December meeting in Copenhagen. In a perfect world, Congress would pass legislation prior to Copenhagen so that the administration could go into the international conference with a clear and concrete negotiating position. Without a law on the books, the administration will be hard-pressed to commit to binding international targets. But as I mentioned, we don't think there's virtually any chance that legislation will be passed in 2009.

We think it is unlikely that the governments will be able to agree to a fully ratifiable treaty in Copenhagen. Instead, we think that a realistic and positive outcome for Copenhagen is a strong interim agreement setting the stage for a ratifiable treaty in 2010. This interim agreement may well include specific political commitments to action by all major emitting countries, mid-term emission targets or ranges for developed countries, and other types of quantifiable action for the major developing countries. It will also likely include pledges for prompt-start finance for developing countries. We believe that the agreement also must outline the fundamental architecture of a new treaty that once concluded will turn these interim political commitments into legally binding commitments.

Core elements that we think are essential in this interim agreement would be ambitious goals--agreeing to the two degrees Celsius, and a framework for mitigation commitments, clearly defining the nature of the mitigation commitments but recognizing the common but differential responsibilities as a core principle through the UNFCCC. We believe it should have support for developing countries. The interim agreement must broadly establish the mechanisms, the sources, and the levels of support to be provided in a final agreement for adaptation, capacity building, and technology deployment, and we think a sound system of verification is critical. The interim agreement must establish basic terms of measurement, reporting, and verification of countries' mitigation actions, and of support for developing country efforts, as called for in the Bali action plan.

To be clear, the ultimate goal is a ratifiable treaty, but at this stage, a two-step approach seems the most promising way to get there. An interim agreement in December that settles certain legal and design issues would be a huge step forward. Governments could then use 2010 to fill in the details and negotiate specific amendments as part of a ratifiable agreement.

I'm pleased to answer questions, and I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you.

[Dennis Tirpak, Senior Fellow, Associate with the International Institute for Sustainable Development, World Resources Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify this morning.

I'd like to say from the outset that I strongly support the spirit of the bill. You'll see in my testimony that I have included a paragraph from the statement from the Toronto conference on the changing atmosphere that was held in 1988. Very briefly, that statement says that humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, pervasive global experiment; that the earth's atmosphere is being changed at an unprecedented rate by pollutants from human activity; and that these changes represent a major threat to international security and are already having harmful consequences all over the world. That conference went on to set a target of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1988 levels by 2005.

Those were heady days in the climate change business, Mr. Chairman. I was a lot younger. We were all a lot younger then. It was an exciting time. Today we appreciate much more how easy it is to call for an ambitious target and how difficult it is to achieve one.

Now, two decades later, we have much less time. Since 1988, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen by approximately 40% and are likely to rise by another 30% by 2030. The prediction we made using global climate models in the late eighties that the Arctic would warm faster than the rest of the globe has been confirmed. One recent study in Science magazine predicted that the Arctic would be free of ice by 2037, a mere 28 years from now. The early forecast we made in those days about the warming effects on forests have been confirmed, and unfortunately, our estimates of deaths from high-temperature events were tragically exceeded in Europe in 2003.

This, then, is the state of the physical world as it moves rapidly through a century that, in the end, may see the most profound changes since man began walking on this planet.

Mr. Chairman, not only are the physical changes occurring, but the political landscape is changing as well. At the last negotiating session of the UNFCC in Barcelona, the Chinese delegate said very clearly to developed country representatives that they are ahead us, and we need to catch up. In the case of China, it is not just rhetoric. Today China has automobile standards that exceed the recently enacted U.S. standards. They raised gasoline taxes four times this year. They have set a goal of 100 gigawatts of wind by 2020. Their target is to reduce energy intensity by 4% per year. To be quite frank, China wants to be the technology leader of the world, and they're now making PV panels and wind turbines that compete with companies from all over the world. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, China gets it. They really do.

In my own country, President Obama has also changed the political landscape. His administration has allocated $80 billion of the stimulus financing to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Our Department of Energy is accelerating the introduction of new efficiency standards for appliances. The administration has also accelerated the introduction of efficiency standards for cars to 2016 from 2020. The EPA is moving forward to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Twenty-eight states have renewable performance standards that set mandatory targets for the production of electricity from renewable energy.

On the congressional front, our House of Representatives has passed HR2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and the Senate is moving forward to develop a complementary bill. Both bills are aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to between 17% and 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 under a cap. It would also allow for the use of offsets, and they have included performance standards for sources that are not covered by the cap. I would also say that the bill has set in motion a planning process for adaptation in the U.S., and it provides financing for adaptation and efforts to reduce deforestation in developing countries. But even in the absence of this bill, I think the President is intent on using the existing regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

This, then, is the direction in which two of your major economic competitors are moving and is one of the reasons why I would urge you to consider Bill C-311. While far from comprehensive, I believe it sets in motion a process that would allow Canada to resume its place among countries that are leading the fight against global warming. It would position Canada to become a technology leader and put your economy on a low-carbon pathway.

Let me add just a few comments on the bill itself.

The target of 25% reduction by 2020 from 1990 would be a significant challenge; there is no doubt about that. But if you are to achieve the long-term objective of an 80% reduction by 2050, Canada would need to be ambitious in the first decade, or else it would have to proceed much more quickly in subsequent decades.

If the minister chose to implement the plan through a cap and trade program—and I see that he has flexibility to issue regulations and other means—an important means to control costs would be the use of domestic and international offsets. Adding language to authorize the use of such a measure might be considered.

The bill deals with domestic GHG emissions, but the world expects much more. It expects assistance with regard to adaptation, encouraging technology cooperation, efforts to reduce deforestation. I would urge you to consider or at least not forget the need to address climate change in a comprehensive manner.

Implementation of the provisions also will require financial support. The U.S. ACES bill solves this problem by directing that a portion of the sale of allowances should be used for various activities such as carbon capture and storage. I trust that there is recognition of the financing that needs to accompany such a bill.

Finally, you may wish to authorize the minister to include black carbon in the target plan developed under clause 6. Black carbon is a pollutant that stays in the atmosphere for a relatively short time, but it changes the energy balance of the earth and may play an important role in warming, particularly in the Arctic.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the world can delay another decade in its fight against global warming. Canada can't afford to remain coupled to a carbon economy that is rooted in the past. I often hear people say that Canada will not act until the U.S. and others act. Well, I think the U.S. is acting; I think the rest of the world is acting. It's not going to be easy; it's not going to be a smooth transition; it's going to move in fits and starts. We're going to have conservative governments, we're going to have liberal governments, we're going to have Republicans, Democrats. The atmosphere all over the world will change from time to time in different leadership situations; but in fact I think we're going to move in that direction.

So I believe it is time for Canada to rekindle that spirit that was present in Toronto when I was a lot younger and to join the parade of low-carbon nations—not just join, but lead that parade.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We will continue our study of Bill C-311. This is meeting number 39. The witnesses we have on today's panel are Dennis Tirpak from the World Resources Institute, senior fellow associate with the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Joining us by video conference from Chicago is Environment Northeast, with Derek K. Murrow, director of policy analysis. From Washington we have Janet Peace, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, vice-president markets and business strategy.

Point of order, Mr. Warawa.

The Environment

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a large number of people in my riding of Trinity—Spadina calling on the Government of Canada to support the NDP's Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

It also calls upon the Government of Canada to invoke a moratorium on the further expansion of tar sands development until carbon emissions are capped significantly, environmental and health impacts are addressed and protected areas are set aside.

The petitioners are concerned that the federal government is failing to enforce law that protects water and public health and regulates toxic pollution leakage. My constituents are concerned that over 4,800 square kilometres of wetlands and forests will be lost because of the expansion of the tar sands.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his great leadership in bringing forward Bill C-311 and for his great contribution to this debate. I know we are supporting this motion brought forward by the Bloc today. I know he makes the point very well that this idea of dividing the economy from the environment is a fatal mistake.

The member spoke about the economic benefits, such as the building of transit cars in Thunder Bay. I just wonder if he could expand more on the importance of the economic opportunity that is contained in meeting climate change targets and how that could actually be beneficial to all of us in our local communities and the planet as a whole.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the hon. member give the House his thoughts on why the Liberal Party would vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am delighted to speak in support of the motion from my hon. colleagues on federal climate change policy. It has become blatantly obvious to Canadians and the international community that the Conservative government has no plan for the future on climate change. It is especially important that this Parliament fill the void in leadership by proposing real solutions.

The motion has three parts, but the first and third parts really flow from the second part. The first part says we should commit to proposing targets that reduce absolute greenhouse gas pollution to 25% lower than 1990 levels, not 2006 ridiculous levels, by 2020. This is, of course, the same 2020 target in my private member's bill, Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, which has unfortunately been stalled in committee for some time now by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

This target is the logical extension of the temperature limit, which is the second part of the motion. The science has become very clear recently that we must avoid a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels if we are to escape catastrophic climate effects.

In order to check temperature increases, 99% of scientists tell us that we need to stabilize the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere at no more than 400 parts per million. Incidentally, we are already basically at 390 parts per million today.

The third and last part of the motion is about supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and adapt to the damaging effects of climate change. While that is very vague, I can certainly see that supporting others is integral to pulling our own weight to reduce global emissions.

A ton of carbon pollution reduced in a developing country is like a ton reduced here as far the climate is concerned. This could represent the greatest economic opportunity since the second world war to export Canadian technology and business know-how abroad. It would be a sort of environmental Marshall plan.

Other countries have already seen the potential of being leaders rather than laggards versus the bleak economic future of business as usual. In fact, at this point, delay is economically irresponsible. We know that former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has reported that the cost of inaction would be far higher than action. Unchecked emissions would cost us as much as 20% of global GDP per year, whereas the cost of bold action to reduce emissions could be limited to less than one-tenth of that on average. It does not take an economist to see which option is more affordable.

Here in Canada the recent TD Bank study by Jaccard and Associates shows that even with firm targets, such as the 25% 2020 target in Bill C-311, Canada would still be able to surpass the 2% annual growth led by Alberta.

Canadians have not seen any economic modelling of this type from our federal government. Why not? Not planning economically for something of this colossal magnitude is planning to fail and is grossly negligent. Perhaps the government has done the modelling but is reluctant to release its study. Canadians deserve to see what the government has, if the government has it.

We have just spent billions on corporate tax cuts and on the recent economic downturn, but the government has yet to seriously address the much more costly and damaging climate crisis. It has admitted it has no plan and no targets going into the Copenhagen summit next month. In fact, the Minister of the Environment said just this week that the government will wait to regulate greenhouse gas pollution until the United States takes action and until the global climate action deal is first reached by 192 other countries. We will be the last in. Talk about lack of leadership.

Years ago the government promised a plan would be in place and working by this year. Then it was delayed, but a plan was to at least be published by January 2009, then by the beginning of next year. Now it will not even be until perhaps late 2010 and more likely 2011. The minister admitted that under the American timetable, people will not even see regulations take effect until as late as 2016. No wonder our government has so little credibility on the international stage anymore. No wonder countries walk out when Canadian representatives take the podium on the world stage.

The principal reason the environment minister now gives for avoiding setting targets today is that we should wait until other countries set theirs so ours are not drastically different.

The environment minister's logic has not held back the EU. Yesterday the European Union's new ambassador appeared before the House environmental committee on Bill C-311. He testified that the EU has already set firm, science based targets like a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution over 1990 not 2006 levels by 2020 and are willing to go up to 30% if countries like Canada step up to the plate with an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.

The high commissioner for the United Kingdom also appeared before that committee yesterday and showed that prosperity and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was not just possible but that it was already happening in Britain.

The U.K. has already adopted targets like those in the Climate Change Accountability Act, but instead of just 20% over 1990 levels by 2020, it has committed to a 34% reduction in law. It has already achieved today a 21% reduction. More than a million homes are powered by wind alone in Great Britain. Almost a million Britons are employed in the new green economy there. The Brits see that reducing greenhouse gases is not a cost but a huge economic opportunity.

Instead of avoiding responsibility to cut carbon pollution as our Prime Minister has done, Prime Minister Brown said this year that “a vast expansion” of carbon-cutting technologies was in fact crucial to their economic recovery.

It is not surprising that Great Britain should be enthusiastic about reducing its emissions, after all, it is fundamentally about increasing efficiency. It is about using less energy and less resources for more goods and better services that the country produces. That is good for business and necessary for prosperity. The U.K. knows that there is not much of a future left in the Canadian Conservative business as usual process of wasting energy.

So the British government has already adopted this target and is well on its way to meeting it and beating it. In fact, this is the more cautious plan in the U.K. The opposition Tories there are demanding even more ambitious action yet. Conservatives in our country would do well to take their climate cues from their British brethren rather than the Bush era conservatives south of us.

Conservatives in the U.S., as here, have tried to make the environment the enemy of the economy and in doing so condemn them both to decline. They have used this excuse to delay action for decades.

The Conservative government here continues to delay, even to this day. To continue in this way in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, ignoring the demands of both industry and Canadians alike, is irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

We are now skating very close to the edge. We have little margin for error left and little time. The government should know that past that tipping point, over that cliff to climate chaos, lies economic ruin as well. There can be no prosperity on a dying planet.

If we harmonize the two, the environment and the economy, realizing that new economic opportunities and green industries will emerge if we fulfill our environmental obligations as other countries are doing, we will open up the possibility of a richer, more sustainable and fairer world for us all and a more prosperous Canada with new green jobs.

Decisive targets, policies and action on energy policy will create jobs across Canada, including in Thunder Bay where Bombardier can and will build the trains of the future or the giant windmills that we need.

The forestry and mining industries have already met the 2020 targets in Bill C-311 and in this motion.

There is something else that must be reconciled with climate change that the government has virtually ignored. Climate change poses the greatest threat to Canadian security and international security since the cold war.

It is not only Arctic sovereignty we are talking about, although that is significant enough, but spreading pests, drought and desertification, among other things, will result in an acute and permanent global food supply crisis. Canadian crops will suffer too. The geopolitical consequences of this alone are huge, including in North America. Water will be much scarcer for much of the world but overabundant on many coasts where regions and entire countries will be flooded.

For every degree the global temperature rises so do the mass migrations of people, the number of failed and failing states, and wars.

Britain now sees climate change as its number one national security priority. The United States military takes climate change seriously too. Even the youngest schoolchildren seem to know what the government does not, which is that controlling climate change is vital to the health of our planet and civilization. Lack of strong action to defend Canada's long-term economic prosperity and our very security—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear that a lot of the preamble to that question is simply untrue.

I would like to respond, though, by saying that, yes, it is true that we had the privilege of serving as government for over a dozen years. During that time, I was not here but we can take some pride in announcing that we did bring in the Species at Risk Act. We did bring in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We did create the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We actually did give the powers to regulate greenhouse gases. We did ratify Kyoto after it became law internationally, in 2004. We did bring in the greenest budget in Canadian history, according to Elizabeth May, in 2005. We did have the largest expenditure program in that budget. We had signed deals with every sector of all the final and large emitters polluting and putting greenhouse gases in. The plan was ready to execute, and then along came the Reform-Conservatives. That is the truth.

Now, with respect to Bill C-311, I do reject the member's characterization of this being a delay tactic, this notion that we are delaying something. It was not two weeks ago that his colleague, the critic in the NDP, was in agreement that this extension for 30 days in committee was extremely important in order to hear other expert witnesses. We are hearing them now. We heard yesterday from the ambassador from the EU, the high commissioner from the U.K. This was important insight as to where the world is going and where Canada is situated in a global context.

What we are really seeing is the NDP using, frankly, propaganda tactics to try to score points. At the end of the day, when we examine Bill C-311, it is a call for a plan, but it is not a plan. There is no notion of a plan in it. It omits so much in a credible plan, including international offsets, international credits, a schedule for carbon pricing.

Anyone can call for a plan. I am glad the member has joined us here in calling for a plan from the government. There is no delay tactic here. There is an opportunity for us to hear from some of the best minds in Canada and elsewhere as to how to move forward in a responsible way.

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

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa South to be quite eloquent. He is quite eloquent sometimes. However, sometimes his actions are not consistent with his pretty words. I am a little disappointed at the hypocrisy that I find implicit in contrasting what he said today and has said on other occasions with the actions that the Liberals have taken in general, and that he has taken in particular.

Over 13 years the Liberals did sign Kyoto but also they made no plan, they had no success in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, they grew by about 30% during their reign. The hon. member, as a member of the environment committee and as the environment critic for his party recommended to his party that it delay the vote on Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen. The Liberal Party could have chosen to have helped that bill to pass so we would be sending clear direction and clear messages to Copenhagen.

Why did the member vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen and why are his actions inconsistent with his pretty words?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are continuing the debate. That is the purpose of this debate today on the motion. However, it gives me the opportunity to speak to the third part of the motion, which is very important. I learned yesterday that of all the G8 and G20 countries at present, we are the only one going to Copenhagen with an official delegation that will apparently be taking part in the negotiations, but we have no representation from CIDA or our department of international cooperation.

We know that supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change is critical for the future. It is critical not only during the negotiations, but for the decades and centuries to come. It is true that the motion contains some very positive elements. I agree that it is important to send a message, a signal, but at the same time, we must not forget that the Bloc Québécois motion, like the NDP's Bill C-311, is in no way a plan to combat climate change.

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of my friend and colleague across the way, as well as the Liberal member's comments, and much of what was said was not accurate.

I want the member to comment on what we have all heard from every witness at the committee that has been studying Bill C-311. Every witness said that there should be a continental approach. The government's plan has been to have a continental approach.

Yesterday, we heard from witnesses from the EU and the U.K. who shared how Europe has a collective target. Twenty-seven different countries are within the EU target and they are doing it collectively. Some are higher and some are lower in their commitment but they have a collective. There was a real logic. I asked the witnesses why they would not do it separately and whether there was not a logic to do it collectively and they agreed that it should be done collectively.

This is what Canada is doing now through the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and the U.S. administration. A strong leadership from Canada is providing for a collective North American strategy. Together, we are harmonizing our approach to tackle the issue of climate change.

Why is the member opposed? Why does he continually vote against and speak against having a North American collective harmonized target for fighting climate change?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that, since 1997, Canada's approach to climate change has been based on a voluntary approach, on agreements with Canadian companies and industrial sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now we have to face the fact that Canada's approach, the federal approach to fighting climate change, has produced no desirable results since 1997. Now we have a government that not only has no plan, but denies the existence of climate change.

Since 1997, that party, which was in opposition and then came to power, has believed that climate change is the result of a natural phenomenon. This despite all of the scientific studies and all of the IPCC reports indicating that 95% of the changes observed are related to human activity. So it is not surprising that we now find ourselves without a climate change plan.

However, in the course of the committee's study of the NDP's Bill C-311, we heard from scientists and environmentalists. They all told us that we have to prevent global temperatures from rising any higher than 2^oC above average temperatures in the pre-industrial era, which is what this motion proposes.

Today, I would like the member who asked the question to recognize that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and that we need strong consensus among opposition parties to make up for the lack of leadership the government will show in Copenhagen.

I would therefore urge my colleague to read the motion carefully and to get on board with the Bloc Québécois so that our voice in Copenhagen will be strong enough to make the international community understand that this government and its positions do not represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Quebec and Canada, a majority represented by opposition parties.

I urge my colleague to support this motion, which I believe is in line with the wishes of most Quebeckers and Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for the motion tabled today in the House and take this opportunity to ask him a few short questions about the status quo in Canada today.

For a few weeks now, or even months, we have been examining Bill C-311 in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The purpose of the bill is to address the need to have a real plan of action when it comes to climate change.

Perhaps my colleague could help Canadians and Quebeckers understand the question that has been asked of every expert witness who has appeared before the committee in the past few months. How is it that four years after the Prime Minister and the Conservatives came into office there is still no plan? Yesterday, we asked the Ambassador of the European Union that same question. The Europeans tabled a plan nearly 1,000 pages long, which is available on the Internet. Canada has no plan for climate change.

How is it possible that after four years, two or three weeks before the Copenhagen process is to be ratified and finalized, Canada has ended up in this situation?

The Environment

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Copenhagen as one of twenty ministers who was invited by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what is going on at Copenhagen. We are a constructive player. We will try to get to an international agreement.

I am not going to stand in this chamber and take lectures from the Liberals on Kyoto and on Copenhagen and climate change, because they did nothing. They signed the Kyoto protocol which was ill suited to this country, to our geography and our climate. It would undermine our industrial bases. They are in favour of a carbon tax. No one knows where they stand on Bill C-311. They vote for it; they disavow it. They call it a tiddlywinks bill, and they still vote for it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Your Excellencies. I appreciate your being here.

As you know, the committee has been looking at a private member's bill, Bill C-311, but your comments today are focused more on the general issue of climate change and the negotiations for a new international agreement on climate change as we approach Copenhagen, which is just weeks away.

I'd like to focus, first of all, on a collective position of the EU and the U.K. as part of that collective position's targets. What is the importance of having a collective position? What would be the disadvantage of each of the 27 countries having their own position on climate change?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, High Commissioner.

We appreciate those opening comments from both Your Excellencies.

As requested by Ambassador Brinkmann, and I know in a previous conversation I had with High Commissioner Cary, they aren't going to be answering any questions that involve our internal politics and policies or be speaking specifically to Bill C-311. I do ask and encourage all members of the committee to take that into consideration since we are definitely privileged to have such distinguished gentlemen at our table.

With that, we'll go with the seven-minute round and we turn it over to you, Mr. McGuinty.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

I apologize that we are starting a little late because of the votes in the House, but we'll try to get through at least two good rounds of questioning after we have our opening presentations.

We are going to continue with our study of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

We're very pleased, and fortunate, to have two distinguished witnesses at committee today. From the European Union, we have His Excellency Matthias Brinkmann, Head of Delegation and Ambassador Designate for the European Commission. And from the British High Commission, we have His Excellency Anthony Joyce Cary, High Commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada.

I want to welcome you both to committee.

We'll start with His Excellency Ambassador Brinkmann for opening comments. We'd appreciate it if you could keep it under 10 minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I can appreciate that. I can see already in the discussion that there can be very different regional effects when we discuss what to do about climate change.

I come from the southernmost riding in all of Canada. Of course, the auto industry is king there, so possible effects on the auto industry, for example, do become a major part of the discussion that I bring to the table here as a member of Parliament on behalf of my region. I can see now that issues can be very different with respect to the north, and I can appreciate that.

I am going to have some difficulty in terms of further questions because you both testified to some extent that you've either only read part of the bill or you haven't read the bill, so you may have some difficulty answering questions about the bill. I will pose them again for the record, and if you could answer in a written submission to the committee, we would appreciate that. I'll just leave them for the record for you so that you can provide a written response to the committee.

Specifically, because climate change has impacts with respect to the north, does Bill C-311 address the issue of adaptation in a meaningful fashion? That's question one.

Question two, do you feel that traditional aboriginal knowledge has been appropriately used in developing Bill C-311?

Question three is about industries in the north that affect aboriginal communities. Have they been appropriately consulted in the preparation of Bill C-311?

If you could provide written answers to the committee on those questions, we'd certainly appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'm going to take it that we need more consultation with respect to the bill from first peoples.

Mr. Tulurialik, do you share the same opinion that more consultation is needed with respect to the specifics of Bill C-311, the NDP's bill on climate change?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses appearing here today, Chief Erasmus and Mr. Tulurialik.

We're here studying Bill C-311 currently, a bill sponsored by a member of the New Democratic Party, and of course this is not the government's climate change plan, though Bill C-311 could have serious effects upon that. Our options as a committee are whether this bill will be passed as is by the committee, whether it will be rejected as is by the committee, or whether there will be changes proposed to the bill. That's the task in front of us. And changes could be based on the input of witnesses.

Having laid that as the foundation to our witnesses, Chief Erasmus, I want to start with you, because I'm a little confused, based on your testimony so far. You said, in response to Mr. Woodworth's question, that you think you may have been consulted by the NDP in the drafting of this bill.

Mr. Tulurialik, you said you weren't sure whether the NDP consulted you on this bill, but it's possible that there may have been some consultation. You've also said, on the other side of it, that we need more consultation. So I'm not sure, for purposes of considering Bill C-311, the NDP's bill, whether there has been enough consultation or whether we need more consultation specifically with first peoples. Could you answer that question for me as a starting point?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

No. We're talking about greenhouse gas emissions. That's what Bill C-311 is.

I understand there are issues and concerns with water. The committee is currently engaged in a study on that, and we've been interrupted by this bill in finishing that. I'm not going to deny that it's a serious issue, but I would like to get back to the whole issue of whether folks in the northern communities would not rather see investments that were going to produce concrete results for adaptation, rather than investing millions and millions and billions of dollars in hopes that greenhouse gas reductions will somehow stop climate change.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I have a question for you, and I'll just preface it a little bit. I've spent quite a bit of time in Canada's north. I worked at Great Bear Lake, right on the Arctic Circle, when I was a younger man. I was able to take in the vast beauty of Canada's north. It was absolutely fantastic. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential in Canada's north. It certainly is a harsh environment. It's a harsh climate to try to survive in. I remember, at that time, over 20 years ago, the weather being quite inclement. When we would go out on the lake there would still be ice on the lake in the early part of July. And of course we were off the lake by September because the winds would pick up and it was not safe to be out on that lake.

One of the things that has occurred to me is that I would think, because of the harshness of the climate and the difficulties there, that adaptation would be a more important and pressing issue. If you take a look at what's been said by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if we were to hold our own levels of greenhouse gas emissions right now, which no economy will be able to do, it would take at least 50 years to see a change in the current trend we're seeing in the change of climate.

Knowing that, knowing that holding our own is still going to take 50 years to turn around, wouldn't it be more important for aboriginal communities and northern communities to put more emphasis on adaptation? I'm just wondering if you think Bill C-311 addresses any of those adaptation measures that would be so important for northern communities.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

At the moment, the government's argument for not wanting Bill C-311 to pass is that it will change Canadians' way of life and make their life more expensive.

On the other hand, it is my impression that, if Bill C-311 is passed, your life will cost you less and you will be able to continue living it in a normal and traditional way, even if the bill really changes your way of life. Otherwise, climate change will continue to affect your current way of life adversely.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Now, I would like to talk to you about your way of life. Mr. Warawa, who was asking you questions earlier, always comes back to way of life and says that a bill like Bill C-311 would change Canadians' way of life.

But is it not precisely climate change that is changing your way of life? Would you not have more of a chance to re-establish your way of life with a bill like Bill C-311? Accepting that the taxes on your snowmobile may be higher, the fact remains that, one day, you will no longer be able to get meat to eat and you will have to be fed by the people in the south.

I would like to hear you talk about your way of life.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Yes, I would like that very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Erasmus, at the start of your remarks, you said that you were afraid that decisions are being made in Ottawa without your being consulted. You have no cause to be afraid, because the government has been in office for four years and has done nothing about climate change; the only thing that it is prepared to do is talk about it.

This is why we have Bill C-311. We have it because the government is doing nothing. The objectives of the bill are to provide the government and Canadians in general with greenhouse gas reduction targets. It is greenhouse gases, basically, that are causing the changes to your way of life, right?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That would be good. Thank you.

Mr. Tulurialik, was your association consulted, that is, requested to give input with respect to this NDP Bill C-311?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. If there was consultation, can you tell me if there was a written response to that inquiry regarding Bill C-311?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'll be more specific. Bill C-311 is actually not a government bill; it's a bill sponsored by an NDP member. What I'm wondering is if anyone, in the course of the preparation of that non-government Bill C-311, which we're here today to study, ever asked for the input of the Assembly of First Nations before today.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. My next question is regarding Bill C-311. I thought one of the wisest things that we've heard was said by you this morning, Mr. Erasmus, which is that this bill links with economics, it links with culture, and it links with a whole range of issues, and therefore it requires consultation.

I'll start with Chief Erasmus. Were you consulted or was the Assembly of First Nations consulted in relation to the preparation of Bill C-311?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Well, before we get into the budget, I really would like to stick to the issue of climate change and Bill C-311, so if you find that the Assembly of First Nations did in fact provide any kind of written response to the government's climate change plan, could you send it on to our clerk, please?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, just a quick comment, then.

I want to thank both witnesses for being here, but Bill C-311 is a discussion. Canada has very aggressive targets. Our position is that all the major emitters have to be part of a new international agreement on climate change. That includes the United States and China, India, all the major emitters. Climate change is happening. If we want to take this seriously, we all have to participate, especially the big emitters, and then we can hopefully protect the environment.

So thank you again for coming and being involved with us.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but that's not answering the question.

My question is, are you aware of the cost that Bill C-311 would impose on all Canadians, including first nations, Inuit, Métis? The cost for energy would dramatically increase, and the example the scientists shared was costs imposed on all Canadians similar to those in Denmark and Sweden. Having just come back, I saw dramatically increased costs for energy, and that would affect you. I just was wondering if you were aware of that.

I have just a quick question on consultation. Are you aware of the consultation that the government has ongoing?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Certainly, Mr. Chair. I will make that direct connection immediately.

Mr. Tulurialik, I understand you were part of the Inuvik Declaration on Arctic Climate Change and Global Action and that you participated in the youth summit on northern climate change this past August. In the declaration, you called upon the government to commit to the Bill C-311 targets of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, at least 80% below 1990 by 2050, and a credible plan to reach those targets.

Do I understand clearly what the declaration is calling for?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

We do ask that questions be relevant to the bill and to climate change as regards the impact of Bill C-311. I would ask that questions be along that line.

We won't pay for Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

On a point of order, I think we've been very generous in where the discussion is going today, but the focus needs to be on Bill C-311.

I would ask you to share with the committee whether or not we are veering from that topic. I fear that we are.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much for coming in by telephone; it is very dedicated of you.

Sir, I want to ask you a few questions. I'm asking the same first question to every witness who appears here on Bill C-311. Does your community, the people, or the association have in their possession a plan for climate change for Canada provided to you by the Government of Canada? Do you have a plan for climate change today? Have you seen one? If you do, could you share it with us?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call the meeting to order. I apologize that we're running late. We have had some technical difficulties.

We are continuing our study of Bill C-311. We were to have a videoconference with Bill Erasmus, regional chief, Northwest Territories, from the Assembly of First Nations. Unfortunately he hasn't made it to Whitehorse yet.

We will also have a conference call with Joe Tulurialik, who is a member of the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. He was also supposed to appear by videoconference, but due to inclement weather he wasn't able to make his flight yesterday, so he's joining us by conference call.

We welcome you to the committee, Mr. Tulurialik, and ask that you make your opening presentation. Please keep it under 10 minutes. The committee will listen intently, and then we'll go to our line of questioning. Hopefully Mr. Erasmus will be able to join us later.

With that, Mr. Tulurialik, please give us your comments.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate because I certainly support the measures in Bill C-51 that we have discussed, particularly the home renovation tax credit. Many people in my riding have availed themselves of this tax credit. I will support it because these people have pursued it in good faith.

Unfortunately, however, this budget bill did not go nearly far enough. It was very limited in terms of its application. I regret that it did not focus on home retrofits, energy saving, money saving and environmentally saving our communities in terms of making a real effort to be practical, and retrofits would have done that. They would have also created green collar jobs. With home retrofits, we would have seen new windows, new doors, insulation and perhaps the installation of solar panels that homeowners could then utilize to save energy and even generate their own clean energy.

What was missing in terms of this bill was the increased investment in not just retrofits but in the technology around the new green jobs and the training for green collar jobs like computer control operators who can cut steel for wind turbines, mechanics trained to repair electric engines and manufacturers of solar panels. These are good jobs. They pay enough to raise a family. They are jobs with purchasing power that in turn create more jobs.

Another positive component to this is that these jobs are very difficult to outsource. Unlike the current corporate strategy of sending jobs to low wage jurisdictions with lower environmental regulations, these jobs stay in the community. A house cannot be picked up and sent to China to have energy efficient windows, doors or solar panels installed. It simply cannot be done.

That is unlike the Ford motor company. In the riding adjacent to mine, Ford Talbotville is closing down. We are losing 1,600 direct jobs and 8,000 indirect jobs because Ford is saying that it cannot make money or that it cannot afford to retrofit the plant. Meanwhile, it is spending $500 million to build a plant in China. These are jobs that are gone. These are jobs that we will sorely miss and that will impact our community. However, green jobs and retrofits would have helped and supported us.

Transportation costs are another consideration when one starts to look at all of this. With the decline in the supply of fossil fuels and the increasing expense associated with oil and gas production, it makes more and more sense to develop local industries that provide local goods and services; hence, back to these green jobs. Unfortunately, that is where the government missed the boat. With the help of the official opposition, it voted against my made in Canada bill. It deemed it protectionist and completely ignored the fact that we are the only G20 country without a local procurement policy.

When all Canadian businesses have been undermined by a government that ignores their needs and the needs of Canadian workers, who will be left to produce the goods that will be needed for the green economy? Who will be there to make those turbines locally? Who will be there to grow the food products locally? When we have cut off our own people and said that they do not matter and that we do not want to be protectionist but that their jobs are insignificant, who will be there to produce this green economy? Who will be there to save our environment? Who will be there to keep our communities strong?

There has been no interest from the government on that, nor has there been any interest in going to Copenhagen with something substantive. The fact is that the government is going empty-handed because it has refused to take any kind of leadership role when it comes to the environment. Instead, the Conservatives quietly tabled their so-called Kyoto protocol implementation act but it does nothing. It imposes no binding target, delays actions on emissions from coal-fired power generation and grants broad exemptions to industry.

The Conservatives could have brought forward the NDP's Bill C-311. That bill sets out a very clear path for Canada to help fight climate change. It provides greenhouse gas targets consistent with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One of the members of that panel comes from my city of London, Professor McBean, a University of Western Ontario professor and a very respected Nobel Prize winner. Unfortunately, he and the other Nobel Prize winners were ignored by the government.

At any rate, our bill is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and would impose legally binding, tough but achievable, reduction targets. Instead the government is trying to stop our bill in committee and is refusing to acknowledge that this kind of inaction is no longer acceptable.

All of this is despite the urgent call for action from Canadians, from scientists, from environmentalists and from the international community.

We have lost our international reputation. We have lost our reputation as being progressive and a leader. There was a time when the world looked to Canada. Whether it was with regard to women's rights, children's rights, environmental protection, or the kind of services that we provide in our health care system, we were leaders. People looked to Canada as the peacekeepers, the peacemakers, the leaders. Now we are scorned. We are scorned across the globe for our inaction and our apparent complacency.

We need budget measures that are directed at environmental protection. We need a government to create budget measures that could and should create opportunities for a better economy, a green, strong, sustainable economy with all the dividends of energy conservation, job creation and environmental protection.

We did not get those and we are not likely to get them, but I want Canadians to think about what could have been.

New Democrats also support the first time-home buyers' tax credit. It is a very important step. There are a lot of young Canadians who would love to be able to provide their family with a home, and they cannot. Therefore, this is a positive thing, as is the income deferral for farmers breeding livestock in drought conditions.

It is interesting that this tax credit is here when, again, the government does not seem to understand that we need to have local procurement policies. We need to support our farmers. We need to support production in order for our communities to thrive, but that is beside the point.

As well, it is very good to see the changes to the working income tax benefit that increase the percentage of the tax credit and increase the top-up of the payment. This will help low-income families. There has been precious little to help low-income families from the government.

All of these are very important and all will have a significant impact on the lives of people in our communities.

However, we need to be cognizant about what is missing from this bill and I would like to go back to that. While the CPP adjustments are very good, providing an increase in security for seniors, some flexibility, and a reduced incentive for early retirement, these are still lacking. They are lacking because they do not provide enough security for seniors.

As CARP says, 30% of Canadians are still without retirement savings. The proposals that have been put in place are not grandfathered. They do not address the need for enhancement of the OAS and GIS, and there is no retroactive claim beyond the current 11 months.

In Quebec, the QPP allows for a five-year retroactive claim. I can tell the House that there are people who have come to my office who did not understand their rights and their pension benefits, and who were cheated out of a secure and decent standard of living and could not claim back any further than 11 months. That is simply not acceptable.

I would like to say that as acceptable as this is, what New Democrats presented to the government last spring and what we would still like to see is preferable, and that is the expansion of and increase to the CPP, OAS and GIS.

In fact, it has been shown that a 15% increase to OAS and a doubling of CPP would create the kind of income security that seniors absolutely deserve.

This country can afford it. Since 1996, $400 billion has been given away in tax cuts to profitable corporations. That is four hundred thousand million dollars given to profitable corporations, to those deserving banks and oil companies. Imagine if just some of that $400 billion were invested in those seniors who had invested their lives in the building of this country.

We would also like to see the self-financing of a pension insurance program to make sure that when companies fail or choose to abandon retirees, there is a plan in place to protect our grandmothers and grandfathers from poverty. It would have helped the people of Nortel. It would have helped if the government had thought of that.

It would have helped if the government had thought about violence against women and had invested some money in women to prevent the violence these women feel, instead of spending millions and millions on their campaign to undermine the very few protections we have.

There is a great deal that the government could have done and chose not to do. I regret that very much, because it had the opportunity. It has had many opportunities.

Business of Supply--Opposition Motion--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please, if the House will grant some indulgence.

On Tuesday, October 27, the hon. government House leader rose on a point of order concerning the admissibility of an opposition motion placed on notice on October 26, in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. The hon. member for Vancouver East intervened on the matter, as did the hon. member for Wascana. So that the work of the House could proceed without delay, I immediately stated that the motion was out of order and I promised to return to the House at a later date with a fully considered ruling.

I would now like to put before the House the reasons for my decision that day.

For the benefit of the House, the motion printed in the notice paper read as follows:

That Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be deemed reported from committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

In explaining why he felt the motion was out of order, the government House leader's main argument was that what this motion was proposing to do could be done only by unanimous consent.

He added that in his view the best the House can do to expedite legislation, without the unanimous consent of the House, is to offer a motion that considers each stage separately with a separate vote. Otherwise, he argued, a situation would arise in which any opposition party could put forward a similarly draconian motion on any private member's bill and have it expedited through the legislative process.

For her part, the House leader for the NDP stressed the wide latitude given to opposition parties on supply days to propose motions of their choosing.

In support of this argument, she quoted from House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 724:

The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

The House will remember that on March 21, 2007, in a situation analogous to the one before us, I ruled out of order an opposition motion submitted by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. In that case, the motion in question sought to expedite the consideration and adoption of several government bills in a manner similar to the motion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North.

As I pointed out in a subsequent ruling on March 29, 2007, past interventions from the Chair regarding opposition motions have been rare, restricted to cases in which a motion is “clearly and undoubtedly irregular”. I also explained that there is nothing whatsoever in the relevant procedural authorities to suggest that opposition motions on supply days were ever conceived of as a means of fast-tracking bills already present elsewhere on the order paper. House of Commons Procedure and Practice stresses, at page 701, that a key principle underlying the business of supply is that the House, and by extension the opposition via motions proposed on allotted days, has:

--the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown.

As I stated in 2007, (Debates, March 29, 2007, p. 8138) it is evident from their historical background that opposition motions on supply days were never envisaged as an alternative to the legislative process:

The very high threshold of unanimous consent creates a pivotal safeguard in ensuring that every measure before the House receives full and prudent consideration. What is being proposed not only does away with that safeguard, it takes advantage of the stringent regime governing supply days. In that regard, for example, it is important to note the precedence accorded to opposition motions over all Government supply motions on allotted days.

Furthermore, recent amendments to the rules dealing with such motions offer an especially stringent regime: first, the rules provide what amounts to an automatic closure mechanism since the motion comes to a vote at the end of the day, thus guaranteeing a decision on the motion; and second, no amendment to the motion is possible without the consent of the mover.

In stark contrast, any motion which could be brought forward by the government to expedite consideration of a bill would be debatable and amendable, and the imposition of time allocation or closure would necessitate a separate question from the motion proposing adoption of the bill at a particular stage or stages in the legislative process.

In addition, as mentioned in my initial comments when ruling the motion out of order, as worded, the motion fails to provide members any opportunity to debate the bill itself, in effect short-circuiting the legislative process. The Chair is mindful of the wide latitude available to the opposition with regard to supply motions, but as your Speaker, it is my duty to ensure that matters placed before the House are in keeping with our rules. The reasons outlined above make it clear why the motion of the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North was ruled out of order.

In conclusion, I would ask hon. members to bear in mind today's ruling and the ruling of March 29, 2007, when they are preparing future opposition motions. The Chair will continue to give the traditional latitude to the sponsors of motions to be debated during supply proceedings, but the Chair counts on the co-operation of the sponsors to respect, and not go beyond, traditional limits for such motions.

I thank the House for its attention in this matter.

The Environment

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, citizens of Vancouver and, indeed, all Canadians.

The petitioners call upon the government to pass Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. They care deeply about the future of our planet and believe Canada should be playing a leadership role in the global effort to combat climate change. They want the government to take immediate action to meet the science-based greenhouse gas reduction targets that are mandated in the bill. They know climate change is real. They know we need to take our responsibilities and actions seriously now. They want us to commit to strong environmental targets at Copenhagen.

I am honoured to stand today in the House of Commons and present their call to action. Our future hangs in the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Mr. Woodworth.

The time has expired. It is one o'clock and I know that some of you have other places to be.

I want to thank Mr. Lazar, Mr. McCabe, and Ms. Cobden for coming to committee today and helping us with our study of Bill C-311.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

We have one. The meeting is adjourned.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Something else you said that I thought made eminent sense was that it's easy to put a target out there, but it's the implementation that counts.

You're aware, of course, that the only thing Bill C-311 does is to put a target out there. Correct?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Lazar, you said a few things that I thought were eminently sensible. One of them was that there are risks both on the side of adopting too rigorous an approach and an approach that's not rigorous enough. My view is that Bill C-311—which we never seem to talk much about at this committee—is on the very rigorous side, with its target of 25% below 1990 levels. Would you agree with that assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That's what my next question was going to be. As a primary producer, you have no place to which you can pass it on, because you depend so much on the marketplace to dictate the price of your commodities.

We're heading into Copenhagen. A lot of people are calling Bill C-311 the Copenhagen bill. We've heard some members of the committee talk about the need to harmonize with the United States, but we also heard Mr. Lazar talk about this being a global issue needing a global policy. There has been discussion that countries in the developing world might not need to come to the table right away with the same standards that we in the industrialized world are going to put upon ourselves.

If we do things in Canada, the U.S., and Europe concerning carbon policy and reductions in emissions, and yet places such as China and India do nothing, what is going to happen to food production and to where food comes from in this country, if we aren't on a level playing field with those countries?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I'll stop you there. You used two examples, showing two extremes: one doing some very dangerous things to the Canadian economy whereby we would lose jobs, making extreme choices—which is the case with Bill C-311, I believe—and in the other example, doing absolutely nothing. In fact, Canada, through the clean energy dialogue, is moving towards a harmonized approach. We have set 20% by 2020. The United States is adopting very similar targets. In that example, we aren't going to be losing jobs to the U.S., and where it is a harmonized approach, tackling climate change has a North American target.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of our witnesses for being here today. I think it is important to talk about forests and agriculture.

Mr. McCabe, in Quebec, agriculture is responsible for 9% of greenhouse gas emissions, and I would imagine that the figure is probably similar for Ontario. So, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture make up a pretty big chunk. If you had the support you wanted.... I think we all agree that such support would create new jobs. If you had more digesters and could better manage manure and biomass, which produce greenhouse gases on farmland, you could do it.

With the proper support, could you achieve the objectives set out in Bill C-311, which is currently on the table? Under that bill, emission reductions would have to hit 25% in 2020 and 80% in 2050, using 1990 as the base year.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you again, Mr. Lazar. And Mr. McCabe, it's good to see you again as well. Welcome. I don't think we've met before, but maybe we have.

I want to turn to both of you, first off, but I'm asking the same question of every witness who appears on Bill C-311 to start off the round of questioning. Does FPAC or the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have in their possession a Canadian climate change plan that you're working from now in your forest product and agriculture sectors?

You both made repeated calls for a number of elements to be addressed. Do you have in your possession now, 46 or 47 months into Canada's not-so-new government, a plan that you're working from that you are using with your membership, etc.? Do you have a plan? If you do, can you share it with us?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address those issues, because in terms of the spending power the government has had, the taxation power and the regulatory power we have had, we have been able to move on the whole spectrum of energy. We are not just dealing with renewables in isolation as the member would like us to do.

The interesting thing is that she has opposed each of those initiatives. The member and her party have stood against us. They want to talk about energy but on every point, as with so much of that party's policy, members of the NDP have opposed good public policy particularly to do with energy.

The member has come out against carbon capture and storage, a major initiative by the government. It has the potential to make a major difference in the environmental situation across the country and yet the NDP has come out against that. The member in particular has spoken against it.

When we make a major commitment to the environment, she chooses to oppose it. A good example of that was the project announced by the Prime Minister recently in Keephills to reduce emissions from a coal-fired power plant. The member came out against that. The member has a cottage in the area. We really need to ask, does she oppose this because she dislikes economic development, because she is not really that interested in the environmental challenges that we face, or is this a case of NIMBY, not in my backyard, or does she not want this to take place because she has some investment in the community?

Worst of all has been her support for Bill C-311. She really needs to answer some questions about her role and her position on energy in Alberta. Bill C-311 would wipe out the Alberta and Saskatchewan economies. She supports it. It is a bill that would cost thousands of jobs. She still supports the bill. It is a bill that would cost up to and over $20,000 per capita in some ridings. She continues to support it.

It is a bill, according to the report that was released last week by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, that would cost Alberta 12.1% of its GDP and would cost Saskatchewan 7.5% of its GDP. She continues to support it. I think it was on Power Play, when she was asked about this report, she basically said that she does not think Alberta is coming out of this so badly. If a reduction of 12.1% in GDP is not a bad thing, I do not know what would be.

There is an energetic young man who is going door to door in Edmonton—Strathcona. Everywhere he goes he is asked how it is possible that there is an MP representing Edmonton—Strathcona who stands so strongly against the interests of Alberta. His name is Ryan Hastman. He is a Conservative candidate in Edmonton—Strathcona. He shares the disappointment that so many Albertans feel with the member. He would like to bring a different vision to this House, a vision that supports jobs, a vision that supports the Alberta economy, and a vision that supports the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, in ways that will lead us forward.

Climate Change Accountability Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader on October 8, 2009, regarding the admissibility of the motion of instruction moved on the same day by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Vancouver East, and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for their interventions on this matter.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the motion of instruction listed on the order paper as Government Business No. 6 is out of order because, in his view, it attempts to time allocate a bill and, as such, is no longer permissive.

He added that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction had the effect of overriding existing reporting requirements for private members' bills already contained in the Standing Orders.

He also asserted that the motion contains two separate proposals and should, therefore, require two separate motions.

In speaking to the parliamentary secretary's point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver East pointed out that the committee may decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House, thus, rendering the motion permissive.

For his part, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out that there was a precedent for such a motion of instruction, referring to a motion that was debated on May 30, 2005.

As stated on page 641 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, and I quote:

Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory. It is left to the committee to decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House...

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may give the committee an instruction by way of a motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into one bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill.

In the matter raised by the parliamentary secretary, the Chair must determine whether the wording of the motion of instruction is permissive or mandatory.

The first and main part of the motion is to give the committee the power to divide the bill. This is recognized as permissive by past practice and procedural authorities. I can see nothing in the motion of instruction that orders the committee to do anything specific with Bill C-311. The deadline and other procedural actions contained in the motion apply only if the committee takes the step to create Bill C-311A, in the full knowledge of the consequences that would ensue.

As I read the motion, the committee can still choose to report Bill C-311 in the same way as it would any other private member's bill.

Members are aware that the Standing Orders stipulate that a private member’s bill must be reported back to the House before the end of 60 sitting days, or, with the approval of the House, following an extension of 30 sitting days. Otherwise, the bill is deemed reported back without amendment.

It has been argued, in this case, that the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction comes into conflict with the provisions of Standing Order 97.1(1), thus rendering the motion out of order.

However, in the view of the Chair, it is not unreasonable to envisage a scenario where the House, for whatever reason, would want a committee to report a bill back prior to the reporting deadline set out in Standing Order 97.1(1).

So, there is nothing, in my understanding of that Standing Order, or in the procedural authorities, that would preclude the House from adopting a motion of instruction that included a reporting deadline.

The example referred to by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is particularly instructive on this point. That motion of instruction, debated in the House on May 30, 2005 (Journals, p. 800) stated in part: “that Bill C-43A be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion”. It provided a deadline remarkably similar to that contained in the motion of instruction moved by the member for Vancouver East.

In the view of the Chair, just as in the 2005 example, the inclusion of a deadline in the motion of instruction for Bill C-311 does not infringe on the committee's discretion to exercise the power to divide the bill, nor with its discretion to amend the bill.

Finally, the Chair is not persuaded by the parliamentary secretary's argument that the motion contains more than one proposal and that it should be divided into two separate motions. A close reading of the motion shows that the portion regarding the reporting deadline is contingent on the main proposition; namely, the permissive instruction to divide the bill.

Accordingly, for all the reasons outlined, the Chair must conclude that the motion is in order.

I thank hon. members for their interventions on this matter.

[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.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

My opposition to Bill C-311 is due to the shock it would promote. Every time we jump out and set a target that feels out of reach—I'm setting aside the question of whether or not it is in reach—we back whole communities into fear-based tactics. My position is that we know which those communities are; that's not uncertain. The prudent next move is to develop a strategy for working with the communities and finding out what's possible.

I don't mind the whole strategy being about trying to get to Bill C-311 types of objectives or another set of objectives. But I think that if you pass one more bill and haven't gone through that process, there's difficulty.

I also want to add a little comment about the whole international trading thing. Last year, in 2008, the United States discharged just over one billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent from coal-fired power plants that are over 55 years old. We don't have a coal-fired power plant in Canada that is yet 45 years old, so when we're having this dialogue and talking about money flows, it's expensive to cut emissions here. I'm not saying don't do it, but when we have a new economy, writing off a 20-year-old plant is a lot more expensive than walking away from a 65-year-old plant.

Those are our special circumstances. Our 26% increase in goods-producing jobs since 1996 was from capital investment that came here and that did not go to the United States, and it was capital investment that came here from Europe. We have a special challenge and we have to go at this differently from anyone else.

[John Drexhage]

I think this can't be resolved only by governments and Parliament; this really has to become a much broader national discussion. We have, for example, really called for a first ministers conference on a national energy strategy for quite a few years now. We need those kinds of discussions; we need this kind of bottom-up engagement. It can't only be solved in Parliament. Hopefully, Bill C-311 can be one of the many pieces in the quiver, as it were, that will press this forward.

Thank you.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'd like to ask one final question if I still have time.

The government isn't thinking beyond the economics. Do you think a bill like Bill C-311 could show that the economic picture—if it were to be studied in order to develop a plan—would be better if we had realistic and effective goals of 80% for 2050? What would happen if we didn't have this bill?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I'm going to come back to the question I asked you regarding Bill C-311. You said that it would be a start but that we would need a plan.

Do you think this could be an important step if the bill were able to help support the idea that we would need a plan? Do you think it could encourage the government to come up with a plan?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll broach the same topic as Mr. Warawa, but in a different way.

I honestly and truly believe that we have to change our lifestyle and that looking at the past in other European countries—asking ourselves what they have done to this point or what they are doing now—won't provide the answer for the future. This is what disappoints me about the current government: it's always looking at the future in a rear-view mirror.

Mr. Drexhage, you said earlier, and rightly so, that Canada lives in a "non-sustainable" world. Do you think that Bill C-311 might help raise awareness that change is needed? And could Bill C-311 make a contribution? If so, how?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

You've said that our lifestyle is not sustainable. My question is going to focus on what lifestyles would look like if Canada were to adopt Bill C-311. What would the cost be?

Mr. Bramley, I'm not going to be asking you questions, because I feel that if I asked the cook to critique his own creation, the cook would have a bias. So with respect, I'm going to direct my questions to Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Drexhage.

The government is responsible for sustainable development. Each of us is. We passed, in the House, Bill S-216. Actually, it was in the last Parliament. It was sustainable development legislation to make sure we have good jobs in Canada but also a clean environment, and that's the government's responsibility, each of us. So how would lifestyles change if we adopted targets?

On the targets being proposed in Bill C-311, Pembina's position has been consistent that China and India, the big emitters in the developing world, would not have to have hard targets. They would not have to accept these targets in a new international agreement. You have the developing world buying international offsets. Bill C-311 also requires billions of dollars in mitigation and adaptation funds internationally, and the government's position is that there has to be substantial assistance in that. What would the world look like if we were accepting these very extreme targets?

I just came back from Copenhagen, where I saw gasoline at $2.50 a litre.

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

We're not showing a new leaf, because we have a stubborn government that is being taken to court because it won't implement the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, a Liberal bill. It says that it doesn't want to achieve an agreement and has basically said--maybe not in so many words--that it will ignore Bill C-311. And we're saying that if it isn't passed by the House of Commons before December 8 or December 7, this will be a disaster for our position in Copenhagen.

The government has already spoken on this. It's better to take the time to hear from you and Mr. Bramley.

That's the only point I'd like to make.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Drexhage and Dr. Bramley, I notice you both pointed out that any delay means it will be more costly to move toward reduction because the price of carbon is going to rise. Monsieur Bigras also pointed out, if we're correct, Dr. Bramley, in the review you've done with the David Suzuki Foundation, that what you have not factored in is the cost of business as usual, what will happen with the climate change impacts.

I've also noticed in your report...and I had a briefing yesterday from the David Suzuki Foundation that was very helpful in my understanding of the background of your report and how you put it together. We were advised that the model does not appear to factor in the greenhouse gas reductions for job creation from energy retrofits and energy efficiency because there was difficulty in calculating them. Would it not perhaps be true that the scenario to tackle climate change in Bill C-311 could potentially provide even more jobs and greater greenhouse gas reduction than your report presents?

[Matthew Bramley]

Well, actually I do. It's the plan that the government was required to file under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which contains very similar accountability mechanisms to those that Bill C-311 would extend. So I think it's an illustration of the usefulness of having those kinds of accountability mechanisms to ensure that the government is required to table something that says what the contribution would be of each of its measures.

I should say, though, that this plan only goes to 2012. It doesn't tell us how the government would meet its 2020 target.

[Aldyen Donnelly, President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium]

First, thank you for having me here.

Like the rest of the panel members, I strongly believe that Canada has an important role to play and that we must move quickly to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I do not, however, recommend the passage of Bill C-311. Bill C-311 is yet another target-setting exercise with no plan. I think that the editorial in The Globe and Mail got it correct this morning.

I'd like to remind you about Canada's traditional process for ratifying international treaties, to which the Kyoto Protocol stands as an exception. Typically, we develop our own domestic sense of priorities to address an environmental or economic issue. When we've identified our objectives and decided to pursue them in an international partnership, for competitiveness reasons, we tend to present our case in treaty language. We find some other parties. We negotiate a treaty that we sign. Then we come home and implement domestic legislation and regulations. Typically, we find that living with our first pass at the regulations isn't so comfortable and we amend them. Maybe we do it a third time. After we've lived with our legislation and regulations long enough to think we have it right, and our treaty partners have been through the same experience, we go back to the table, amend the original treaty language, and ratify it. That's what we did for the Law of the Sea, and that's why the elapsed time between signing the treaty and ratifying it was 11 years. That's normal history; that's not unusual history.

We in Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in a very short time without developing any implementation plan. Bill C-311 is enunciating yet another target. We're spending a lot of resources talking about targets, and we haven't even started to contemplate what an implementation plan would look like. If we were to stick with our historical successful experience, we would be asking a number of conventional questions: What regulations? Who is being affected? Who is changing behaviour and why? What are the implications of all this?

I'm going to tell you something quite different from what you will read in the Pembina report. I work largely for the private sector but also for NGO clients and three provincial governments. My job as a consultant is to develop policy and regulatory recommendations. I think I do my job well. I have been working on climate change for 15 years, and it's the biggest issue of the day for me. What's the reality? The reality is that 80% of the reported large industrial emitter emissions, 67% of all industry emissions including those that are not reported at a facility level, and 30% of all national emissions originate in plants that are located in 30 communities.

I have a presentation for you, nicely locked up in a hotel, and I'm going to e-mail it to the clerk right after this report.

We're talking 30 communities. That's your ghost town list. How do you stop that from being your ghost town list? It's not a whole country. It's not nicely spread all over the place. You can't go to Sydney—Victoria, to Mr. Blake Richards's riding and say that it's okay, his constituents can keep their jobs if they spend $40 a tonne building wind farms in China. In Blake's community, do you know what $40 a tonne is to keep their jobs? It's over $4,000 per man, woman, and child in the riding. There are 30 communities for which $40 a tonne to restructure the plants or buy offsets from China comes to over $400 a tonne per man, woman, and child in the community. I am not saying you shouldn't do this; I'm saying it's only in 30 communities.

The first recommendation is that this committee should have a subcommittee on which sit representatives of the 30 communities. Let's start talking about what their long-term sustainable core competencies are, sources of competitive advantage. What does that mean in terms of technology strategies? A lot of the technology strategies recommended in this report have no match whatsoever to the real sustainable sources of competitive advantage in those communities in a carbon-free future. There is no link. It doesn't work. And what do you get when it doesn't work? You get what Germany has.

From 1996 through 2007--so I'm not adding in the recessionary time--goods-producing jobs were down 18%; greenhouse gas emissions were down only 16%. You don't even have a one for one in terms of your job loss match. Jobs lost over that period were 6.4 million, so I don't really care about 250,000 jobs that might have been generated by the wind industry. Electricity prices for households in Germany--41¢ Canadian per kilowatt hour--that's not a special rate for wind, that's the rate that everyone in a household in Germany pays for electricity. Fifty per cent of the electricity in that country still comes from coal plants. Eight new coal plants have been constructed in the last eight months in Germany, and twenty more have been approved. The eight new coal plants themselves wipe out all of the zero emission reduction gains Germany achieved by being the largest developer of wind power nationally in the world.

If we don't sit down and look at the community list and the company list--it's only 30 communities--and build a strategic plan for each community, we will have 40¢ electricity, we will still be burning coal to make power, we will have significant industrial job loss, and we won't have greenhouse gas emissions even tracking with the job loss, because that's Germany, that's Denmark, that's Sweden, and that's not where we want to go.

I'll stop there.

[John Drexhage, Director, Climate Change and Energy, International Institute for Sustainable Development]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Allow me to thank you and the other members of this committee for the opportunity to speak with you regarding Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

First of all, I would like to provide some specific comments on the bill itself and its implications for domestic implementation. I will then conclude with a brief foray into the current status of the international negotiations and the potential role a bill such as this could play in addressing Canada's current profile in the negotiations while also helping to provide a much-needed boost to the overall tone of the international talks.

Regarding the specifics of the bill itself, I would say that the long-term target of an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 is an entirely reasonable one. It is in line with the long-term target espoused by President Obama, and it's consistent with virtually all projections as to what might be required to avoid anything more than a two-degree temperature change globally, which I need not remind you that the Prime Minister agreed to at this year's G8 summit.

I would also note that this is the current status of the scientific information on climate change. In the past few years we have seen the peer-reviewed science conclude that the temperature changes are actually occurring at a more rapid pace and that the related impacts of that temperature change are more pronounced, particularly for the Arctic, than previously assumed. Hence, we would also strongly support the review provisions in this bill starting in 2015 to ensure that Canada continues to do its fair share in addressing climate change.

On the shorter-term target of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, I would make the following observations. First of all, it is commonly assumed that this is the target recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to avoid a two-degree rise in temperatures. In fact, what the IPCC does is review the literature on the issue, and in that respect, there was a relatively limited amount written on this topic by the time of the IPCC report—only some five reports.

There is in fact a range of options available by which we would see the global community reach the overall target of 80% by 2050. You can't, for example, start at a more moderate target for 2020 and then ramp up reduction goals for 2030 and thereafter. This is what the U.S. appears to be calling for, and given that in North America we are only beginning to break the link between economic and greenhouse gas emissions growth, many here in Canada argue that it would be reasonable to start with a more moderate target. Fair enough, but—and we have to keep this in mind—that would only have credibility if we were also to lay out what reductions would be achieved for 2025 and thereafter. And keep this in mind also that the longer we take in reducing our emissions, the more disruptive and sudden the transition that will be required for all involved at a later date. So not only are we asking our children to face the impacts of climate change, we're also asking them to face increasing impacts in terms of the transition required to address climate change if we don't take on aggressive targets now.

With respect to the regulations, I would also support those elements promoting performance standards and greenhouse gas trading. With respect to the latter, the terms of reference need to be broadened to cover participation in the international carbon market as well. It is an absolutely critical mechanism for Canada to meet its targets and in positively engaging developing countries in mitigation activities. In a word, it is simply unrealistic to expect Canada to be able to achieve even the current government's own targets through domestic measures alone. The Canadian private sector must become an active player in the global carbon market, and the Government of Canada needs to provide much clearer signals and incentives for Canadian industry to do so.

I would also strongly support any efforts to link up with the U.S. cap and trade system as it's being developed, which would mean an absolute cap and trade with a broad sector of the economy covered by 2016 and an increasing percentage of auctioned permits playing in the marketplace.

I have one other note, this relating to the penalties for non-compliance provisions in the bill: we would favour a system by which those who exceed their reduction targets would face a prohibitive charge that would provide the government with the opportunity to use at least some of those funds to purchase credits to offset any surplus emissions and remaining revenues in order to provide support for the transition to a clean energy future.

To conclude, I believe Bill C-311, or some amended form that does not compromise the 2050 target, would be very timely.

I've had the privilege of following the climate change negotiations for the past few years, and I can bring in at least two clear observations on that process as we head to Copenhagen.

First, the negotiations are in deep trouble, and we may not find our way to an effective comprehensive agreement by December. I could get into the details, but it comes down to a serious lack of trust that exists between developed and developing countries.

Secondly, Canada's profile in the negotiations continues to be compromised by its status as a party to the Kyoto Protocol that has made it clear it will not take actions to meet its target under that agreement.

Bill C-311, particularly if it managed to receive universal assent of this Parliament, would send out a strong signal to the international community that Canada is ready to be a positive player in these negotiations. In addition, Canada needs to be ready to come up with a healthy and significant contribution towards helping developing countries adjust to the current and future threat of climate change.

I'd lastly note that doing so is particularly critical given Canada's role as host and leader of the next G8 and G20 summits to be held next year. If we are to have any credibility in those discussions, Canada must develop a strong domestic plan for reducing our emissions that also addresses all aspects of society, including targeting our incredibly wasteful consumption practices in North America. It also needs to reflect the strong messages we have heard from our Prime Minister in the last few years that we must develop strong, sustainable, and clean national energy systems. As a first step, I would recommend that we implement a clean, integrated national electricity grid as part of the government's stimulus and infrastructure packages.

I cannot stress the extent to which we suffer a credibility gap in the multilateral world as a result of 15 years, and counting, of inaction—and that includes both party persuasions.

In closing, I do not regard this as a right-left issue, and I believe that, with good intent, unanimous consent on a bill such as Bill C-311 should be possible. Effectively addressing climate change is simply too critical and complex an issue to hold hostage to political posturing. Ultimately, successfully addressing this real and present threat means an evolution in understanding what national interest truly signifies, acting responsibly for the sake of the global environment and our children.

I believe Canadians are ready and impatient to face this challenge. It is time for politicians of all stripes to demonstrate the same resolve.

[Robert Hornung, President, Canadian Wind Energy Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to all committee members for not being able to join you here at the meeting on Tuesday, but as the chair noted, a family matter intervened. I do very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you here today.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association is the national association for companies with an interest in the wind energy industry in Canada. Our 450 members include Canadian, American, and European leaders in wind energy product development, wind turbine manufacture and component supply, as well as key service providers to the industry. The Canadian members of our association are a diverse group, active in wind energy, but many are also conventional energy companies whose primary interests are electricity generation, oil and gas production, or pipelining. We also have a number of companies that are focused exclusively in the renewable energy sector.

We believe that climate change is a serious issue and that the federal government must adopt legally binding targets and put in place supportive actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the establishment of such targets and supportive actions is critical to providing the policy certainty required to allow the wind energy industry to make well-informed and effective investment decisions that are consistent with the government's policy objectives. It's important that such targets and actions are transparent and that progress against them is measured on a regular basis. We note that many of these elements or themes are part of Bill C-311. Policy uncertainty reduces the incentive to invest.

We believe that wind energy will have an important role to play in meeting Canada's greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives, as well as the federal government's objective to have 90% of electricity produced from non-emitting sources by 2020. It's broadly accepted that significant progress on emissions reduction is required by 2020. In the electricity sector, the actions that have the most potential to reduce emissions in that timeframe are energy efficiency and conservation, increased deployment of renewable energy sources like wind, and fuel switching from coal to natural gas.

This is already being recognized in many parts of the world. In Europe wind energy has been the single biggest new source of electricity capacity for the last two years. It's been the second largest source of new generation in the United States over the last four years. In addition to providing these benefits, of course, wind energy also represents an important economic opportunity for rural communities across Canada and a manufacturing sector looking for ways to diversify production into products and technologies that are poised for significant growth in the 21st century.

For wind energy to fulfill its potential in meeting Canada's policy objectives and for any climate change strategy to be a success, it will be imperative to put a price on carbon. In this regard, CanWEA is supportive of the efforts currently under way at the federal level to put in place an emissions trading system that provides flexibility to emitters through the use of greenhouse gas offsets from non-emitting activities like wind energy production. It's critical for wind energy projects to have an opportunity to capture economic value for their environmental benefits.

It's also true, however, that it's likely to be some time yet until a carbon price is in place, and even longer until that price is not influenced by public policy safety valves that are designed to mitigate the economic impact of greenhouse gas emissions reduction but, at the same time, prevent the market from fully representing the real price of carbon. In this transitional period, it will be important for the federal government to continue to provide policy support and incentives that recognize and allow project developers to capture the full value of the environmental and carbon reduction benefits of clean renewable energy sources beyond that which will be initially provided by greenhouse gas offsets.

As the federal government's ecoENERGY for renewable power program will have fully allocated all of its funding this fall, such incentives will no longer be in place. A failure to expand or extend this mechanism or replace it with an alternative will result in delays and possible cancellations of several wind energy projects, and it will result in investors shifting funds for such projects from Canada to the United States. This is inconsistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We remain committed to working with the government and all parliamentarians to obtain a renewed commitment to support the deployment of renewable energy projects during this transitional period.

While a carbon price is necessary, it will not on its own be sufficient to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives. Numerous barriers exist that prevent actors from responding to price signals in the marketplace. For that reason, many jurisdictions are putting in place both carbon pricing and long-term renewable energy strategies and policies in an effort to meet their climate change objectives.

While the European Union has a functioning carbon market in place, it has also established aggressive and legally binding renewable energy targets for the year 2020. And the United States Congress is currently considering the implementation of a legally binding national renewable electricity standard as part of its climate change package. We believe Canada also should consider, within its climate change strategy, the implementation of complementary initiatives that will remove barriers and stimulate investment in renewable energy technologies in addition to the establishment of a price on carbon.

When examining what policy support should be provided to renewable energy or other greenhouse gas emission reduction options as part of a climate change strategy, it's also important to remember that Canada is competing for investment in new renewable energy projects and new renewable energy technology supply chains, and that competition is on a global basis. Our policy choices must consider what other countries are doing to encourage investment in these sectors and must strive to ensure that our investment opportunities are competitive.

An effective federal climate change strategy will also need to improve the efficiency, without diminishing the effectiveness, of federal permitting and approval processes for clean energy projects like wind energy and the transmission infrastructure required to support its development. And it will also have to focus on building public support about the urgency and importance of the actions needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, provincial governments also have an extremely important role to play in putting forward policies to support both renewable energy deployment and greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and federal policies should seek to complement and support major provincial initiatives like Ontario's new Green Energy and Green Economy Act and other leading initiatives across the country.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll take that under advisement. We'll deal with that when we come to it on the agenda.

Let's start with our presentations. This is meeting 35 as we continue our study of Bill C-311.

I want to welcome to the table today, from the Pembina Institute, Matthew Bramley, director of climate change. From the Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium, we have Aldyen Donnelly, president. From the International Institute for Sustainable Development, we have John Drexhage, director of climate change and energy. From the Canadian Wind Energy Association, we have Robert Hornung, president.

Mr. Hornung was supposed to be here on Tuesday, but unfortunately he wasn't able to attend due to a family matter. I'm going to allow him to go first on behalf of the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

If your opening comments could be less than 10 minutes, we'd appreciate that.

The Environment

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has also announced his regulatory targets will now be delayed until after Copenhagen.

Will the government agree to bring Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, back to the House before Copenhagen so that Canada does not show up in the negotiations completely empty-handed? What will it take for the government to finally realize that investing in the environment and renewable energy is actually good for the economy?

Business of Supply--Opposition Motion

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on this point of order because it does have to do with the NDP supply day tomorrow, on Bill C-311.

I would say, first, that I have listened to the government House leader's points about his belief that this would require unanimous consent, but I would point out that we are bringing this forward as a supply day motion, of course, and that within this motion there is still a vote to take place. So, on our supply day we are bringing forward the contents of this bill, because we do think it is an urgent matter, but that in no way negates the need to have a vote on our supply day motion, which of course will take place.

I would point out that we do believe this motion is in order because opposition parties have always been given quite a lot of latitude to propose whatever motion they want so long as it is written in a regular form and as a regular motion.

Page 724 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, first edition, because that is the one we are dealing with, states that:

The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to a reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.

I would suggest that the motion is worded in a regular way and simply proposes to do things that have, in fact, been done in this place from time to time on previous occasions under closure or time allocation or by unanimous consent. I do believe that because this is part of our supply day, we do have greater latitude in terms of what we choose to bring forward. Certainly the basic tenet and principle of the House, taking a vote, will be very much a part of this process, and so, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to see that this motion we propose to bring forward tomorrow is in order and that the House be allowed to debate the motion and to vote on the motion as we normally would do with any other supply day motion.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order.

I am rising in regard to a supply motion that is on notice in the name of the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North and it reads as follows:

That Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be deemed reported from committee without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

I point out that what this motion is proposing can only be done by unanimous consent. Page 625 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states that:

The practice of giving every bill three separate readings derives from an ancient parliamentary practice which originated in the United Kingdom.

This leads us to Standing Order 71 which states:

Every bill shall receive three...readings, on different days, previously to being passed.

It goes on and mentions the exception:

On urgent or extraordinary occasions, a bill may be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.

That does not mean that a motion can cover several stages with limited debate.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the common urgency when bills are advanced two or more stages in one day is when back-to-work legislation is required. You will also know that even under those circumstances the rules do not allow for the advancement proposed by this supply motion.

The best we can do to expedite legislation in an emergency situation and without the unanimous consent of the House is to offer a motion that considers each stage separately with a separate vote. The House can only move on to the next stage when it concludes the previous stage.

In the case of back-to-work legislation, the House sits beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and does not adjourn until each stage is dealt with by adopting separate motions, one for each stage.

This supply motion is proposing that we deal with committee stage, report stage and then third reading stage all at once with one motion and only after a few hours of debate. While I recognize that this has been done many times before by way of unanimous consent, we cannot consider this to be a precedent.

On page 502 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice and in citation 14 of Beauchesne's, the case is made that, “Nothing done by unanimous consent constitutes a precedent”.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this motion is out of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Turk and Dr. Hyndman, you both have testified that there would be monumental cost implications for your respective fossil fuel sectors if we had to meet the targets in Bill C-311.

Those targets, by the way, are not invented by the NDP, they are the targets that the world climatologists have said we have to meet. The Canadian lead climatologists testified to us a week ago that these are the bare minimum targets that we have to meet. That's why they're chosen.

An independent assessment of coal-fired power in Alberta and also in Ontario has shown that coal could readily be replaced by 2020 by affordable proven renewable technologies.

When we talk about cost, the thing that troubles me when the fossil fuel industry and the government talk about the cost of reducing greenhouse gases, they talk about balancing with the environmental impact. But what they fail to talk about is the cost to health and environment of the NOx, the SOx, the particulate, and the heavy metals associated with the fossil fuel industry. The cost about to be imposed on the consumers of Alberta is 100% of the cost of a massive power line to send coal-fired power expansion to southern Alberta and for the expansion of power plants.

I would like your comment on that. It sounds more like it's about the sustainability of the fossil fuel industry as opposed to a sustainable supply of transportation and home heating and electricity for Canadians. It sounds to me that it's far more about a narrow analysis of what the implications might be for the fossil fuel industry if we don't continue to subsidize and downgrade our standards.

Perhaps you both could answer that.

Dr. Hyndman, you mentioned that it would be a great bar to the continued upgrading of fuel in Alberta. Yet the very reason why all the upgraders have been cancelled in Alberta is because the Government of Canada chose to fast-track the approval of pipelines so that the product can be processed in the United States. So I'm seeing that as a bit of a specious argument.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to have another Albertan at the table.

Mr. Hyndman and Mr. Turk, I appreciate your interventions, wisdom, and guidance here.

Through your associations and industries, when it comes to discussions, whether they're within the industry, with the government, or at an international level, you're constantly going through a series of negotiations. Whether it's negotiations for acquisitions, negotiations dealing with industry challenges, negotiations with landowners, or negotiations with government, there's constantly a set of negotiations.

As we prepare for Copenhagen and as we prepare our country for the discussions with our largest trading partner--a trading partner with whom we have integrated markets, as has been discussed already, whether it's our energy or consumer markets--does it make sense to any of you that we would play our negotiating hand out before those negotiations basically even start? That is what Bill C-311 would do. It would be the equivalent of playing Texas hold'em and showing everybody at the table our two cards.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The government agrees that Bill C-311 is fundamentally flawed and that the approach is wrong. I think that's why we're talking an awful lot with respect to things like the clean energy dialogue, and talking about harmonization that recognizes the integrated nature, not just of your particular industries, but of an entire range of industries and their supply chains. They're North American now.

I come from the auto industry; we recognize that there isn't really a Canadian car or an American car, but a North American car and a North American consumer for that car, and there has to be a North American business case for building that car. The key with harmonization is avoiding a patchwork of standards, a balkanizing of the market.

For example, we've chosen to regulate tailpipe emissions through CEPA; that allows us to avoid a province-by-province disharmony in terms of a standard. We're harmonizing with the reformed U.S. CAFE standards, which creates an investment advantage for the industry while tackling the need for greater fuel efficiency in our vehicles. I think that's the right approach.

With regard to the disharmony in terms of target and pathway that Bill C-311 is proposing, can you give us a sense of the cost? You've talked about some of the areas that are probably most exposed for the industry. Can you give us a sense or a quantification of what the loss would look like? How much investment would potentially be lost? How many jobs are we talking about? Can you give us some sense of what the cost of such a move would be if we adopted this bill in isolation from the United States?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Hyndman, I am referring now to Bill C-311. It talks about economic potential. When the government decided to change the reference year from 1990 to 2006, were you relieved? The fact is that, even though the government invested money to get the process going, the oil companies benefited.

When I went to Calgary with another House committee to meet with companies like Shell, we were told that, given the state of current discoveries and research, it will not really be possible to make significant reductions in CO₂ emissions per barrel of oil that is produced. The amount of water used has dropped from 6 gallons per barrel to about 4½ gallons, but the amount of CO₂ cannot really be reduced further. Is it your view that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the only real solution is to limit oil production?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I consider it unfortunate that people representing industries such as the wind, forest and aluminum sectors, are not with us this morning. However, I do hope that, if they submit a brief, we will consider it as part of our analysis and report on Bill C-311.

I want to thank you for being with us today. It seems to me your briefs are quite clear. Over the last 12 years, we have had discussions with representatives of a variety of industries. Many of them are of the view that, when it comes to climate change, there is nothing worse than uncertainty. Whether you are in the forest or oil industries, uncertainty causes considerable harm in regulatory terms. We are in favour of regulations, but we would also like to see them come into force as quickly as possible.

The Minister announced yesterday that his regulatory framework would be postponed until later—until after the conference in Copenhagen, to be exact. Do you think this additional delay will be harmful to your industry? Will that again create uncertainty? Should we not try to bring a regulatory framework into effect as quickly as possible?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you both for being here.

I ask the same question of every witness who is appearing on Bill C-311. I just want to get it on the record. Do either of you have in your possession a climate change plan from the present government--after 46 months in office almost to the day today--to address all of the different elements that you have raised in both of your presentations? Is there a plan, and can you share it with us?

[Eli Turk, Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank Committee members for giving me this opportunity to express my views regarding Bill C-311.

The Canadian electricity sector is committed to reducing Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions. The targets approach has been a useful contributor to developing understanding as to the size, cost and complexity of the challenge, but targets need to be set with a reasonable understanding of the strategies necessary to meet those targets.

The Canadian electricity sector is committed to reducing Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions. The targets approach has been a useful contributor to developing understanding as to the size, cost, and complexity of the challenge, but targets need to be set with a reasonable understanding of the strategies necessary to meet those targets. Let me explain.

The central question for the electricity sector is how can we achieve a carbon-reduced future while ensuring that the electricity demand in Canada can be met? As you know, Canada's electricity system is the envy of the world. It is over 75% non-emitting, thanks to hydro and nuclear generation. Only 24% of Canada's electricity fleet is generated from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.

CEA member utilities are already making substantial investments to reduce the carbon intensity of power generation. Hydroelectric projects are either in the planning or construction stages in Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and in B.C. and Yukon. Electricity generated from wind continues to expand, with generation expected to exceed 3,000 megawatts this year. Wind and other forms of micro-generation will be key components of grid modernization and emerging smart grid technologies.

We were particularly pleased to see the Prime Minister's announcement in Calgary two weeks ago on the public-private partnership between the governments of Canada and Alberta on TransAlta's Project Pioneer. Successfully implementing carbon capture and storage is crucial if Canada and the world are to address CO₂ emissions from coal-fired generation. Like many countries, Canada has a plentiful supply of coal in various parts of the country, and CCS has the potential to make coal a carbon-neutral fuel. Canada is leading the world on CCS technology. Once complete, Project Pioneer will be one of the largest CCS facilities in the world and the first to have an integrated underground storage system.

CEA members accept the eventuality of legal constraints on carbon that will change the way the world produces, transmits, and distributes electricity. In many ways, electricity is the energy of the future. Not only is the Canadian electricity sector expected to reduce its own emissions, but we are to help other sectors reduce their emissions. Electric plug-in cars, mass transit in our large urban communities, even gas pipelines, wish to power their compression stations with electricity.

There are uses for electricity in our future that we have never even thought about. To meet these new uses, we need to invest in our electricity infrastructure. We must build new generation that will be reliable and affordable, with either low or nil emissions. We need to look at hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and clean coal: we need them all. We must also look at a smart grid that will provide system flexibility to include more renewables.

We believe Parliament should consider changes to enable the transition to more non-emitting generation based on the economic reality of turning over our capital stock. Equipment in electricity generation, transmission, and distribution is long-lived and amortized over many decades. We take great care in keeping our equipment in top condition in order to keep electricity prices affordable.

It follows that the laws and regulations, as they apply to emitters in the electricity sector, need to be well thought out and fair, and take into consideration the interconnected nature of the electricity system. Also, laws and regulations must provide options for compliance, other than shutting down the plants producing the electricity.

For the electricity industry, any workable climate change policy must include the following. First, it must include an integrated and coordinated energy and environment framework. The climate issue has global, national and regional ramifications, and cooperation and alignment with the U.S. in terms of outcomes is essential. A fragmented approach by various governments is unworkable.

Second, competitiveness with the United States is a necessary consideration. The pace of change and any future investments in cleaner power generation and new technologies must align with our trading partners so that Canadian businesses can remain competitive. We are encouraged by the ongoing clean energy dialogue between Canada and the United States.

Third, we need adequate compliance mechanisms, including a technology fund that drives clean technology investment and deployment, and policies supportive of more electricity use in the economy, including the progressive conversion of the electricity industry from high-emission fuels to low-emission or nil-emission fuels.

Fourth, we need a holistic approach to legislative and regulatory clarity and coherence on energy and environmental issues. Regulatory processes that crosscut energy and environment would reduce delays that currently inhibit the expansion of clean energy infrastructure and stewardship activities.

Fifth, a fair and equitable burden must be allocated among all industries.

Finally, a recognition of the cycle of capital stock turnover in the electricity industry through a focus on retirement or refurbishment of existing plants at the end of their economic life is critical. We support changes that would enable the transition to less-emitting technology-based productions in an economically realistic manner.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind members of the need to respect regional balance. The electricity industry is a microcosm of Canada, with varying interests and realities in different regions of the country. The provinces built the electricity system. A climate change plan that would prescribe strict reductions for coal-fired electricity generation would impact provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Meanwhile, as I stated earlier, Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Manitoba, and B.C. have hydroelectric potential that must be developed.

Clearly these realities of the generation mix in Canada are in many ways a result of geography. It is Canadians who ultimately will pay, and any plans that result in increased costs for some, but not others, will not be accepted by the public. It is perhaps this latter point that is one of the most important, not only for government, but for our industry as a whole. In order to build the electricity system our country will need in the decades to come--to support economic growth and our quality of life--we need broad support from both the public and government.

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank Committee members.

I look forward to having a good conversation.

Thank you.

[Dr. Rick Hyndman, Senior Policy Advisor, Climate Change and Air Issues, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to be able to come and discuss this topic today. I've been working on climate change with CAPP since 1988. I think some of you remember the issue tables process, which was the huge process that got us launched.

We've been working on policies for pricing carbon in Canada since the fall of 2002. So it's been a long time, seven years, since we first started becoming articulate about carbon pricing. CAPP has been supportive of carbon pricing since.... I think our public position was around 2001, 2002. We've been studying ways to make good policy.

I want to give you some comments on how we perceive the greenhouse gas policy and how our perception leads to the position we have adopted.

I'm sure you all know the nature of the greenhouse gas challenge globally: incomes and population are rising dramatically in the developing world, and incomes are rising in the developed world as well. All of that gives rise to an increase in the demand for energy.

Hydrocarbons are the dominant form of energy supply in the world, and our energy comes to us through huge capital-intensive systems that take a long time to put in place and to change. So in light of the dangerous rise in greenhouse gases, the world faces a challenge: to develop future economic alternatives to hydrocarbons, while reducing present hydrocarbon emissions. In the face of the rapidly growing demand for energy, that's no small task.

There are major actions that we need globally to deal with this and try to slow down and reverse the growth in greenhouse gas emissions. First, we need to focus on energy efficiency and conservation so that we can slow down the demand for energy, which is going to happen for some time to come. We need to deploy the existing technologies we have available to us that are economic that can reduce the carbon emissions. More importantly, we need to invest heavily in energy technologies that will get taken up in the developed and the developing world as the demand for energy grows. Finally, we need to reduce global deforestation, which is crucial to the health of the planet and a necessary part of our long-term strategy to transform the global energy system.

Canada must do its share in this global effort, but we've discovered just how different our Canadian circumstances are from those of other developed countries. We have roughly 10% of the world's land mass, with all the resources that go with it. But we have only 0.5% of the world population. So it's no surprise that Canada has a resource-based economy, which depends on resource-intensive industries that are both energy-intensive and emissions-intensive. Canada has high per capita emissions because of our climate and our focus on the resource sector.

Unlike many other developed countries, which are undergoing deindustrialization and have stable populations, we are facing rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions as our economy expands. We're naturally going to look much worse than economies that are deindustrializing and have stable populations. So comparing our efforts in Canada with those of other countries is misleading. In any assessment of our emissions, it is important to take our special circumstances into account.

If we adopt a target relative to history that is similar to what other countries are adopting, we're going to be in a situation where we have an unachievable target relative to these other countries. What that will do is cause us this endless debate that we have seen since the Kyoto Protocol has been signed over how we're going to do this and achieve the impossible, and who's going to pay for it? All of that debate slows us down from actually getting on with what Canada's contribution can be, which is improving efficiency, deploying existing technology, and investing in new technology to deploy and get greater reductions in the future.

So let's just look and see what the target proposed in Bill C-311 actually implies. And I'm just looking at the 2020 target—for me, 2050 is pretty far out and lots of things can change dramatically between now and then. But if we look at the 2020 target of 75% of 1990 emissions, that's 38% below the 2006 emissions, and it's 49% below Environment Canada's projected business as usual--BAU--or current trend emissions for 2020.

Obviously, if we're not going to have a major reduction in economic output or drop in population or incomes per capita in this country, that means we would have to reduce the emission intensity of gross domestic product in this country by large amounts—49%, if we compare the BAU for 2020.

If we just look at some recent trends in the U.S. and Canada to see how significant that is, in the U.S. the carbon intensity of GDP decreased by 2.2% per year from 1980 to 2006. That was overwhelmingly because of the reduction in energy intensity of GD, and only a small amount through fuel switching from hydrocarbons to non-hydrocarbons.

If we look in Canada from 1990 to 2007, the decrease in carbon intensity of GDP was 1.3% per year. If we look at Environment Canada's projection for business as usual for 2020, it's 0.73% per year from now till 2020—that's the anticipated trend improvement in intensity of GDP. So if we're trying to reduce the emissions to the target level from the current level, that's a 6.7%-per-year drop in emissions. And with a growing GDP of, say, 2.1%—which is, I think, in the latest budget information from the government—you add those two together and that would require an improvement in emission intensity of GDP by 8.7% per year.

That's over seven times, roughly seven times, the 1990-2007 improvement, and it's over ten times the BAU anticipated improvement to 2020. That's unprecedented. It's unobserved anywhere else. It is just inconceivable that we could actually improve our GHG intensity over that timeframe by that amount.

We could go and buy foreign credits, hypothetically, so what we don't do here we pay somebody else for doing. But there are a couple of things that stand in the way of that. It assumes that other countries are doing far more than their commitment to improve their GHG performance and have this extra space to sell to us, which begs the question of why we have taken on a commitment or why we would take on a commitment that is so much more onerous that we can't do ours and they have one that they can overperform on.

The second thing is that, if countries like China and India, which are the big industrial developing countries, are actually contributing to the global effort, they're going to need their own reductions for their own commitments. So this idea that there are these gigatonnes of foreign credits floating around that we can buy and thereby meet our commitment, I think, is a bait-and-switch game going on. Most of the informed observers I've run into believe that the amount of foreign credits that will be available when the whole world is actually acting on climate change will be much smaller than what people are assuming in some of these projections.

I think Bill C-311, with its target of 25% below 1990 in 2020, is counterproductive to Canada's getting on with doing our part in the global effort.

What should our GHG policy be?

We need to align with the U.S. in the obvious areas of industry and transportation, given our strong economic ties to the U.S. and our integrated energy systems. So we need to keep in mind that whatever we do, we need to do in a way that is compatible with the U.S. We need to establish a price on carbon emissions. We've been trying to work on that policy, as I said, for seven years with the federal government and some of the provincial governments. We need to increase the price, over time, in line with what the price is set in the U.S. and other major economies. And we need to increase our investment in low-carbon emission technology, especially in those areas that are particularly relevant to the Canadian industry and circumstances.

We need to keep in mind that at the provincial level, Canada has already taken a leadership role. Alberta put in a pricing for large industry emissions in the middle of 2007, and so far it's $15 a tonne for emissions above 88% of their base period intensity. Quebec put in its carbon tax of roughly $3.30 a tonne, covering broad combustion emissions from hydro carbons, and it did that in October 2007. B.C. put in carbon pricing through its broad carbon tax on combustion emissions in July 2008. It started at $10 a tonne, it has gone up to $15 a tonne, and it's headed for $30 a tonne in 2012.

We're already leading. What we need is a national policy on carbon pricing, one that will work together with the provinces, and we need to ramp that policy up in line with what the other major economies are doing. We need to get on with our contribution to the global effort in pricing emissions to drive that efficiency, and investing in technology to be able to provide solutions for Canada and the rest of the world in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to a discussion following Mr. Turk's presentation.

The Environment

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, before the beginning of question period, the hon. member was good enough to provide me with hundreds of tear-off sheets relating to Bill C-311. I now have a better idea of what inspired her generosity.

I would like to assure her that the names, mailing addresses and email addresses that she has provided me with, I will take full advantage of and will correspond with all of those people. I will provide them with details not about the NDP's so-called publicity stunt but rather about the good work that the government is doing on a continental basis, clean energy dialogue, tailpipe emission standards, aviation standards, marine standards, and work on a continental cap and trade system.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday people in 181 countries joined the most significant day of action on climate change in the planet's history. At over 5,000 events, people gathered to call for bold leadership on climate change. Last week, Canada's lead climate scientists asked Parliament to pass Bill C-311 without delay, and re-establish Canada's reputation on climate change.

Will the Minister of the Environment continue to ignore Canadians' demands for timely action, or will the government bring Bill C-311 back to the House for a vote before Copenhagen?

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

It's hard to oppose virtue, but I find it somewhat paradoxical that this motion is being brought forward after study of the bill has already commenced, after we have already heard shocking testimony from scientific experts and after the government has made its position known. I'm not opposed to the motion, but I do hope that the committee will not make a habit of opening the discussion up to the general public after it has begun to study a bill.

I would have preferred to see the motion tabled earlier. We always agreed to have committee meetings televised and to have as few in camera sessions as possible, particularly when the time came to set out the agenda and our list of witnesses on BillC-311. Not every opposition party felt the same way, but I'm pleased today to support this motion, even if it is a little late in coming.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I thank Mr. Trudeau for his motion. I think it's a good one. We'll be supporting it. We want to give Canadians an opportunity to hear from science, industry, economists, all the professional expert witnesses who will be coming here. They need to hear this as we critique Bill C-311. I don't think it's a good bill, but we look forward to Canadians hearing from the witnesses. Having it televised will give them that opportunity.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Yes. The motion is that the meetings in relation to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be televised.

I think the interest generated by the discussions we're having here would be of great interest to Canadians and I think we should. We've talked about it many times before, so I finally moved a concrete motion that we ask the clerk to try to schedule, inasmuch as it is possible within the limits of the House of Commons, that each of these hearings in the future be televised.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

I want to thank the witnesses for your presentations today. It will help us form our study and report and evaluation of Bill C-311. I appreciate your comments and very frank discussion, Mr. Martin.

Thanks for joining us, Dr. Cooper and Ms. Buckley. We appreciated your input today as well.

We do have a notice of motion to consider from Mr. Trudeau. Would you like to read that into the record.?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I find it interesting that all the questions, even from the NDP, had nothing to do with Bill C-311. It was all about Copenhagen. It's also ironic that the NDP voted against the budget and the commitment of millions of dollars for clean energy. They voted against that.

The focus is on Copenhagen. There's great interest in that. We heard on Tuesday, as I said before, from the scientists on the importance of having a North American approach. The target we take to Copenhagen is a North American target of a 20% reduction by 2020. We heard from scientists that it's good to have a coordinated approach.

You talked at length about comparable efforts from other countries. The North American commitment of a 20% reduction is comparable globally as we globally tackle the issue of climate change. What are Canada's key priorities as we go into Copenhagen? What is the approach of the major emitters, such as China, India, and other developing countries, towards these negotiations?

It's critical that we have all the players participating. As you highlighted, one of the weaknesses in Kyoto was that we did not have the major emitters participating. To have a successful, effective agreement you have to have the major emitters. What are our key priorities, and what's the approach of China, India, and other developing countries?

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

You always refer to a continental policy and give the United States as an example. To my way of thinking, the United States have a regime in place that often allows them to negotiate agreements with the different states.

Does the regime that you intend to put forward in the coming weeks on the eve of the Copenhagen Conference take into account the fact that bilateral agreements may be concluded with provinces that pledge to uphold Canada's international commitments? Will some provision be made for flexibility, asymmetry and bilateral relations mechanisms, or will Canada put forward a coast to coast plan setting out different national global targets for different sectors? Will there be the kind of flexibility that we see in BillC-311 that will allow provinces to conclude a bilateral agreement? When the Liberals were in power and Stéphane Dion was Minister of the Environment, the federal government had the option of concluding a bilateral agreement with Quebec. Discussions had taken place between the then federal and provincial ministers of the environment. Will the proposed regime give Quebec the flexibility to conclude a bilateral agreement on greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments?

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

I seem to recall, Mr. Chair, a province addressing a gathering of the Conference of the Parties. A precedent has been set and a minister should not be prevented from addressing the Conference of the Parties, instead of simply being relegated to the role of observer, all the more so given that Quebec has adopted one of the most ambitious stands of all on climate change.

I'd like to get back to the subject of BillC-311. You say that if Canada were to adopt this legislation, it would likely be one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation ever developed by an industrialized country. That's what you appear to be telling us. The bill may be ambitious, but do you also think it is unrealistic?

[Michael Martin]

I want to be clear on the numbers. The policy commitment is for a 20% reduction. The 38% you're referring to relates to what the 2020 target proposed in Bill C-311 would represent.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to our witnesses for appearing here.

I was going to be asking a question on comparable efforts, but I think you've handled that one quite well. I appreciate the question from my colleague Mr. Braid on the weakness with respect to Kyoto. Of course we don't want to make the same mistake of having a target that is proven unrealistic. I know there are those who will criticize us for our desire to come up with a realistic target this particular time. That's some of the discussion we're having around Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. We're asking if it's a realistic target for Canada, one that recognizes some of our unique factors. Choosing a target that is obviously unrealistic or unattainable will both discourage immediate action and could promote failure in the long run. So I think this is a very valuable discussion to have.

In that line you've talked about a pathway for Canada. What are some of the factors that influence Canada's pathway for coming up with a target that's going to be ambitious but realistic, something that we can actually envision attaining?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I have a specific question on Bill C-311. Does it contain an integrated North American approach, and is that important?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you.

We had testimony earlier this week, on Tuesday, from some of the lead climate scientists of Canada—Dr. Stone, Dr. Sauchyn, Dr. Fortier—and all those scientists called on the government to pass Bill C-311, and pass it expeditiously before Copenhagen, because they felt that it would be very instrumental in helping to move along the negotiations at Copenhagen and that it would improve the credibility of Canadian scientists.

How much are you relying on the opinion of Canadian climate scientists in forming the government position at this table?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is nice to see you again, Mr. Martin. I don't think I've seen you since Poznan.

Dr. Cooper, it's great to see you back with us again. I appreciate your testimony on tar sands and water. Welcome back.

Welcome, Dr. Buckley.

My first couple of questions are for you, Mr. Martin.

You have clearly read Bill C-311. You reiterated a couple of sections. In developing your negotiation position and your position at the table, are you also endorsing the preamble of Bill C-311? It states:

climate change poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources and environment of Canada; the impacts of climate change are already unfolding in Canada, particularly in the Arctic; scientific research on the impacts of climate change has led to broad agreement that an increase in the global average surface temperature of two degrees Celsius or more above the level prevailing at the start of the industrial period would constitute dangerous climate change; and scientific research has also identified the atmospheric concentration levels at which greenhouse gases must be stabilized in order to stay within two degrees of global warming and thereby prevent dangerous climate change;

In the negotiation position of Canada, do you accept what is stated in the preamble of Bill C-311?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for enlightening us about Bill C-311 and the ongoing international negotiations on climate change.

I am somewhat disappointed with your presentation and with your testimony. At best, you tend to blow hot and cold. On page 3 of your submission, you state that Canada recognizes the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed two degrees Celsius. You acknowledge that fact. That is the positive side.

On the negative side, you refuse to commit to reducing emissions to a level that is at least 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020, despite the scientific evidence. You acknowledge the scientific evidence, but you are only prepared to reduce emissions to a level that is 3% below 1990 levels.

How can Canada's position be so diametrically opposed to that of the scientific community? How is it that you recognize the existence of scientific evidence, but that you refuse to make any real commitments?

[Michael Martin, Chief Negotiator, Climate Change Negotiations Office, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am honoured to be here with you today. I am joined at the table by Mr. John Cooper, Director of the Water, Air and Climate Change Bureau at Health Canada, and Ms. Carol Buckley, Director General of Canada's Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada.

With your permission, I would like to start by making a brief statement providing some observations on specific sections of Bill C-311. My colleagues and I will then be pleased to respond to questions.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Bill define a long-term emissions reduction pathway for Canada by means of a target plan with an ambitious medium-term target of a reduction of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and a long-term target of an 90% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.

The concept of a long-term emissions reduction pathway is already reflected in Canadian government policy. As you know, the government has defined a pathway that would reduce Canada's GHG emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 and by 60% to 70% by 2050. As a point of comparison, current legislative proposals in the United States also define a long-term pathway for U.S. emission reductions of 17% to 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.

In the current UN climate change negotiations, Canada and the United States have both supported the idea, consistent with the imperative of achieving deep global reductions in emissions, that all countries should articulate a long-term emission reduction pathway. Each country's pathway would guide national policy-making and help to provide a clearer sense of global emission trends.

This recognition of the importance of long-term pathways was reflected last July in the outcome of the G8 summit in Italy. Canada and other G8 countries recognized the broad scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees Celsius. Further, G8 leaders reiterated their support for a long-term global goal of at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by 2050 and, as part of this, also supported a goal of developed countries reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate of 80% or more by 2050 compared to 1990 or more recent years.

As I noted, clause 6 of Bill C-311 clearly requires the Minister of the Environment to define a long-term emissions reduction pathway in the form of an interim target plan for the years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045 leading to the target for 2050 described in paragraph 5(a). I note as well that paragraph 5(b) defines a target for 2020, to be “valid prior to the target plan referred to in subsection 6(1), to a level that is 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020.” This proposed 2020 target would represent a 38% reduction in Canadian emissions below 2006 levels, which would be one of the most ambitious of any developed country, in particular given Canada's strongly growing population.

New emission reduction commitments by developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the post-2012 period are a key issue in the current negotiations. These commitments are likely to take the form of quantified, economy-wide emission reductions for the eight-year period 2013 to 2020. At Bali in 2007, Canada and other parties agreed that the negotiations on these new emission reduction commitments by developed countries should reflect “comparable efforts”. This concept, which has its origins in article 4.2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, suggests that developed countries should each make a fair contribution to the aggregate emission reduction effort by developed countries based on their national circumstances and their mitigation potential.

In the government's view, the key consideration of any assessment of comparable efforts is cost. An important assumption in any calculations of cost is the extent to which the reductions would be achieved domestically and what percentage would be achieved through the use of international offset credits. It is the view of the government that its 2020 target is comparable to that being proposed by other developed countries, in particular given the fact that it does not assume significant purchase of international offset credits.

Finally, I would note that clause 9 of Bill C-311 suggests that Canada's positions in all international climate change discussions and in all negotiations must be “fully consistent with meeting the commitment made under section 5 and the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6”. I expect Canada will bind its 2020 target internationally as an outcome of the current negotiations. I would note that Canada's commitment to achieve a 20% reduction in GHG emissions below 2006 levels by 2020 is not conditional. Similarly, based on the language of Bill C-311, I assume the proposed 2020 target of the 25% reduction below 1990 levels would not include conditions.

It strikes me as unlikely that Canada would be able to revise the proposed 2020 target once announced internationally, unless we plan to adopt an even more ambitious target. Therefore, the 2020 target in paragraph 5(b) would not readily be subject to revision through the process described in clause 6. If the 2020 target in Bill C-311 were to be dependent upon the purchase of international offset credits, there may be some risks, including in terms of the costs of compliance associated with such an unconditional commitment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I call this meeting to order.

We're getting off to a late start here. We will still try to have as close as possible to a two-hour meeting. We're going to continue on with our study of Bill C-311. This is meeting number 33.

We are welcoming to the table today Michael Martin, who is the chief negotiator for the climate change negotiations office, Department of the Environment. We also have, from the Department of Natural Resources, Carol Buckley, who is the director general in the office of energy efficiency. Joining us from the Department of Health is John Cooper, the director of the water, air and climate change bureau in the safe environments directorate. Welcome, all three of you.

Because these are public servants that we have, I want to draw everyone's attention again to Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 864, which says:

...public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions.

I want to remind you guys of that again, so, please, when we get into our questioning, keep in mind that we follow the rules.

I'd like to kick it off then. Who is going to speak first?

Mr. Martin, you have the floor.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will vote on whether or not to further delay Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

I would like to read from an open letter sent to all members of the House by Nature Canada, Climate Action Network Canada, World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, and more than 40 other organizations. It reads in part:

The climate crisis represents the most urgent challenge of our time. Failure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to catastrophic changes in our climate, threatening millions of people...Less than two months before international talks in Copenhagen, you have a historic opportunity and responsibility to prevent a climate catastrophe.

We are asking all Members of Parliament to join together to ensure that Bill C-311 is passed by the House before the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen [this December].

I urge members to listen to Canadians from across our country and to show real Canadian leadership on the world stage.

[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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think whenever we talk about the severity of the problem of climate change and the impact of climate change, we're really preaching to the converted. I think everyone at this table understands that it's a real problem and that it's having ravaging consequences--drought, declining water levels, and so on and so forth.

I think that discussion is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. We're here more to establish whether the targets in the bill that we're studying are realistic for Canada to achieve, given the constraints that we have presently.

I would like to ask the scientists here a political question. And you may say, well, that's off-base, but you are scientists engagés. You're involved in the political process, and you've made political statements about the dynamics of the Copenhagen process.

Dr. Stone, you said we need ambitious targets above all to galvanize the Canadian public. That's a political statement. Those are the kinds of statements that politicians make. So I think this is a fair question.

Do you believe, if this bill were to be passed on December 11 by the House of Commons, that this government, especially a government that has a fairly stubborn reputation when it comes to environmental issues, in fact all issues, would change its negotiating position at Copenhagen because a day prior or a week prior or a month prior the House of Commons passed Bill C-311?

[Prof. John Stone]

Thank you.

I'm afraid that I'm only going to be able to give you a partial solution, limited by my own expertise.

I think you're right in your implication that Bill C-311, in itself, will not achieve what we want to achieve. But to my view it is an essential first ingredient, that if we are going to set this country on a path to addressing climate change, then the first place to start is by setting an ambitious goal, an ambitious target, a target that will galvanize Canadians as individuals, Canadian industry, and Canadian governments at all levels.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of the witnesses who have come to appear before us today. I want to say at the outset that I appreciate the sincerity with which each of you has made your case. I would never for a moment question that sincerity, although, in all honesty, I have to tell you that I find your presentations to be lacking in a singular respect. I accept for myself, at least, that you have raised the alarm well and truly. There's no doubt in my mind about the problem of global warming and the fact that we have to do something about it. And I am on the search and on the lookout for practical and achievable solutions.

Once again, today, I've heard very little about achievable solutions. Simply setting targets, as Bill C-311 does, achieves absolutely nothing in itself. There's evidence of the awful cost of not taking some steps, but there's virtually no evidence on the cost of competing solutions. In one respect I find that rather odd, but I think I understand it.

When I ask the government for what solutions it proposes, I hear about progress in tailpipe emissions, extending hydroelectric grids, investments in renewable energy programs, research in carbon capture and sequestration, literally billions of dollars in green energy investments, improvements in resource extraction techniques, money to the provinces to close down coal-fired generators, biofuel incentives, automotive innovation grants, home retrofit incentives, and persuading international emitters like the U.S.A. that it's economically feasible.

Bill C-311 contains absolutely no plan whatsoever.

I would like to begin by asking Dr. Stone, what specific scientific measures would you put in a bill that would have the effect of actually reducing greenhouse gases in Canada? And could you tell me, for each of those measures, how many dollars would be required to devote to that particular solution?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to focus specifically on Bill C-311. My question would be for all of you.

Mr. Fortier, I like Rex Murphy. I don't agree with him on everything, but I think we....

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

My opinion is exactly the same. What are we going to say in Copenhagen? We have absolutely no power, no clout, no.... We're not in the game in Copenhagen, as long as we haven't ratified or developed a bill like that to force Canada to take some action.

It's impossible, but suppose we adopted Bill C-311 before Copenhagen. We could then walk into the meetings with something to say: Yes, we caved. We are going to participate. We are going to move ahead with that. This is what we think should be done.

Then we would have a voice. Until then, we don't have a voice in those meetings.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank all four gentlemen for testifying. I know that you're very busy scientists. I appreciate your taking time away from the important work you're doing on documenting and bringing forward the issues that are being attached to climate change to testify to us and try to influence our opinion. I consider your testimony extremely valuable.

My first question I would put to Dr. Fortier and Dr. Stone, but Dr. Sauchyn and Dr. Zwiers can feel free to elaborate as well.

I think it was you, Dr. Fortier, who mentioned that the failure of Canada to commit to the science-based targets as laid out in Bill C-311 and as put forward by the IPCC has impacted our international reputation and competitiveness. Based on what I've read and the international conferences I've appeared at, that opinion seems to be backed up by a wide range of groups, including the International Energy Agency, UNEP, and the Copenhagen Climate Council. So that certainly seems to be a growing common view.

If Canada committed to these targets in Bill C-311, would that help to begin to restore our international stature at those tables?

[Prof. Louis Fortier]

Actually, you can find several plans in Canada. There is one for each of the provinces.

For example, in Quebec we have a plan to reduce emissions and try to mitigate the impacts that will have on society and everything. You can also consult the plans that each of the American states are producing.

So there are a lot of plans. The common denominator to all those plans is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, like the one proposed in Bill C-311.

[Dr. David Sauchyn, Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak to you.

The preamble to Bill C-311 accurately describes climate change as a serious threat to Canada. In fact, it is also a threat to people in environments worldwide; and Canada, with its high per capita emissions, contributes to that threat.

My remarks today will be based largely on our work at the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative in Regina, where we study climate change and its impacts on western Canada and the adaptation that's required to avoid the most adverse impacts. This work makes a strong case for efforts to prevent further global warming, and thus supports the intent of Bill C-311.

Our work clearly demonstrates that current climate change and most of the impacts are largely caused by human activities, that the impacts in the near future are potentially serious and costly, and that the degree of adaptation required, and therefore its cost and feasibility, will depend on the amount of global warming that we allow to occur.

I have some information about the IPCC fourth assessment report, but given that you've heard from two experts who are involved in that process, I will skip that information and keep our remarks to well under 10 minutes. I will add only that the fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007, synthesized the state of knowledge of global climate change up to the year 2006. Since then, various updates of climate science have concluded that not only are the impacts of climate change occurring as predicted by the IPCC, but also that they are occurring at a faster rate than was forecast in 2007.

That's the extent of my remarks about the IPCC. I want to move instead to the Canadian assessment, to this big, thick report that you all should have read, or at least you should have read the thin synthesis for decision-makers. This is in both official languages...and this is only one language.

This report was released in March 2008. Over 3,000 studies that pertain to Canada were synthesized by 145 authors. Our chapters were reviewed by 110 scientific experts and government officials.

I will mention only four of our conclusions: first, that the impacts of a changing climate are already evident in every region of Canada; second, that climate change presents new risks and opportunities to Canada; third, that climate change impacts elsewhere in the world will affect Canadians; and fourth, that the impacts of recent extreme weather events highlight the vulnerability of Canadian communities and critical infrastructure.

Canada is a major contributor to the problem in terms of our per capita emissions, but we also have more capacity and incentive to respond to climate change than most nations, if not all. Our capacity is a function of our great natural, social, and intellectual wealth. The many incentives for responding include new economic and technological opportunities on the path to sustainable communities, sustainable ecosystems, and a sustainable economy.

Another major incentive is avoiding cost and risk. All of Canada is at risk.

The highest rates of observed and projected warming in the world are in the northern hemisphere at high latitudes, high altitudes, and in the continental interiors. Thus, Canada's north and the western interior are among the most vulnerable regions on earth. Of course, these regions have Canada's largest indigenous populations, and thus our most vulnerable communities.

By our very human nature, we would prefer a simple world that doesn't change. As Dr. Fortier said, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we would prefer a predictable and stable world. The climate change deniers capitalize on these basic human instincts by telling us what we'd like to believe--that things are fine and that we don't have to do anything. However, they tend to grossly oversimplify the science and diminish the problem, while exaggerating the costs of reducing our carbon footprint.

There are a few complexities to the science that are important to understand, so please bear with me. Dr. Zwiers has already mentioned the carbon cycle feedbacks whereby a warmer climate tends to release more carbon from natural sources, but I want to mention a couple of other feedbacks.

First of all, the extra greenhouse gases that we are producing are triggering global warming, but they account for only a part, and in some cases only a small part, of the projected warming. That's because a warmer atmosphere and warmer oceans trigger a web of interactions and feedbacks that mostly amplify the warming. Probably the best example anywhere is in the Arctic, where the so-called ice-albedo feedback can increase the rate of global warming up to threefold. That's the process by which permanent snow and ice cover are rapidly diminishing, so that less radiation is reflected back into space and more is absorbed to warm the land, the Arctic Ocean, and the overlying air.

When you consider that some climate change scenarios project global warming of up to 4.5°C, three times that, or 12.5°C, would be catastrophic for the Arctic.

The other major feedback I want to mention affects Canada's other vast vulnerable region, which is out here, the western interior, where we have more than 80% of Canada's agricultural land. With global warming, there is increased evaporation from the oceans and higher humidity in the atmosphere. As Dr. Zwiers mentions, this increase in water vapour accounts for more precipitation over land, but it also traps more heat. You just have to think about the difference in early morning temperatures between a cloudy and a clear night.

This humidity feedback accounts for the forecast of more rain in the west, but in fact we also expect more drought. That's because most of the extra heat and water is occurring in winter, but we grow things during the warm, dry part of the year, in summer. So it's an important scientific detail to understand that the influence of this humidity feedback is to amplify the warming in western Canada in particular, but also to intensify the natural variability.

Canada already has one of the world's most variable climates, especially in the west. Therefore, the threat from climate change is not so much a change in the average climate but an increase in the variability.

About this new average and the more extreme weather--and in particular, in the west, drought--drought is Canada's most costly climate hazard. For example, the most recent drought of 2001-02 caused crop losses of $3.6 billion and a drop in GDP in western Canada of $4.5 billion. This kind of volatility can never be managed away. It challenges our capacity to adapt. Therefore, the best strategy is to simply avoid it, to simply prevent the global warming that is projected to cause an increase in the severity and frequency of drought.

I thank you for indulging in this simple science lesson. I think it's important, because I want you to appreciate how, by supporting policy that limits greenhouse gas emissions, you are taking your finger off the trigger of a cascade of processes and feedbacks that have some potentially unfortunate consequences.

Thank you.

[Professor Louis Fortier, Scientific Director, Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet, Laval University, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, committee members,

thank you for hearing me on Bill C-311.

I would like to raise three points which, I hope, will demonstrate the political and socio-economic importance of the bill, as well as its excellent timing given what is happening in the world today.

For the first point, allow me to be somewhat blunt. In recent years, Canada's abysmal record in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions has had terrible impacts on our international stature as a country. We plummeted from the enviable position of world leader on environmental issues in the early 1990s to a reputation of a foot-dragging crony of the U.S.A.

Now that the U.S.A. and Australia have made a clear about-face, Canada is left in the cold, collecting fossil prizes at each international meeting.

Based on many conferences presented to the general public, let me assure you that this resistance and the resulting international disapproval are insufferable to many Canadians who are genuinely concerned with climate change. Bill C-311 would certainly help rebuild Canada's international stature in the stewardship of the global environment.

Second and perhaps more important, the 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which would be imposed by Bill C-311, would necessarily require a complete and crucial transformation of the Canadian economy. We will have to either buy at great cost or develop ourselves the technology and the infrastructure to shift from an economy rooted in cheap petrol and the gas engine to an economy based on renewable energies and the electric car.

This is the direction that the modern world is taking now. Canada is already losing ground to several countries, such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, which are taking aggressive measures to wean themselves off fossil fuels. These are countries that will soon dominate the world's economy, thanks to immensely more efficient and competitive industries. For example, it is forecasted that 30% of the one billion vehicles that will roam the planet by 2030 will be hybrid or fully electric cars and will be charged from electric grids powered primarily by solar energy.

Based on the fact that it took about 10 years to replace the horse with the automobile, I personally think and hope that this transformation will take place even faster. How will Canada position itself in this new electro-solar economy? We have the engineering skills and the industrial basis to take some leadership.

For example, researchers at the Institut de recherches en électricité du Québec have just developed a lithium battery that can be recharged at unprecedented rates, thus making possible a wide-autonomy all-electric car.

Are we going to wait for the Americans and the Japanese to develop these new technologies for us, or are we going to encourage the development of our own capacity to wean our society from fossil fuels, thereby fulfilling at the same time our climate responsibilities and making Canada an exporter rather than an importer of this new technology?

The alternative of fossilizing Canada in the fossil fuel-based economy will be suicidal as the era of cheap oil comes to an end. It would lead to the degradation of the Canadian economy that would parallel the decline of the Soviet economies in the second half of the last century. Bill C-311 would certainly force Canada to make the right choice between competitiveness and fossilization.

Third, I would like to stress that the fate of Bill C-311 will hinge to some extent on whether or not at the time of the vote MPs are convinced of the reality of dangerous climate change. Now, like the severed heads of the mythological Hydra, the unbalanced debate on the reality of climate change is perpetually growing back in the media.

For example, just last Friday in his very popular editorial, Mr. Rex Murphy again steered the debate by referring to a BBC report that pointed out that despite rising carbon dioxide levels, global temperatures have not risen over the past 10 years. Mr. Murphy's prose smacked of contempt when assimilating scientists to the zealots of some climate change religion.

It is important to point out that for scientists, the reality of climate warming is not an issue of fate. It's an issue of hard data, hard fact. Like any other citizens, scientists all wish climate change would go away and would no longer threaten our future and that of our children. However, the hard scientific facts are that despite some expected decadal fluctuations, global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

Decadal interludes in rising global temperatures and in the declining trend in Arctic sea ice cover have occurred before, but except for those who crave to disillusion themselves, there is absolutely no basis in the recent data to feel confident that global warming is over with.

While Mr. Murphy puts much confidence in the BBC report written by a journalist, what does he make of the recent warning by U.K. climate scientists that the 2°C warming over the next 40 years—on which the Copenhagen discussions will be based—is overly optimistic and that a 4°C increase must be envisaged instead?

This is what I mean by an unbalanced debate, in which a journalist has more weight than several dozen climate specialists.

My point here is that while the debate on climate change is certainly healthy, Bill C-311 is utterly crucial for Canada's international stature and our economic future—as I tried to explain in my first two points. Hence, MPs ought to base their work on the bill and vote on it based on verified scientific consensus rather than on the flavour of the day in the never-ending debate over climate warming.

Thank you.

[Professor John Stone, Adjunct Research Professor, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, As an Individual]

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Much of what I have to say is based on the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, although I will provide some updated information where it suggests that the need to act is becoming more urgent. My remarks focus on the long term and the immediate future.

Emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise and are now growing at 3.5% per year. In fact, emissions for the last few years have been larger than the worst-case scenario developed by the IPCC in their Special Report on Emissions Scenarios in 2000. This worst-case scenario projects carbon dioxide concentrations in 2100 of almost four times pre-industrial levels with global temperatures around 4°C. We certainly don't want to go there. The impacts could be catastrophic.

Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are indeed continuing to grow. Currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide—the most important greenhouse gas—is almost 390 parts per million, which is a 38% increase since pre-industrial times and the highest it has been in almost one million years. The annual rate in increase in the 1990s was about 1.5% per year; it is now close to 2.5%. This carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere for many centuries. As it does, it will continue to trap heat and warm the planet.

As a result of these changes, global average temperatures have risen. Global average temperatures are now outside the range observed over the last 1,300 years. The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than at present for an extended period, there was little ice at the poles, and sea levels were four to six metres higher. What is more troubling is that the linear warming trend over the last 50 years is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. In other words, the closer one comes to the present, the more the rate of increase of global temperatures increases.

There are other indications that climate change may be accelerating. Closer to home—I'm sure Louis Fortier will elaborate—the Arctic sea ice is declining faster than any of our models has been projecting. The reduction in 2007 was unprecedented in the period for which we have reliable, comprehensive measurements. In some estimations, late summer Arctic sea ice could disappear almost entirely within the next few decades rather than by the end of the century, as was previously thought. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting faster than we have seen before, and we have been forced to entirely rethink our understanding of glacier physics. As a result, current projections of sea level rise are as much as twice that reported in the IPCC's fourth assessment report.

All of this suggests to me that we have to act, and act urgently, to address the threat of climate change. Time is not on our side. An explicit long-term goal is regarded as being absolutely essential. Without such a goal, none of us—individuals, businesses, and other levels of government—will have a clear direction for policy and action. Such a goal must be strong enough to stimulate the necessary ambition.

But this is not enough. We also need short- and medium-term objectives. Once each short-term objective is achieved, decisions on subsequent steps can be made in the light of new knowledge and reduced uncertainties.

Ideally, the choice of a long-term goal is the product of solid science and wise political decision-making. Science can inform the process, but in the end it depends on what we value, and this is best determined through a political process.

It is estimated that if we stabilized concentrations of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at roughly the equivalent of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide, we could limit global mean temperature increases to about 2°C above pre-industrial levels.

Such a stabilization level, however, implies concentrations of carbon dioxide alone of 350 to 400 parts per million, which has to be compared with today's level of 390 parts per million. Clearly it's going to be difficult now to meet this goal without some overshoot from which we will have to recover.

There is a growing consensus that indeed we should try to avoid such an increase of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, in order to avoid what the framework convention refers to as “dangerous interference with the climate”. We have already seen an increase of 0.7°C, and in order to achieve this goal it is estimated that global greenhouse gas emissions will have to peak before 2015 and be at least at 50% of current levels by 2050.

These are global numbers, and achieving these low-emission scenarios requires a comprehensive global mitigation effort. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report contains some estimates of what this would possibly mean for industrialized countries. Countries like Canada will need to reduce their emissions in 2020 by 25% to 40% below 1990 levels and in 2050 by approximately 80% to 95%. These ranges cover the levels suggested in Bill C-311. Emissions in developing countries, on the other hand, would need to start to be below their current business-as-usual emissions pathways by 2020 and be substantially below these pathways by 2050. Such a commitment was made recently by the Chinese premier, at the United Nations meeting on climate change in New York.

Now let me switch briefly to the other end of the spectrum and talk about what we have to do now.

Very simply, time is running out. What we do in the next decade or so will be critical to tackling the long-term threat of climate change. Decisions to delay emission reductions will likely be more costly and riskier. Delaying decisions will seriously constrain opportunities to achieve future low stabilization levels and raise the risk of progressively more severe climate change impacts.

It's been estimated that each 10-year delay in mitigation implies an additional 0.2°C to 0.3°C of warming over the next 100 to 400 years. Because of the inertia of the climate system, there is at present already approximately 0.6°C of additional warming, as it were, in the bank. Together with the warming we've already experienced of 0.7°C, this gets us perilously close already to the 2°C target.

As the IPCC has stated, evidence of climate change is unequivocal. The scientific community has issued a warning, a warning that may now be underestimated. Addressing climate change will be a long-term challenge, but one we must start addressing now. There is no excuse for inaction. The climate has a memory, and it will not let us forget.

To conclude, let me quote from the World Development Report 2010 issued recently by the World Bank, which says we need to “act now, act together, and act differently”.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Order. We're ready to go.

We're going to kick off our meeting, which is meeting number 32, resuming the study of Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. This is pursuant to the order of reference that was given on Wednesday, April 1, 2009.

I want to welcome those who are joining us today at committee.

John Stone is an adjunct research professor in the department of geography and environmental studies at Carleton University.

We also have Francis Zwiers. He is with the climate research division at the Department of the Environment.

We have Louis Fortier, who is scientific director with the Network of Centres of Excellence ArcticNet at Laval University.

Joining us by video conference from Regina is David Sauchyn, research professor at Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina.

Welcome, all. It's great having all of you here.

I ask that all of you keep your opening presentations to under ten minutes. I will signal to you when we're getting close to ten minutes, if you're pushing it. But to be fair to the committee, we want to have a fulsome discussion in the two hours we have slated.

With that, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Stone.

Please go ahead.

Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability Act

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will do my best to say what I need to within five minutes then.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to the motion with respect to Bill C-311, which alone is a bad bill, and now the motion proposes to split it and make two bad bills from the same one.

I am very concerned for a number of reasons. One is that one of the bills that is proposed would short-circuit fulsome debate on very serious matters by restricting the amount of time available to committee members. That is a very serious thing.

Just today after the hearing opened on Bill C-311, the committee heard from Bob Page, who is the chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He said some very important things.

Primary among them, he said that industry or manufacturing in Ontario would be particularly hard hit by a bill like Bill C-311. We can see evidence that this is a bad bill and of course that is one of the reasons we need to debate it in a fulsome measure. It is one of the reasons I will be voting against this motion.

That brings up the question, of what Bill C-311 or what these two incarnations of it ultimately mean to the auto industry, which is a very significant question and one in which, I will remind the New Democrats, the taxpayers of this country are sharing in a very critical time, through a difficult restructuring of the industry in the hopes of having a good future for that industry to the tune of $10 billion. That is a very significant investment, one which the taxpayers deserve a return on investment for, instead of another kick to the industry, hoping to take it down, as the NDP is proposing to do.

Since the New Democrat MPs from Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh will not stand in their places and stand up for the auto industry by voting against this motion or against Bill C-311, I am going to have to do it.

I should point out for the record I am not surprised that those two NDP members would be voting against the auto industry by supporting this motion. They have a history of voting against the priorities of the Windsor-Essex region. They voted against the historic infrastructure stimulus funding that we have just announced. They have voted against billions of dollars, potentially, for a new border crossing for our region that would be good for the auto industry and its economic competitiveness, and of course they voted against the automotive aid itself.

Why do we need to consider this? We heard Mr. Page today in committee very clearly say that harmonization is the important way to go with respect to our targets and actions. He said harmonization was important because the economic competitiveness or the cost of operating will be a serious consideration for industry and where it locates. If we take a position that is clearly isolated from not only the United States but other major industrial countries in the world, that would be horrible for industry and the future of blue collar workers in this country.

What did he say? We also need to consider this in light of the fact that we are in tough economic times. That changes the affordability question for a lot of industries moving forward. Mr. Page said that we have to consider whether appropriate technologies required to reduce emissions can be deployed quickly enough. That is a serious consideration for the auto industry.

I am surprised that the NDP, which has long pretended to stand up for blue collar workers in this country, would turn its back on them with an irresponsible and bad bill like this. It is bad. It puts the future of the auto industry in serious jeopardy in this country. Shame on it. I expect NDP members to stand in their place and vote against this motion.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the member for his very thoughtful and very informed speech on Bill C-311. He is to be commended for the hard work he has done on the issue of climate change for the entire time he has been in office in this House, and I thank him.

I would like to ask the member if he could elaborate on the issue that the Conservatives keep raising, that we should be moving in sync on policy with our trading partners. If that is the case, then why are we not following the moves of our trading partner Japan, which we are inviting to our country for the G20, and our trading partner Britain, which we are inviting to our country as part of the G20?

The United Kingdom has announced a target of 26% by 2020. Japan has announced a target of 25% by 2020. Yes, indeed, it is true, the targets that were issued originally by the inter-party panel are being questioned. The inter-party panel in this year's report is saying that those targets are not strict enough. They are not deep enough. We are going to have to do more.

The International Energy Agency has said the way out of the economic recession around the world, the way to address climate change simultaneously is to shift investment towards a new green economy. What is the prime trigger? It is regulation. Where is the legislation that this House has tabled? Where are the regulations that this minister has tabled? Even Shell Canada asked yesterday, “Where are the regulations?”

I would appreciate the member's response.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the motion presented by my colleague from Vancouver East. The motion seeks to divide Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

A little context is needed to explain why we are looking at Bill C-311 today. I was in Kyoto in 1997. When I was elected 12 years ago to this House, that was one of the first parliamentary missions I went on in 1997 and it allowed me to better understand climate change and its impact not only on the environment, but also on future economic systems.

I remember the debates we had in the House. We had the Liberal Party on the other side of the House and on this side, the official opposition's side, we had members from the Canadian Alliance, not the Conservative Party but the Canadian Alliance, which later became the Reform Party and then the Progressive Conservative Party. It ended up dropping the word “progressive” and simply became the Conservative Party. Nonetheless, throughout all these name changes, which are just superficial changes, the fundamental political philosophy of that party's members stayed the same. In other words, the members, who are now the government, do not believe or have a hard time believing in the very existence of climate change.

I remember in 1997 the debates we had here in this House when the members of the Canadian Alliance denied the existence of climate change. They thought climate change was a natural phenomenon, that mankind was not responsible for the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that human activity was not responsible for the chaos that was to come a few years later.

Twelve years later, the impact of climate change is omnipresent. Extreme weather events take place constantly and spontaneously and are recurrent in certain areas, Asia and Indonesia for example. Consequently, on the basis of the scientific reports of the International Panel for Climate Change, it is with confidence that we can officially state today in this House, 12 years later, that the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party and the current government were wrong and that in 99% of cases, global warming is caused by human activity.

I am returning to that moment in time because it is the very basis for this government's political position on the fight against climate change. Today, what we are first asking this government to do is to recognize that in the next few years we must prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 ^oC above pre-industrial era temperatures.

According to the models and figures presented by the International Panel for Climate Change, temperatures could increase by 3 to 4%. Scientists are telling us that if temperatures rise by more than 2^o C, our climate could run amok. That is at the very core of the bill being introduced. Bill C-311 clearly states in the preamble that Canadian targets, plans, policies and programs to combat climate change must be based on scientific facts and evidence. That is the first thing. There is proof that the government does not acknowledge these scientific facts. I have probably attended 10 international climate change conferences and Canada has tried to trivialize the reports of the International Panel for Climate Change. The government wants these reports to be a mere addendum; it wants to hide them. Why?

Quite simply because the government does not want to follow the scientists' second recommendation, which says that to limit the rise in global temperature to 2 ^oC above that of the pre-industrial period, industrialized nations must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% to 40% relative to 1990 levels by 2020. That is the commitment Canada should make today. Instead of trying to set aside Bill C-311 on the pretext that it makes no sense, the government should first recognize the scientific evidence, then make a commitment to reduce emissions, as the scientists suggest.

But what is the government proposing to do? First, it is proposing to use 2005 or 2006 as the base year, instead of 1990. Moreover, instead of setting absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, it is proposing to set targets per unit of production. But the problem with this approach is that, although we may reduce our emissions per unit of production, if production goes up, emissions will as well. It does not take a degree in math and econometrics to understand this model.

Why does the government want to use 2005 or 2006 as the base year? Why is it refusing to set absolute targets, preferring intensity targets instead? The answer is simple: it wants to protect certain political, electoral and economic interests, primarily in western Canada. The government's measures are designed to protect the oil sands industry, which creates so much pollution that Canada ranks as one of the worst polluters on the planet in the national reports submitted to the conference of the parties on climate change.

The government believes that science-based targets would come at a disastrous economic cost, as it stated again recently. But the government does not understand one thing: the economy and the environment are connected, and any dramatic change in our ecosystems, especially fragile ones, as a result of higher temperatures will have a direct impact on our economic life.

Developing countries are often food producers; they produce many agricultural products. This morning I was again reading a study by the International Food Policy Research Institute, which estimates that climate change will have a direct impact on what we eat. The price of wheat is expected to increase by 194%, and that of rice by 121%. Yields of these two crops will decrease by 30% and 15% respectively.

So imposing strict rules to fight climate change is not what will cause an economic catastrophe, but rather inaction. Indeed, it will jeopardize our ecosystems. We risk seeing a considerable increase in the price of food. Who will pay for this price increase? It certainly will not be the oil industry; it will be the citizens of Rosemont and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. They will be the ones to pay, because their government did not act responsibly. There are costs associated with inaction, and the government, which for years has been boasting about its economic ideas, has failed to see the models that have been presented.

What are we asking of the government today? We are asking the government to pull itself together, be a world leader, and look at what is happening to the south. The government wants to take a continental approach to fighting climate change; so be it.

Consider, for example, the plan proposed last week by Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer to fight climate change. They are proposing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7% below 1990 levels, while this government is proposing reductions of 3%.

Look at the Obama and Harper plans proposed so far.

Madam Speaker, I am talking about the plan, not about the Prime Minister. I called the plan—

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to make some remarks today with regard to Bill C-311.

Based on the debate we have had so far today and what I have been able to listen to and participate in, it would suggest to me that everyone has their own vision or view of what history might have been or what history was. I would like to take a brief moment to discuss some of that before moving into my comments, and I will make them relevant to the topic we are discussing.

I found it interesting that members opposite have presented Canadians with two different environmental packages over the last several years. They signed the Kyoto agreement, which they had no intention of doing. It was a last minute thought. Then, just to confirm what one of my hon. colleagues said, it was reported by a man who was very close to those discussions and to that debate, that in reality it was to present a signature of agreement to something they had actually no intention of following through with and no intention of implementing.

We only need to look back at the history to find out that is actually true. After signing the Kyoto accord, the government of that day did nothing to move the ball forward. The Liberals talk today about plans and directions. I recognize and our government recognizes that it takes a lot of discussion and a lot of understanding but what happened during that period was merely lip service paid to the public and to the environmentalists with actually no plan or no outcomes set to measure the success.

The Liberals also talked about plans that were presented. I can think of the Kelowna accord. They talked about an agreement they had with our aboriginal communities but there was no plan. They proposed it as a plan but it was only a news release at the last minute on the dying bed of the government of that day. We knew, and I believe the Canadian public knew, that there would be no plan or no direction following that agreement. It was just merely window dressing prior to an election call.

The member opposite talked about an environmental plan that the Liberals put forward in the last election, 2008. Again, the people of Canada rejected that plan. Why did they reject it? They rejected because they saw it purely as a tax on consumers at a time when consumers were starting to face an economic recession that the world was going through and that was moving its way slowly to Canada. It was rejected simply because it was merely an idea with no meat on the bones, no structure to what they were actually trying to do and it made it very difficult. I would challenge all the members opposite who were fortunate enough to be elected to stand up and say that they could actually explain it to the people they talked to when they were door knocking. That became their biggest issue as far as the campaign.

I do want to talk mostly today in relation to Canada's relationship with the United States. It is very easy to say that Canada can move forward on these types of international agreements without working closely with our neighbours. It needs to be understood that with over 80% of the trade that now takes place between Canada and the United States, everything that we do impacts another industry, another part of our country, just as when the Americans implement something to effect change in one area of their industry, it flows back to Canada and impacts us, not always negatively but in a lot of cases the implications are not what we anticipated or thought about. Therefore, at times we need to go back and review what was introduced, review how it was proposed and then massage it to make it work. It is important to have negotiations and it is important that we share the same economic space.

We are, in my mind, a North American economy. I have had the great pleasure of living within 20 minutes of the United States border. I grew up where the people in North Dakota were my neighbours and my friends. The only difference that we actually had was the difference in a dollar and a border that said this is where our country begins and the other one ends.

Therefore, I think it is very important that we pay attention. I think the members of the Bloc have raised the issue. We cannot move forward without the co-operation and participation of every province. That again takes time.

I think we have all come to the conclusion that it is important and necessary that we move on climate change, and that we accept the facts that we all have to pull in the same direction to make it move forward. If we do not do that, people may feel better about their achievements but the actual accomplishment by the collective group is just not there. That is why we need those negotiations to take place. That is why we have spent a lot of time participating in those negotiations.

The opposition talks about the new President of the United States. I think we are all prepared to give him the time that is required to put the people whom he needs in place to move the ball forward on this particular issue but also to create and establish that relationship with their neighbours.

I would suspect that this same type of discussion is taking place within their chambers, in the sense that, “What we do we have to do as an economic partnership with Canada. We share the same environmental spaces so what we do is going to impact their economy and their environment. So why would we not sit down, make some decisions together, make some decisions and a plan that we can move forward with, develop together, and present it when the time comes to the rest of the world”.

We know our dependence on each other for trade and financial markets. Again, it is something that we all have to be aware of. We have seen in this global economic recession where some economies are starting to move forward, although very slowly and very cautiously, but in the same breath, to impose something on any of these countries at this particular time, Canada along with the U.S. must be very careful about what those outcomes would bring.

Yes, we can stand up, as we have seen members opposite, and announce grandiose plans as to what we are going to do or what they would suggest we do with the environment. Even with a plan that they say they will bring forward at some point in time, we have to look at what the impacts are going to be on our economy and on our country at this particular point in time. If we do not do that we are wearing blinders and we are going to wake up a few years from now and wonder what decisions we actually took on this day and how it is impacting us into the future.

On the supply chains of food, of product and of manufactured goods back and forth with the American economy, no one knows better than I the difficulties we have with supply chains and getting them moving north and south. We have almost the same types of challenges moving them east and west in Canada with trade barriers set up by the provinces, but collectively they have started as individuals and now as groups of provinces. They have started to recognize that the benefits and the outcomes will be better simply because there is an agreement that they want to move forward with, not one moving forward and trying to drag the others through or one denying that they should not move forward and holding everyone back.

I think we have seen that very well, particularly in the western provinces. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan have now eliminated the labour barriers for trade. People can now move from one province to the other without having any special provincial designation. I think that creates an opportunity in the economy for our workers who in certain parts of the country are under great duress through no fault of their own. It would allow them, if they choose, to move to an area where there is opportunity right now and a chance for other opportunities in their careers.

On regulation, there should be a balance in what we do to regulate Canadians and what our friends to the south do. There should be an agreement to work within certain parameters, so that one country's movements do not impact the other country's movements, particularly on environmental issues, in a negative way.

Within the climate change strategy, the economic reality is that we just simply cannot ignore our American neighbours. We must look at it as a North American economy, and we must ensure that it is integrated in many of the aspects of our communities, and particularly in the environmental issues that we are discussing today.

We must harmonize our principles. We all have to have a set of principles that we would agree to and work within. We would have to have a policy design that we can actually understand and have input in to changing and updating as things move together, but we cannot do that independent of the Americans, just as I suspect they are not trying to do it independent of us.

If members opposite choose to look at all of the discussions that have taken place on this issue, including the years before that were mentioned, the years of planning that I would say did not produce the results that Canadians wanted, we can see results starting to move froward. I think over time we are going to see a very unified position come forward under the North American banner. It will be Canada and U.S. leading the way, and being the example for other countries to follow.

Members opposite have criticized the government for choosing one area of the environment over the other. I do not believe that is true, but it certainly makes good fodder for the media and it certainly makes good politics. At the end of the day, the engine that drives our economy right now, although suffering as many industries are in the global economic recession, is still the engine that is driving our economy right now. We would be foolish to think that we could move forward strictly on an environmental policy that would impact it in the drastic way that the members opposite would suggest.

We must develop a policy of climate change that facilitates the move across every sector and every region. I think we are all in agreement that we are heading toward a low carbon economy. We have obviously seen that with the investments that many countries in the world, not just in North America, have moved to with more fuel efficient vehicles and more fuel efficient appliances. Everything we do now is geared to being more energy efficient and in the same breath that is the benefit for the economy.

Now, if we had a policy that was North American, it would broaden the ability of countries to become more energy efficient and more environmentally friendly in a very quick way.

I would like to point out that a comment was made about the homeowners tax plan in the sense that if an investment is made in the home, where would that fit into the environmental policy. In my communities many people are making their homes more efficient, therefore using less energy to heat them, less energy to light them. They are benefiting from it by putting value back into their homes, but they are also benefiting all of us here and I would say all Canadians.

We can talk about the big picture and all the great things that we could do but if we all did just a little bit, it might help move that ball forward quicker. When I think of growing up, the best environmentalists I can remember were my grandparents and my aunts and uncles. They used everything to the nth degree. We have kind of fallen away from that. We have become consumers as opposed to people who perhaps should look at what they are buying, how they are using it, and what they do with it when they are finished using it. Not so long ago, and I would suggest as little as 30 years ago, very little got thrown out. Most things got used for one purpose or another in the home until it had no value. I think we can only look back sometimes to find the real leaders in protecting our environment.

The calls for greenhouse gas emission reductions and related measures that weigh out evenly with economic growth and prosperity is what we are all trying to do. We want to balance opportunities for economic growth and I believe there is tremendous opportunity in the economic field on environmental issues. We have seen that. We have seen organizations and companies looking at Canada and the message they get or that we have to sell them is the fact that Canada believes and is moving forward on improving our environment, and the fact that it would be a great place for them to invest and a great place to move their businesses.

Our government believes that the harmonized policy between Canada and the United States offers us, and I say that selfishly, but I mean all Canadians, the best opportunity to meet, in a consolidated and uniform way, the economic environmental challenges of our times. We all know and we all recognize that these are not simple issues.

Where Canada is concerned, we are particularly challenged because of our size. Obviously, we have a vast amount of land to cover and, traditionally, our climate plays a big role. As they say in Manitoba, we have nine months of winter and three months of construction. It is close to the truth in a lot of cases.

We talk about things that work in other countries and things that other countries are doing. While I think that is admirable and I think that is something that we should always be doing and trying to measure our successes based on others, we must recognize that there are some obstacles in our place that do not allow us to move quite as quickly or in quite the same manner as other countries might. We must also realize that because of that, our reliance on energy production and natural resources is very great.

Members opposite had talked about an electrical hydro grid east and west. While I support that, I think that we have to look at the economics and the benefits of it, and all those have to be weighed into the outcome of what we should or should not do at a particular time.

We, in Canada, account for 2% of the global greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are also the seventh largest emitter. I think that is something that we have to always be aware of and always be working to lower that number. It is simply because we are a commodity-based economy and arguably the most energy consumptive of any society in the world. I think that is obviously an opportunity for us to do things better. It is not a knock; it is just simply a reality of where we live and the geographical circumstances that we live within. Canada is large and Canada is cold. Those are two things that we just cannot change.

However, what we can do is concentrate on what we can change; that is, the key link between Canada and the United States environmental and economic policies, the supply and the use of energy. We have made great strides in working with our neighbours to the south in coming to those solutions.

Again, it has been said by everyone here, and everyone would agree, that energy is the key driver of our economies, and our future prosperity and growth depends upon it. What that energy will be, I think, has to be debated, but nonetheless, because of our size, because of our climate, it is important that our integrated economies result in energy flows across Canada and the U.S. That fact alone means that having cleaner sources of energy is imperative when it comes to taming as complex an issue as climate change.

I have many more things to suggest, but I understand that my time is wrapping up. I would just like to end by pointing out a few that we have done.

We certainly support the renewable energy technologies. We are looking at all sorts of fuels, wind and water energies. I think it is important to always keep in mind, though, that things that we do in Canada only double or grow in size if we work collectively with our neighbours to the south in developing a policy that works for North America.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Dr. Page, thank you so much for being here. It's a shame that we couldn't hear more from you.

Maybe we can hear from Dr. Page further, Mr. Chair.

Doctor, as you are well aware, Canada's clean energy dialogue has been ongoing with the United States starting at the beginning of the year and we are moving forward on a harmonized continental approach. On the costing of our commitment of a 20% reduction below 2006 levels by 2020, you said yourself it was quite challenging. Could you expand on the economic consequences of putting in place Bill C-311? What would it do to the economy to have emissions reduced by 25% below 1990 levels, and would it be possible to have a harmonized approach with the United States if we went in that direction?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, regarding Bill C-311 and this particular topic in general, it should be no surprise to the member or anyone in the House that the Conservative government would be in the pockets of the oil industry.

In fact, the government has ignored its own member, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform , who supports an east-west power grid, which he has spoken about before, which would send Manitoba's clean electrical power to Ontario to retire the coal plants in Ontario. The government even ignores its own member and prefers to promote a nuclear alternative which it knows could take years and years to get approval.

Why does the government not deal in concrete matters on this issue and promote the east-west power grid as a start to help push this file along?

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

Madam Speaker, my response to my hon. colleague's objection is the following.

I sit on the environment committee and I make a point of working hard to promote environmental issues. Now I will be faced with letters from constituents. Some of them will be from British Columbia because I received many phone calls from British Columbia late last week about Bill C-311. It was obviously part of a lobby campaign but I am not sure exactly where it originated. However, I will be receiving phone calls and letters from people who will ask me why I voted against Bill C-311.

Even if I am speaking in support of Bill C-311 today, it will be very hard for me to respond to those criticisms because I will not be able to tell these people what happened during committee. I will not even be able to tell people who call my office or who write to me how I voted because it is an in camera meeting and to do that would be a breach of Parliament. Now I have been put in a compromised situation.

I accept the apology of the hon. House leader of the NDP. However, I wish to use this opportunity to set the record straight. I am in support of setting objectives that will guide the government, hopefully, toward action on climate change, but I have very little faith in the ability of the government to actually take this issue seriously.

If we look at the United States, as part of its stimulus package the United States will be spending 14 times more per capita on renewable energy than we in Canada today. The government can try to say that it is waiting for the United States to act before it knows what to do because obviously it is at a loss and does not know what to do. Four years later, after being elected in 2006, it still has not figured out the climate change issue. It can hide behind the excuse that it must wait for our neighbours to the south to act, but they are already spending 14 times more per capita on renewable energies than we are.

The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that it has to wait on the one hand for action and then say that it is taking action but that it still cannot act on renewable energy.

Here is what I fear in the government's approach and what I fear if we do not prod and push the obstinate, stubborn government to take meaningful action on climate change. I fear Canada will fall behind.

The United States has the most dynamic economy in the world. It may not be performing as strongly as other economies at the moment but it is one of the most dynamic, creative and innovative countries in the world, and it is already working on the technologies of tomorrow and on the solutions to climate change. it may not have passed a bill yet in Congress or taken a position vis-à-vis Copenhagen yet, but it is working on it on the ground while we sit back and twiddle our thumbs waiting for the Americans to issue a press release.

Maybe that is a reflex of a government that governs by press releases. Maybe a press release is the only reality the government knows. I would suggest that the government should not wait for a press release from the White House. It should start investing now in the technologies of tomorrow, in the technologies that will allow us to save energy and be more competitive on the world markets. It should act now if it wants Canada to be at the forefront of economic development moving forward into the 21st century.

It is not enough to say, “Let us wait on the Americans”. Otherwise we can use that argument all the way down the line. We could say that before we take any action on health care, we will wait for the Americans to sort out their problems.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. It is an ongoing debate about how Canada will respond to one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century and beyond. It is also a debate about continued government inaction on the extraordinary challenge that we face as a nation and as a world.

I would like to go back, if I may, to 2005-06 since members of the government like to bring up that time period over and over again, a bit like a broken record.

I recall that in 2005, after extensive consultations with industry and environmental groups, the same environmental groups this time around which the Conservative government has left waiting in the reception area. We have a government that seems stubbornly committed to not having any kind of dialogue with Canada's environmental groups.

After extensive consultations with Canadian civil society, the Liberal government had a regulatory package waiting to be unveiled. That regulatory package would have helped Canada meet its Kyoto targets and, more importantly, would have helped Canada spur its economy toward the kinds of investments in green technologies that would be required not only to solve environmental problems but to provide jobs for Canadians. Right before the package was unveiled, the NDP, along with the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives pulled the plug on the Liberal government at that time.

There was a plan that was ready to go. It was a plan based on consultation. In the election campaign that ensued, we heard a lot of self-righteous talk from the Conservative opposition at the time saying, “Just wait and see. Once we take over the controls of the government, there will be action. We will achieve things and produce results”. Here we are four years later and there are still no climate change regulations.

The government has been somewhat fortunate that in the interim the United States elected a new president and now it can hide behind the president's climate change plan. Until the Congress of the United States puts together something on climate change, the current government will obviously not produce much on this issue.

It is very important that we act on this issue. The impact of climate change is vast. Even though we have a lot of scientific evidence, we still do not understand exactly how climate change will impact our water systems. We do not understand how climate change will impact our oceans. We have an idea, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

At this point, we should still move ahead. If the government will not move ahead, it is up to Parliament to force it to start laying out some greenhouse gas emissions objectives. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do that.

It is very unfortunate, as we know, that earlier this week there was an in camera meeting of the House of Commons environment committee on the subject of Bill C-311. The result of a vote in that in camera meeting was unveiled by the NDP in advance of when the report of that committee was tabled in the House, which obviously was a breach of trust.

It is very important that we learn to work together in trust because a committee of Parliament in this corner of the world—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's good to see you. Thank you for being here on short notice.

Mr. Page, we are debating Bill C-311. As I've just said in the House of Commons in a speech, frankly, we're debating this private member's bill because the government has prepared and presented no plan to the Parliament of Canada to debate otherwise. So we are now dealing with Bill C-311, as we should, in a timely fashion.

I know that you have a lot of experience. I'm not quite sure how long you've been chair of the round table, but you have laid out quite thoroughly those elements of a plan, and targets, that should be addressed. You talked about relevant and rigorous economic analysis, about whether the proposed targets can be achieved within the timeframes, about appropriate technology, and so on.

Mr. Page, our problem now, as the official opposition, is that it's been almost four years and we've had three ministers of the environment, and we've had apparently three plans, we've had regulations promised by January 2010 now delayed indefinitely.

Have you, in your capacity as chair of Canada's advisory panel....? It used to be the Prime Minister's advisory panel; in my humble submission, you have been demoted, now, to report directly to the Minister of the Environment. But that's another issue.

Have you seen, as chair of the round table, or have any of your members seen, with of all the work you've done, a plan, a domestic plan, for the climate change crisis in Canada today?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

For the past four years, the Conservative government has been saying all kinds of nice things and making all kinds of promises about the environment, and for the past four years, the Liberal Party and the other opposition parties have been wondering what the Conservatives' plan is. Where is the plan?

Instead of a plan, we get inconsequential proposals, announcements that never materialize, fancy words and promises to cooperate internationally, but no action. That is why today's discussion could yield some very good results.

This motion we are debating is excellent. We are not talking about the environment in general. We are not even talking about Bill C-311 in general. The motion very simply separates out from the body of Bill C-311 the clause that addresses the requirement of the government to set targets and to say where we want to be in our reduction of greenhouse gases in 2015, 2020 and 2025 so that we know what the plan is going to deliver.

This is not overly rigorous, because under the mandate, the plan will be reviewed, updated and reassessed every five years. We will ask if we made it, if it is the right thing and if we are going in the right direction. Right now, we are looking at a concrete plan. The Government of Canada should be pleased with this motion and pleased with the opportunity to share with the House and the people of Canada its plan on where we are going.

The Conservative government makes a lot of hay out of its supposedly ambitious target of a 20% reduction by 2020 from 2006 levels. We can debate whether that is actually an ambitious target or not, but at least there is a target and it intends to get there. We need the government to tell us where we are going to be halfway, too. We need the government to tell us where we are going to be in 2015 and how we are going to get to the targets that exist for 2050.

The idea that we need to respond aggressively to the realities of climate change is no longer up for debate. The only question is, with what clarity will we do that and within what framework?

I am very pleased today that the NDP demonstrated that it has been listening to the Liberal Party in the environment committee, on which I have the honour of sitting. As we have said, we need to talk about where we are going. We need to get a plan. We need to hear what the plan is from the Conservative government. We need to hear about the issues around what we are going to be negotiating in Copenhagen and what the position of the government is going to be. Yes, we need to hear that.

The NDP, the Liberals and the other parties may disagree on what exactly that position should be or which binding targets should be imposed upon the negotiators at Copenhagen, but to remove the non-contentious part of Bill C-311 and simply say that the government is proud of its plan, the government must bring forward that plan.

I would really like the Conservatives to give us some straight answers about where we are headed. What steps do they plan to take between now and 2050? What will Canada do to ensure that we take responsibility and fulfill our commitments to the international community?

Our industries need clear direction. They need to know what will be expected of them in the years to come. As a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I often talk to representatives of the oil and manufacturing industries. They want us—the Liberal Party—to tell them what our plan for them will be if we form the government one day. So I ask these industry representatives what the Conservative government has told them.

How has the Conservative government reached out to industry and said specifically, “This is where we need to go”? The answer time and time again is, the government has not.

What we are discussing today is an opportunity for the Conservatives to stand up and show us how strong their plan is, how great it is, where they want to go, and to give us targets that we can all aspire to and try to reach: industry, individuals, communities.

This is a good thing that we are talking about here. For the life of me, and perhaps I am still overly naive, I cannot understand why these Conservatives are opposing it. There is no question on the issue of climate change. We are all aware of the challenges. We just have not been able to get a sense from these Conservatives of how they are going to respond to those challenges.

Time and time again the opposition parties have tried to get those answers, first by bringing forward bills such as Bill C-311 that are demanding action. Now, by more modestly pulling out a piece of this bill, we are saying, “Okay, if the government does not want to give us action, at least give us an idea of the actions that it wants to take and where we are going to go. Give us something to reassure Canadians and to show Canadians that this Parliament is capable of addressing the grand issue of our time”.

How we get this right on the environment is going to direct the success or failure of us as a species in the 21st century. Still I hear lines like I heard about 10 minutes ago from the member opposite, where addressing the environment runs the risk of destroying our economy. I would like to think and to hope that in 2009 there is no longer any rhetoric around the fact that there has to be a choice between the environment and economy.

For so long now, the Conservatives and the Republicans have been saying that they cannot do anything about the environment because they have to deal with the economy, income and jobs. But we know that the critical thing is to combine these elements, to plan for both, to acknowledge that a healthy environment will support a strong economy and that a strong economy can and should contribute to a healthy environment. It is not magic. It is about investing intelligently in renewable energy and efficiency, about investing in the research, science, development and innovation that have always been Canada's strengths.

Unfortunately, we once again find ourselves in the position of having to beg the government to tell us its plan, to share its ideas with us, to tell us about its vision for the decades to come. That is not too much to ask.

We are asking for a little bit of clarity. We are asking the government to say, “This is what we want to reduce by 2015. This is where we want to be in 2020 and this is how we would like to get there by 2025”. We want to know if these targets can be adjusted if they are not ambitious enough or if they need to be more ambitious, if we need to deliver in a better sense.

That is the question we are talking about today. Will the government, that is so proud of its plan, so proud of the actions that it is supposedly bringing forward, share with us how those actions are going to result in targets for 2015 and so forth? Where is the plan? What is the plan? Can somebody please tell us?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate our government's tangible actions on the ground to make a difference.

I would like to talk about the electricity grid. I agree with my colleague that it is going to be important for us. Eastern Canada has a tremendous amount of renewable power which, through a proper grid, can be used not only in eastern Canada but also potentially could be exported to other areas, including the U.S. northeast. There are great opportunities.

I was reading an article this morning about the struggle the U.S. is having with its climate change bills in Congress and in the Senate. The real challenge is if the U.S. will be able to get those bills passed. The member for Ottawa South was talking as though this were a no-brainer, but it is not.

Given the challenges and the importance of our working together as an international community, I would ask the member, what folly is in Bill C-311?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the member opposite talk about the robust and rigorous plan that the Conservative government has put forward.

My question then is why the Conservatives are opposed to this motion to simply separate Bill C-311 to look at one section that they would obviously love to be part of, to simply release their plan, to reassure Canadians, to reassure industry, to let them know, to let everyone know what the targets are in this great plan they have. That is the motion we are discussing here today, and that is what I would like to hear the hon. member respond to.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time on this particular issue. I have been in the House some period of time and have had the opportunity to look at the Ross Perot Liberals, their charts and graphs and their ability to talk a good talk but not walk a good walk.

I had the opportunity to see some budgets from this Conservative Prime Minister and some real tangible results, things like the Northwest Transmission Line in British Columbia that will take many diesel operators off the grid, and the Mayo B investment of some $71 million, by this federal government, through which five communities were taken off diesel. Tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases were taken out of the environment.

There are some real tangible investments that this government is making from coast to coast to combat climate change. That is why I asked the member opposite in particular what the Liberal government did in 13 years, and all he did was talk and point to graphs. Really, it did nothing tangible. That was what I witnessed and I think most Canadians recognize that this government and this Prime Minister are taking real steps toward combating climate change.

We have made a strong commitment; we have taken continued action and we have a plan for what we are going to do. We are taking steps. We are taking this aggressive action on combating climate change in three ways. We are doing it domestically, continentally in North America, and internationally.

Indeed, this government takes this issue very seriously and there has been a great deal of progress recently, especially in the most recent three and a half or four years that we have been in government, including regulatory action to address greenhouse gas emissions and working with the United States on a harmonized approach. Obviously we are one continent, and it is important that we harmonize with the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.

Canada is also committed to being an active and constructive participant in Copenhagen and working toward a post-2012 agreement on global emissions reduction. This government has established a national target of an absolute 20%—that's right, an absolute 20%—reduction in greenhouse gases relative to 2006 levels. This we plan to do by 2020.

Over the longer term, it has set a target to reduce Canada's emissions 60% to 70% below 2006 levels by 2050. That is right, it is one of the most aggressive targets in the world, 60% to 70% below 2006 levels.

Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity sectors in the world and, as I mentioned at the beginning, we are moving forward even more aggressively to make sure clean energy in the electrical sector is even more rampant in Canada.

We have committed to further progress as well and have set a goal that by 2020, 90% of our electricity needs will come from non-emitting sources. For the first time, Canadians should be proud that there is a federal government, a Prime Minister and a Minister of the Environment who are moving forward with real tangible results that Canadians understand, results to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to combat climate change.

We have established targets that are consistent with scientific consensus and with the contributions Canada can and should make to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

By contrast, this bill, Bill C-311, would impose a 2020 emissions reduction target that goes far deeper, and we agree that it goes far deeper, than what is being contemplated by our closest ally and trading partner, and that, quite frankly, is not realistic. It is a target that would put our economic recovery from the recent global downturn, as well as our economy and Canadian jobs, at serious risk.

Indeed, it is hard to fathom how and why proponents of this legislation, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, can continue to support it while conceding that they have never done any analysis of its potential impact on the Canadian economy, no analysis at all of how many jobs would be devastated by this proposal.

In the November 2008 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to working with the provincial governments and all of our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period. This is very important and we have committed to doing this.

The government is moving forward on these commitments, and we will bring forward a cap and trade system that will lead to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. That is along with the other things we are doing.

The cap and trade system will cover all industrial sectors and will require mandatory emissions reductions. It will promote the development and the deployment of key technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that will be a very great key to reducing emissions.

As a first step, we have recently set out guidelines for a carbon offset market that will establish tradeable credits within the proposed cap and trade system. We are taking steps in a very short period of time. After 13 dark years of Liberal rule in this country, in which nothing was accomplished, this government, in a short period of time, has taken real steps, tangible steps that Canadians understand are exactly in accordance with Canadians' priorities to protect their jobs and at the same time save our environment.

We will set up a cap and trade system that reflects Canadian priorities and realities but that will also promote harmonization with the United States. We will phase in our approach over time ensuring the ability to adjust and adapt as the United States finalizes its approach.

We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments on this issue. In fact, the Minister of the Environment recently completed a cross-country tour to meet provincial and territorial premiers and ministers to consult with them, to talk with them, and to understand their priorities on the development of the cap and trade system.

There are already areas where we are harmonizing with the new leadership direction of the United States. For example, the government is using its regulatory authorities to transform our auto industry, which is so important for jobs in Ontario and for families in Ontario, to meet the new challenges of the low carbon economy of the future.

About 80% of new vehicles manufactured in Canada by Canadians are exported to the United States, which creates a need for a standard. Regulation of tailpipe emissions, which cause a tremendous amount of the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, will be consistent with the fuel efficiency regulations recently announced by President Obama, thereby ensuring a continuing North American standard for vehicles and continuing to ensure that Canadians will be employed.

It is important to remember, even as we move forward on a cap and trade system, that the government has also put in place a suite of ecoAction measures aimed at reducing emissions in the energy and transportation sector, which account for such a large part of emissions.

These investments are increasing the supply of renewable power, improving energy efficiency in homes and workplaces across the country, and reducing emissions from commercial transportation. These are real tangible steps that were never even contemplated by the former Liberal government, and were certainly not put in place.

Through Canada's economic recovery action plan, the government is investing in both Canada's economic and environmental future, including investments of $1 billion each in the clean energy fund and the green infrastructure fund, which I spoke of earlier, real tangible investments that get Canadians employed and at the same time save our environment.

The environmental commitments in this budget alone totalled $4 billion. These investments will play an important role in providing economic stimulus and keeping Canadians employed, as well as in reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. I am proud of these investments. We are doing the job that was not done by previous governments.

The Government of Canada knows that taking action on climate change is a global concern. We must work with our global partners. We will continue to work on a North American approach on climate change as well. We work with our partners and we work with the world at large because we know doing so is necessary.

The Prime Minister's recent visit to Washington marked further progress in harmonizing our efforts with those of the United States and the administration there. As we know, President Obama and the Prime Minister created a U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue when the President first visited us in February. The dialogue actually covers three themes.

First, we will develop and deploy clean energy technologies, with a focus on carbon capture and storage. Second, we will expand clean energy research and development, which is so important for our future and is certainly part of the solution. Third, we will build a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable energy generation, which is so important for Canada, especially to create jobs and maintain jobs and our great quality of life.

In Washington, a report to leaders was presented that outlined joint progress under the clean energy dialogue action plan. Indeed, under the action plan, both countries have identified the most promising opportunities to work together to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies as we move toward a clean energy future.

We want a clean energy future. However, we do not want to just talk about it; we want to actually do it.

In addition to the report to leaders, a set of projects was announced, which provides concrete examples of the on-the-ground action to deliver results that advance the goals of the clean energy dialogues.

In summary, significant progress is being made under the dialogue, and there will be additional progress to report over the coming years. We, on this side of the House in the Conservative government, are proud of this progress, because we are balancing and, at the same time, getting real tangible results through work.

Our North American partnership is not just limited to the United States. In fact, we are looking beyond the United States. We are working toward a common North American approach that would also include our Mexican neighbours to the south.

The recent North American leaders summit in August, attended by the Prime Minister, President Obama and President Calderón, marked significant progress in this development. At this meeting, agreement was reached to cooperate on a common North American approach to climate change, supported by agreement on a practical and outcome-based work program that actually sees real results and that will provide a strong foundation for these efforts.

Finally, a very important meeting is coming up in Copenhagen in the very near future. We are watching this with anticipation. It is the 15th conference of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will take place in December.

Throughout the negotiating process, Canada has been engaged in, and a constructive contributor to, the development of a new global post-2012 agreement.

We will continue to act on the basis of clearly established principles, including balancing environmental protection and economic prosperity; maintaining a long-term focus for generations and generations to come, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren; focusing on funding, developing and deploying clean technologies, which we believe are part of the solution; engaging and seeking commitments from both developed and developing countries, which are very important, especially with the rise of China, India and other countries across the globe that are actually causing a large part of the emissions issue; and, finally, playing a constructive role at international and continental tables.

In conclusion, the Government of Canada, this Conservative government, is responding to the challenge presented by climate change and responding to the needs and demands of Canadians. We are implementing a very robust agenda, one like this country has never seen before from any federal government. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. It will protect jobs and it will save our environment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion which would empower the environment and sustainable development committee to split Bill C-311 into two parts.

At first blush, I want to state for the record that I am pleased to see that the NDP, through this motion, has finally seen the light and is taking the advice of the Liberal Party of Canada. We are pleased to see that the NDP, having resurrected a bill brought forward by the leader in a previous Parliament, now understands how important it is to echo the call we have been making now for over four years to this Republican Conservative government to table in this place a climate change plan for the country.

It has been difficult for the Republican Conservatives because for so many years they were affiliated with the Republican movement in the United States. They were taking their instructions from the Bush administration. Our policies were aligned. In fact, the Prime Minister himself denied the existence of climate change until it was former President Bush's own scientific advisers who disabused some of that notion and convinced him that the science underlying climate change and the crisis were in fact real, that it would be wreaking havoc not just on our natural order going forward but on our economies.

Dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, the Prime Minister then appointed a third environment minister in three years, and of course we have no plan in this country now on climate change. It is a vacant hole. It is a blank sheet.

For the NDP to finally come to the realization that the essential need for Canada is to bring the government to heel so that it actually delivers up a plan on climate change for Canada is of paramount importance.

When Bill C-311 was first tabled as a whole, it was in a different time and in a different context. Things have progressed and things have moved forward. Chiefly, perhaps the most important single change and driver going forward has been the election of a Democratic administration in the United States.

In the United States we have three separate legislative possibilities to deal with climate change. We are not proposing, as the official opposition, as the Liberal Party of Canada, to hide behind the skirts of the existing Democratic administration, as is now the plan and in fact is the position of the Government of Canada, but we are cognizant of the fact that we must work in synchronicity with the Americans, never of course abdicating our sovereignty, as we have seen now under this third Minister of Environment and under the Prime Minister, but we must take into account those three possible outcomes in the United States.

There is a bill in the American Congress, in the House of Representatives, the so-called Waxman-Markey bill, which sets out standards and targets, and how allocations for trading systems will work in the United States.

There is a second bill, let by two senators, senators Kerry and Boxer in the American Senate, again with some variation on targets but with a hard cap-and-trade system, with an allocation system designed into it, and of course third, President Obama has made it very plain just this week that he is not afraid of using the regulatory powers that he has under the United States environmental protection act to in fact regulate greenhouse gases.

That is something, by the way, which the government has had the power to do for four years now. When it formed government in 2006, it began by cutting $6 billion in climate change programming expenditures. It gutted the tax credits for wind power production incentives, renewable power production incentives. In fact, its own renewable power fiscal program has effectively expired this month. There is no money left. That is why our wind power producers are running to the United States to try to conquer those American markets as we continue to send the wrong signals into the marketplace.

However, the government has had the power to do what President Obama has talked about doing for four years. It has inherited a regulatory structure that had all the powers necessary to stand up, present a plan and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. All that was prepared by the previous Liberal governments. In fact, it was prepared originally by the good work of a Progressive Conservative government, not a Republican Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Mulroney, the former Prime Minister, I am sure is shaking his head in disbelief as he sees that four years into this administration, the Republican Conservatives, who are now in government, refuse to deliver up a competent plan for Canada to deal with the climate change crisis in Canada and to deal with it internationally.

It is a whole different kind of party, a whole different kind of regime, and of course Canadians are seeing more and more of it.

There are problems on both sides of the House here. We have on the one hand the NDP that, at face value, is in good faith trying to make a positive contribution but refuses to acknowledge that the ground is shifting.

For example, just yesterday, the pre-Copenhagen negotiations in Bangkok went off the rails. The Chinese authorities are now accusing the American authorities of not being sincere in their efforts to deal with the climate change crisis. The Americans are returning that rhetoric, and it is very unfortunate because that is exactly the time when Canada is most needed. Canadian values, Canada's negotiating ability, our middle power, our competence and our reputation on the international sphere ought to help lubricate the relationship, if I might, to facilitate the relationship between China and the United States.

That is hard to accomplish now, given what the Minister of the Environment did in New York just two weeks ago when the Prime Minister refused to show up at the UN to even give a speech on climate change and support President Obama's efforts to come to an international agreement. Instead, what we saw was the immaturity of a government in Canada who came out of a meeting after the Chinese authorities announced they were prepared to consider targets, albeit intensity targets, but targets to deal with the climate change crisis, and the reaction of the Minister of the Environment was to finger wag, lecture, gesticulate, harangue the Chinese authorities and accuse them of not having gone far enough.

It is an interesting pattern of conduct, as my colleague mentioned here today on the floor of the House. It is almost as if Canadians could be forgiven if they came to the conclusion that the Republican Conservatives were deliberately trying to undermine the success of the international round of negotiations so that Copenhagen becomes a failure. Instead of us mounting the kind of international effort to bring the world together, we have abandoned not only our sovereignty with the United States but we have abandoned our role at the international level. That is a very important point for Canadians to know.

Why are we here today debating the bill? Why are we debating splitting an NDP bill? We are debating it because there is no plan in Canada today to deal with the climate change crisis. There is no plan. When this Minister of the Environment asserts that his targets, that he claims this country still possesses, are aligned with the American targets, it is really conduct unbecoming of the member and the minister because anybody who can read plain English, or plain French, knows that this is not the case.

President Obama's two bills that he has called for from Congress both speak to at least a 7.5% reduction in hard terms, hard numbers, from 1990 as the baseline year compared to the government's 3% from 1990. So, there alone we see the kind of disingenuous conduct from a minister, who is not really interested in delivering up a plan, nor are the Republican Conservatives here in Canada interested in delivering a plan. They really do not want to level with Canadians and deal with the climate change crisis.

It was only several years ago that the Prime Minister was in London, England. He was on a so-called ecoenergy tour through Europe. In a speech in London, transcripts of which are available for Canadians online, he said that he would be putting a price on carbon at $65 a tonne. It was the first and only time the Prime Minister ever spoke about pricing carbon. It has never been repeated. There is no regulatory regime here being put forward by the government. There is no price on carbon.

The Conservatives are not levelling with Canadians on the potential impact on energy prices in whatever plan they bring forward. They are not telling Canadians the truth, that if we do not deliver up a good, strong, Canadian domestic climate change plan, we will take our design for our plan from the United States, we will take a price on carbon emissions from the United States, and we will take our instructions from the United States. Instead of hiding behind the skirts of that administration and pretending that there is some kind of energy dialogue going on, there is no plan. So we go cap in hand to the United States with a blank sheet of paper, nothing written on it, and we ask the American administration to write the plan for us.

No sovereign nation state that is competent and actually represents its citizens would enter into bilateral or international negotiations conducting itself that way. No one would enter into a negotiation and say, “We have not written a draft, but we want to hear what you are doing and we will govern ourselves accordingly, even though we know the plan that you devise for your economy and your people may not be to the benefit of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people”. That is where we are at and that is why we are having this debate today because there is no plan. That is why we are here. This issue is not being dealt with; it is incomplete.

Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary once again in true Republican Conservative fashion attack the NDP, claiming that it had not costed out its bill. That is so rich as to be almost laughable and I will tell the House why. The government has no costed plan. The government has asked, for example, that the NDP bill be sent to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be costed. This is the same Parliamentary Budget Officer who cannot get basic information from the government on its $50 billion advertising campaign, who cannot get basic information on the state of the so-called infrastructure spending projects. The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot get basic information on trying to warrant the numbers the government puts out for deficit numbers.

Furthermore, the government, having called for the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and now referring the NDP bill to the Parliamentary Budget Officer for costing, is now stripping the Parliamentary Budget Officer of the funding that office needs to do its work. It is disgraceful conduct and the government is being found out now and Canadians are cottoning on. The Conservatives can bob, they can weave, they can sing and they can dance, and they can pretend. The Prime Minister is the great pretender. The Conservatives can pretend, but Canadians know they have no climate change plan.

We have not made the progress that Canadians deserve and that they want to see. We have not built on the shoulders of the previous Progressive Conservative government, of the previous Liberal governments. We have done none of this. For four years now Canadians have watched. This is disgraceful because of the implications for our natural world. Our species, like wild salmon, are being compromised on the west coast. There are 40% decreases in pollinating bee species and populations across North America in the last two years.

Einstein told us that if we had no pollination on this planet, we had about nine years as a species to live. It is important to have a climate change plan to deal with those natural phenomena that are in play; such as, sea level rises, temperature increases and stresses on species.

Perhaps an even equally important factor here of the government's inaction is that we are losing the race to other jurisdictions that understand that the 21st century is all about becoming the most energy efficient jurisdiction in the world. It is about energy efficiency. It is about new technologies. It is about the clean economic future. It is about clean jobs going forward.

For example, the government lauds its own so-called infrastructure spending even though about 12% of the projects it photo ops and announces are actually in play. Has the government attached any conditions to that spending? Has the government said to a municipality or to a province or to whomever it is doing business with that it wants the greenhouse gas implications measured not only to meet our targets but to drive up our energy efficiency?

Why are the Americans spending 16 times more on renewable energy power than we are per capita going forward? Why are our wind power producers fleeing Canada and going to the United States for multi-billion dollars of opportunities? It is about winning an energy efficiency race.

Has the government spoken at all about serious reduction, reusing, recycling of materials? It has said nothing. Why would we do that? Californians now describe waste as “unrecaptured profit”. A wasteful economy is an unprofitable economy. An inefficient economy is an unprofitable economy.

This is about winning the race for the future. This is not just about bears and bees, bunnies and bugs. It is about jobs. It is about investment. It is about new technologies. If we get the right set of policies and a climate change plan, we will win the race.

Canadians can compete anywhere, but for four years we have lost. We have drifted. Now that we are facing the perspicacity of President Obama to move forward with his administration, Canada is getting into trouble.

That is why this clean energy race is so important. That is why the need to address the climate change crisis is so important. There should be no more distinctions between the environment and economy. They are integrated. Anybody who is thinking straight and thinking forward understands that they are integrated.

It is our job now to set the policies and govern the way we spend to give rise to new jobs, to give rise to new opportunities. We are not hearing this from the government and that is why this debate is so important today.

Just yesterday, a consortium of automakers announced a movement to electrify the city of Vancouver, so that we could make the quantum leap as a country to one that actually has the ability to power up electric vehicles. This car making consortium now tells us that they will be able to power up an electric car in 30 minutes or eight hours overnight. This can be done by just plugging the vehicle into a home electrical outlet.

That is the kind of thinking we need. That is the kind of quantum leap we have to make as a nation state. That is why we need to have hard caps. That is why we need to have a baseline that is in sync with the world. That is why we have to put a price on carbon emissions.

Yet, there is nothing forthcoming from the government. That is dispiriting and disappointing to Canadians because they know we are beginning to lose the race.

Canadians care deeply about their environment. They care about it instinctively and innately because it is about their kids and their grandkids. It is about caring capacity. It is about understanding that nature is not just something that is harvested and drawn down. We have to restore what I call our natural capital. It is like a bank account. If we draw down on our capital, we will not live long on the interest.

If we restore our capital, we will generate even more interest, so that we as a species and a planet not just survive but thrive into the future and deal with this climate change crisis which is now upon us.

In closing, we will be supporting this motion. It is about time members of the NDP understand that this is about a plan for Canada. We have been calling for it for four years. I am glad they are joining us in our refrain now to demand of the government a plan, not just domestically but in advance of the Copenhagen round of negotiations. Hiding behind what is going on in the United States does not a Canadian plan make.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to challenge this motion of instruction. I believe the motion should be ruled out of order because a motion of instruction should not be used to time allocate a bill and the motion has two separate proposals.

On page 854, of Marleau and Montpetit, it describes a motion of instruction as:

A permissive instruction gives a committee the power to do something it would not otherwise be able to do, but does not compel the committee to use that power.

What is unusual about this motion is the last sentence. The motion is attempting to time allocate the bill at committee stage. It is not a permissive instruction. It states, “if Bill C-311A has not been reported back to the House by the 10th sitting day after October 19, 2009, it shall be deemed to have been reported back without amendment”. In addition, the motion proposes to do two things. It gives the committee the authority to divide Bill C-311 and it time allocates the committee stage of Bill C-311.

Two separate proposals would require two separate motions.

As I said earlier, the second instruction is not permissive. If the committee does not take action, as proposed by the motion, the committee is no longer a player. In that case, there is no instruction whatsoever. The motion, in that case, would override the Standing Orders that already apply to a reporting date for Bill C-311.

I would argue that such a motion presented as a motion of instruction is out of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked and dismayed at what has been occurring and the delay that is being proposed. For me personally and citizens across Canada, this is a litmus test as to whether Canada is a leader or a follower on the world stage.

On Tuesday, as we heard this morning, the environment committee voted shamefully to delay consideration of Bill C-311 until after Kyoto, rather than before.

[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?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I came into the House and apologized for a press release that was sent out in error. I did that in good faith and with genuine intent.

We have already heard from the chair of the committee that the committee has come forward to the House asking for a delay of 30 days. I have not divulged any information about the vote; I am not privy to that. All I know is that a decision of the committee was made which is why this motion came before the House today.

There is nothing out of order with that, so I will certainly continue speaking to the motion that is before us today.

I want to reiterate that there are obviously going to be a lot of political games played today.

I want it to be on the record that what is happening here is really quite shameful. What the NDP has always tried to do with the bill is to have it go through its due process. It was sent to committee. The committee has had adequate time to deal with the bill. The fact that it is now being delayed is obviously part of some other political agenda. Other parties will have to account for their own actions.

All I know is that what is important about the bill is to get it dealt with, particularly clause 6 which deals with the targets. That is why we have this motion before us today. It is perfectly in order. In fact, it was imperative to bring forward this motion because there really was no other way to deal with it.

I ask the members of the House to support this motion and to ensure that Bill C-311 is dealt with, brought back to the House so we can hold our heads high when we go to Copenhagen and say that we represent what the Canadian people want us to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development that it have the power to divide Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, into two bills: Bill C-311A, An Act to set targets and timelines to prevent dangerous climate change, and Bill C-311B, An Act to ensure the Government of Canada is held accountable for meeting its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change; that Bill C-311A be composed of clause 6 of Bill C-311; that Bill C-311B be composed of all remaining parts of Bill C-311; that the House order the printing of bills C-311A and C-311B; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make such technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion; and that, if Bill C-311A has not been reported back to the House by the tenth sitting day after October 19, 2009, it shall be deemed to have been reported back without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. I thank you for reading the motion, because that means I do not have to. However, I do want to explain it and explain why this motion is being brought forward.

Just a few moments ago, the chair of the environment committee brought forth a motion from the committee to basically ask for an extension and delay of 30 sitting days for the examination of Bill C-311, which is the climate change accountability act. I have to say that there is absolutely no legitimate reason for delaying consideration of this bill.

This has caused the NDP to bring forward this motion this morning in the House to instruct the committee to separate the bill and to ensure that the bill will now be examined in two parts. Part A would deal with the targets that are set in the bill and they would be brought back into the House by the 10th sitting day after October 19, which would be November 2. If the committee fails to do that, the bill will be deemed to have been reported back without amendment.

I would like to explain why we are doing this. I think members are aware that this bill was first debated in March 2009. It was actually sent to the committee on April 1 of this year. In our opinion, the committee has had ample time to deal with this very urgent matter. I would say that our goal all along has been very clear. This very substantive and important bill needed to be debated and processed through the House in order to be approved, we hope, in time for the international climate change conference in Copenhagen in November.

It was with deep concern that we learned that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development voted to delay this bill for no good reason. From the email we get, the folks we talk to in our ridings and the strong environmental community across this country, I think it is very clear that Canadians believe that government after government has dragged its feet on climate change.

There has been no substantive action, whether by the Conservative government or by the previous Liberal government. This bill that we have brought forward both in the last Parliament and in this Parliament, and in fact it was approved in the last Parliament, is a strong effort to say that the will of Parliament should be brought forward to Copenhagen and that the will of the Canadian people to see action by our government on climate change and to set clear targets is something that is fundamental to the direction and the health and safety of Canadians and the future of our planet.

It was with dismay that we saw that various members of the House are trying to delay this bill. I think we have to ask why this bill is being delayed, because there is no legitimate reason to do so. The bill is actually very clear and straightforward. In fact, clause 6, which is the clause that we are now saying should be brought back to House by the 10th sitting day, through this debate today, is the clause that deals with the interim greenhouse gas emissions and sets out a target plan for 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045.

The target plan clearly lays out that it would establish a Canadian greenhouse gas emissions target for each of those years; specify the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target, including consideration of the latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the most stringent greenhouse gas emissions targets adopted by other national governments, and it would show that each target is consistent with a responsible contribution by Canada to the UNFCCC's ultimate objective of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and with Parliament’s strong commitment to the Kyoto Protocol.

The separation of the bill and what we have now been forced to do is necessary in order to ensure that Canada has set targets and that those targets will be met. We want to go to that conference in Copenhagen knowing that Canada will finally have some legitimacy. After so many years of delay and inaction, we want to have a bill that speaks for the Canadian people on the issue of climate change.

When this was first debated in the House, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, who introduced the bill, gave one of the most beautiful speeches I have ever heard in the House. It was passionate, articulate and full of scientific fact. It was about his own riding. I remember one of the things that he said:

Opinion polls keep saying that 80% of Canadians favour strict measures to reduce emissions, yet our own governments have been impotent and unwilling to confront what will be the defining issue of the 21st century: a changing climate and a dying world.

The next world conference in Copenhagen this December will provide another opportunity to regain some stature on the vital issue of climate change. This act would help re-establish our credibility at the bargaining table and increase the chances of persuading major developing countries to take on such commitments. In this 40th Parliament, we have one last opportunity to take real action to prevent the threat of worsening economic and health effects of climate pollution. Bill C-311 would ensure that the government is accountable to Canadians on climate change and that Canada is accountable to the world.

That is a perfect summary of what this issue is about and why it is so urgent. All the more shame for what took place at the environment committee and the fact that there is an attempt now to slow down this bill so that it will not make it through the House in time for the Copenhagen conference.

As New Democrats, we are committed to doing everything we can for Canadians to ensure that this legitimate and credible and very sound bill does come before the House for a vote. We hope that it will be passed. We hope that a majority of members of Parliament will listen to their constituents about what needs to be done in this country, to take a stand and set real targets for climate change. Nothing less will suffice.

We regret that this debate is taking place today. It should not have to take place. The bill should have come out of committee. I am sure witnesses were lined up. I am sure all kinds of people were ready to debate the bill clause by clause. I am not on the committee so I do not know if there would have been some amendments. I find it most disturbing that it appears the bill is being deliberately delayed.

This motion is to put on the record how urgent this issue is. The bill must come back from committee. The motion before us is clear. It asks the committee to examine clause 6 that deals with the interim targets and get the bill back into the House by November 2.

This is a very straightforward and transparent motion about what needs to be done. I implore members of the House to ensure that we rise above the partisan politics and whatever political agendas are operating here and think about what Canadians sent us here to do. I implore members to think about the most urgent issue facing our country and our planet: climate change. It is shameful that in the international community Canada has such a terrible record.

Let us deal with this legislation and get it through the House. Let us hear witnesses--

Environment and Sustainable Development

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, in relation to requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

Economic Recovery Act (Stimulus)

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid comment in that tax policy does shape behaviour in any country. The member correctly identified that there were no green guidelines attached to the home renovation tax credit.

There are many members in this House who did not support the Kyoto protocol. Canada is falling behind in its obligations to meet Kyoto. Kyoto in itself did not set the limits high enough for Canada to contribute meaningfully.

The New Democrats have put forward a climate change accountability bill, Bill C-311. It sets out some meaningful targets. We developed that bill with other environmental partners.

The member is absolutely correct that we need to have some green filters on things like the home renovation tax credit.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

It is not every day that we have a motion of confidence in the House, so it obviously is a very serious matter. It is a matter that New Democrats take very seriously. We have had serious debate not only within our caucus but with our constituents. To put forward a motion that the House has lost confidence in the government is something that needs to be looked at very carefully.

If we look at the record of what has happened since the Conservative government was elected in 2006, it will show very clearly that the NDP has been the toughest critics of the Conservative government and its policies, right from day one.

In fact, we never had confidence in the government. We have been very clear that the overall direction it has taken on the economy, social programs, its attacks on workers, women, pay equity and the billions it has given away in corporate tax cuts have been disastrous courses of action. We have been very tough on the government. I think many Canadians have seen the New Democrats as the official opposition, that we were the ones who took on the direction of the government and stated how wrong it was.

While being the toughest critics of the government, we have also always done our very best to make this minority Parliament work. Again, if we look at the record, it will show a number of bills have come forward that have passed the House, that have gained majority support and the actions that have taken place in committees and the studies that have been undertaken have come from New Democrats.

We have all the statistics to show the number of bills we have put forward, whether it is Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill, or Bill C-304 for a national housing strategy, which historically passed second reading last night. It only took 12 years to get back from the disastrous course that the Liberals took in the 1990s when they trashed and eliminated the great housing programs that Canada had. Look at the EI bills, some of which are now in committee, or our motion that was passed on the need to protect our seniors.

We feel very good about our work and our record in being very tough critics of the government and the direction it has taken. At the same time, we make every effort, more than 100%, to make this Parliament work for Canadians, to get things done. That is what people sent us here to do.

That is a really important point to make today. For two years the official opposition propped up the Conservatives and gave a complete green light to their agenda, whether it was those billions in corporate tax cuts, or the attacks on pay equity and women, or the attacks on the unemployed and on workers' rights. We know there were 79 substantive confidence votes they let slide.

The big question today, which is left hanging in the air, is what did they get for that? We are here now at this point with a confidence motion. After all of that record, what did the Liberals get for supporting the measures of the direction of the government for two years? We have seen the report cards, the government was put on probation, but what did the official opposition actually get?

The Liberals claimed, over and over again, that EI was their top priority. How many times did we hear this in the House? We know that in the summer they walked away from that, and they got nothing for it. All of sudden, they have decided their first priority is an election.

Clearly the New Democrats are more interested in helping the unemployed than we are in provoking an early election that people do not want. That is a very important consideration.

We talk to our constituents. We go back and we find out what people think. We ask if they think this is the right time for an election. People have clearly said that this is not a good time for an election. We have had four elections in five years. People want to see this Parliament work.

I am very proud of the New Democrats. When we came back on September 14 and the Liberals had taken the disastrous course of saying that it would an election at any cost, that they would pull the plug, we saw that as an opportunity to tell the government if it did not want an election, it had to reach out and put something on the table to make it clear that it was willing to work with the opposition parties to produce the things that Canadians needed.

The NDP are pleased to see that, finally, the Conservative government put $1 billion on the table for the EI bill. That just passed second reading in the House and it has now gone to committee. It will be studied there and come back to the House, at which time we will have a final vote. We saw that as a positive first step.

The NDP leader has been very clear with the Conservative government that the NDP does not support its overall direction and we will continue to be the toughest critic on any anti-people measures it takes. If it slams workers or cuts programs, we will continue to be its critic. However, we are prepared to look at individual proposals it brings forward. In fact, we have been very transparent about what the priorities are.

There have been no back room negotiations or deals. It has been the NDP day after day in the House that has put forward political priorities, whether it is reforming the EI system, providing help for pensioners, ensuring that consumers have protection, asking the government to come clean with its record on the HST and stop trying to duck the issue or coming clean with the people of B.C. and tell us when the negotiations started. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are now trying to run for cover on that one.

We have been very clear that the government needs to be prepared to bring forward other initiatives around EI. The question I raised earlier today with the government was whether it was now prepared to help self-employed workers. This is a very critical question.

I do not know about other members, but when I talk to folks in Vancouver East, the biggest response is from self-employed people who are really hurting because they have no cushion on which to fall. They have no protection during this recession. It is very tough for people who are self-employed, who at one time were doing quite well but in the recession are finding they cannot get the consulting work or contracts. Small businesses are going under, as well as people who are self-employed in other ways. Again, is it prepared to bring forward further changes to the EI system that will help self-employed workers?

New Democrats believe this is a constructive course of action. This is where we need to focus attention instead of playing these political games, like the Liberals now saying it is their way or it is an election.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition state earlier today in his speech, “We use elections to bring people together”. I thought that was very ironic. An election is about accountability for sure, but it is also about ensuring that people do not become weary from dealing with elections and being concerned everyday with what is going on in a recession that it divides people and further turns people off the political system. This is what the leader of the official opposition is now doing.

This election is not about bringing people together. From the Liberal point of view, this election is about serving its own political agenda. We need to call it that and be very clear.

New Democrats are prepared to work in the House and to do it in a genuine way and in good faith. We will take on the government. We will be critical of its policies, but we also want to ensure nothing stands in the way of getting the $1 billion of assistance to people who need it. We think that is a key priority. We want to ensure other measures are brought forward that will help people. That is the priority right now in this recession.

I am glad we are having this debate because it brings everything into the open. New Democrats are very clear that the priority is trying to make Parliament work. As long as that measure exists, we will certainly support it.

We hope other proposals will put on the table by the government that will help the unemployed, seniors and consumers deal with the recession they are facing every day. That is what is really important to people.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is very specific and I would ask my colleagues to calm themselves.

It seems to me that there is a specific moment, which he addressed a few times in his speech. I would like a specific commitment or a decision from him, around the issue of climate change, which we can all agree has been and will be a most serious and important consideration for this House and this Parliament over a number of years.

He has admitted in the past to his own government's failings in being able to achieve the goals that his party set forward to meet Canada's international obligations.

As we strive toward Copenhagen and an international agreement at this critical juncture, we have presented a bill to his party. It is now sitting in committee but we have no cooperation whatsoever from his party to move the bill forward which would instruct the government finally in law, with no wiggle room and no ability to backtrack, on the targets. It is a moment for him to stand and commit to this House that Bill C-311, the Copenhagen bill, a bill of such grave importance as he himself in his speech declared it to be, requires the full and immediate support of his party to be expedited, so that Canada, when it presents itself in Copenhagen in whatever form, has something firm and committed to the world, showing our true commitment, with no more false promises, no more empty solutions, but real commitments and targets.

Will he at least commit today, on such a serious matter, his full support for such an effort?

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, we will soon be voting on Bill C-311, the climate change bill, in its third reading. In just 79 days, 6 hours and 11 minutes, Canada will be in Copenhagen to sign the world's next major climate treaty. However, we still do not know what the Conservative or Liberal policies actually are on climate change.

When will we get Canadian leadership and Canadian action on climate change? The people in Thunder Bay—Superior North are ready, willing and able to do their share, but Thunder Bay and north shore towns like Nipigon, Schreiber, Terrace Bay and Marathon are about to lose their intercity buses. We have already lost VIA Rail.

These were our most fuel-efficient ways to travel, plus their loss is making tough times in northwestern Ontario tougher still. Whether we are talking about regional hardships or national policy, our government must start taking action to protect our citizens and our planet.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

No, it is adducing the evidence. The evidence was public, but now it's under proper consideration by the committee for Bill C-311. It's what committee hears. We're just accepting that testimony for this committee rather than the evidence for the past committee, and we do have new members here.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Woodworth.

We are running out of time.

[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.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You said it would be after the words “Bill C-311”. It's in the second last line twice.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just for clarification, the committee already has a motion instructing us that the first five meetings when we come back in the fall session will be dedicated to Bill C-311. With that in mind, Mr. Warawa's suggestion was to remove the last two lines after “Bill C-311”, because we already have direction to--

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just to follow up on Mr. McGuinty's reference to the previous motion we passed on June 2, it said that the committee shall study Bill C-311 for at least the first five meetings of the fall session.

Mr. Bigras.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Time has just expired.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hyer, for coming in today. I know it's a difficult situation for you as a member of Parliament to actually be called as a witness, but we do appreciate your giving testimony and answering forthrightly the questions that were put to you on Bill C-311. I want to wish you all the best.

With that, we're going to continue with our meeting. I'm sure you've all seen the agenda, which is being circulated again.

We're going to move to the motion by Ms. Duncan.

Ms. Duncan, if you could move that to the floor, I'd appreciate it.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Do you feel that Bill C-311 reflects the realities of the current global economic recession?

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

I'm not here today to debate Kyoto. I'm here to talk about Bill C-311.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

First, I would like to thank Mr. Bigras for his expression “pre-industrial“. I feel that the term is very appropriate, in English at least, to describe the consequences of this bill.

Secondly, I wish to make very clear my point of view, which is that merely setting targets without providing detailed plans on how to achieve them is a highly partisan, totally useless publicity exercise, and notwithstanding your protestations of non-partisanship, Mr. Hyer, I'm afraid that's all I see in this bill--merely setting targets without providing any detailed plans about how to get there. Anybody can set targets for the sake of putting a plaque on their wall that says “I signed this agreement setting targets”. It gets us nowhere, in my opinion.

Having said that, as you as a parliamentarian know, Mr. Hyer, under Standing Order 79, a private member's bill like Bill C-311 cannot require the appropriation of any part of the public revenue. So I want to ask you, can this bill be implemented without appropriating any public revenue?

[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]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hyer, for tabling your bill and trying to expedite this process.

Can you tell the committee whether you have had any feedback from Canadians on Bill C-311?

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's on the record.

Moving right along, Mr. Hyer, welcome to the committee.

We will start our study on Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, pursuant to the order of reference that was given to this committee on April 1.

Mr. Hyer, please begin your opening comments and keep them under 10 minutes. We'd appreciate that.

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

Can we discuss the motion before voting? I want to explain why I am going to vote against this motion.

First of all, it sets a strange precedent for this committee, meaning we decide to put other issues even before bills under review. I would remind the government that when Bill C-16 came before committee, the opposition committed to giving the bill priority because we believed that government bills and private bills should take precedence over all other matters. I would also remind the government that it, too, committed to giving priority to Bill C-311 because it believed that private bills should come before other matters.

Therefore, I think this motion sets a dangerous precedent within this committee, by putting other matters ahead of private bills. So if this applies to Bill C-311, I would like it recorded in the blues of this committee so that it will apply to all other matters and all other bills sponsored by the government or even the opposition.

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

Mr. Chair, I will support the NDP's motion. I think there is a clear desire that is usually expressed by committees and the House. And that is to ensure that bills take precedence over all other issues, especially when those bills have been endorsed by the House at second reading. It seems to me that Bill C-311 should be a priority for us. That is what the NDP's amendment is trying to do. That is what committees have always tried to do when studying various bills and issues. So, we will wholeheartedly support this amendment by the NDP, which aims to make Bill C-311 a priority.

Environmental Enforcement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is of great interest to be entering this afternoon's debate. I think it is precipitous also for the timing. Just this afternoon, Canadians saw the Auditor General of this country and the Commissioner of the Environment release their extensive report, which turns into a condemnation of the government's own ability and willingness to enforce the laws, their own laws, that are on the books.

Here in Bill C-16, which is substantial in size, one must be given over to the question of whether this is actually going to take place. These rules and regulations, this set of fines and penalties that the government has little or no intention of actually enforcing, are no laws at all.

There are number of themes that are recurrent in Bill C-16, which is, in a sense, a housekeeping bill that tries to gather together a number of environmental penalties and set minimums and maximums for those infringements on the environment.

I myself represent Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which is the northwest quarter of British Columbia. It is absolutely rich in resources but also a conduit for some of the most volatile and dangerous goods in Canada and a place where some of the most dangerous projects are being pushed by the government, and hopefully the former government in British Columbia, such projects as coal bed methane and offshore oil and gas.

While the government promotes these projects, what is relevant to Bill C-16 is that they say Canadians should rest assured that if we are going to roll the dice on this oil and gas project in a sensitive ecosystem, in the Hecate Strait, which is the windiest, waviest place in Canada, it is okay to put the rigs up because we have strong environmental laws.

That is what has been proposed and Canadians can sleep well and rest assured, but lo and behold, when the auditor of the country comes forward and takes a look at the enforcement of those laws, the measurement of the pollution, the accountability and transparency of government, the laws do not become worth the paper they are written on. This is what calls into question the efforts of the government in Bill C-16.

There was good work done by my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, on the bill at committee in trying to augment the penalties, because we see a rise in penalties to individuals who pollute the environment but we do not see the same concurrent rise in penalties for corporations.

We see that businesses, in a sense, are meant to keep the status quo, while individual Canadians, heaven forbid if they were to do the same thing, would see an increase of four times and more in the penalties.

The enforcement of any of these rules is absolutely essential and critical, because again, the government could give a wink and a nod to industry in saying it will put out a bunch of regulations.

I do not know if members of the House or the public remember when the minister announced the bill. It was quite a flashy display. He spent tens of thousands of Canadians' hard-earned dollars, taxpayers' dollars, to walk down the street some several hundred metres to a five-star hotel to announce that this bill was coming up.

He could not do it here in Parliament, which was sitting that day. We have many nice rooms in which to announce bills. The minister thought it was very important to show the seriousness of the government's intention. He actually had enforcement officers. I always feel sorry for these men and women of the force, because they have to do it. They have to stand there as props for the government, to show how tough the minister was going to be on environmental polluters, meanwhile in full knowledge of the audit going on in his own department showing that there was no enforcement intention from the government. It was not going to bring these penalties or any such penalties.

Whether it is straight out pollution we are talking about, oil spills, toxic spills, leaks, sewage and all the rest, we see the government stripping environmental regulation after regulation. It includes the loopholes for assessments, saying more and more projects of greater size and potential impact are going to be exempt from assessments.

We saw the absolute travesty that was in the budget. There were many, but there was one in particular with respect to the environment. The government used the budget as a Trojan horse. It wheeled the thing in here saying it was all about the economy, and it slipped inside it a little piece about the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

In the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the government stripped out a whole lot of regulations. Conservation groups have been coming to me and other members of the House with serious and deep concerns, not only about the effect that this stripping of the Navigable Waters Protection Act will have on our environment and the conservation of our environment but the fact that there was no debate and discourse whatsoever.

This is a government claiming transparency and accountability, and it slides into a bill about the budget a piece about the environment and navigable waters and the protection of our streams and rivers in this country. Conservation groups such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation got involved, and Mountain Equipment Co-op, for goodness sake. All these groups raised a concern in a coalition scrambled together at the last minute, because they never thought a government would do this kind of thing and strip out a 100-year-old act.

It was one of the first acts put forward and brought to full comprehension in this country to protect navigable waters, the waterways that Canadians relied on for trade and commerce and now rely on for a whole assortment of reasons. The government chose a budget, in which to fundamentally change the act.

The government claims, and it goes to Bill C-16 again, that there was too much red tape and it was holding up all those shovel-ready projects that we now know the government has hardly spent $1 on. I asked the government, if this was so important and there were so many projects being held up, to provide Canadians and members of Parliament with a list of all the projects, of all the jobs that were not being created because of the terrible Navigable Waters Protection Act, to show us the proof and evidence as to why it had to strip out this bill.

Of course, the government provided nothing, not a single project anywhere in the country that condoned this. Then one begins to question the philosophy and to suspect what the government is truly about when it comes to protecting our environment.

This bill has a whole series of thoughtful comments and amendments to eight other acts in Canada. As I said, it is quite a hefty tome and quite complicated, but is it worth the paper it is written on if the government does not actually intend to enforce it?

We see this again in the auditor's report. A private member's bill was brought forward by the official opposition and was worked on by all members of the House in the last Parliament. The government is just choosing not to abide by a Canadian law.

It is here, in the government's own words and text, where Environment Canada says it does not need to actually monitor greenhouse gas emissions, but here is the irony. It can measure the emissions that it is going to count on in the government's own plan in the future, but it cannot take account of anything that has happened in the past. How are Canadians meant to have confidence in the government's ability to negotiate anything, what to order for lunch, never mind a serious agreement like what will happen in Copenhagen?

According to the Auditor General, and I will quote in order to get it right, “In the plans prepared to date, the department has not explained why expected emissions reductions can be estimated”, so those are the estimated reductions in the government's own plans, “in advance but actual reductions”, meaning what is actually happening in the environment, “cannot be measured after the fact”.

The government feels totally confident in saying to Canadians that it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by such-and-such by such-and-such a date. It can measure that and get that accurate, but it cannot measure the things that have already happened because it is too complicated and not cost-effective to measure.

Going back to the idea of enforcement and penalties, this comes from a party that has prided itself on being tough on crime and on pushing every criminal to the letter of the law. It campaigns on it every time, but it only means it for certain types of criminals, not ones who pollute our environment. Those ones get off the hook. For those ones, it will not press the letter of the law. It has been shown time and time again.

This is a government that picks what criminals it will go after. Some are truly criminal, while there are others who, say, tip over a railcar and dump it into a lake and pollute the rivers or put out greenhouse gases that endanger future generations, who break the government's own regulations and laws, and the government may or may not enforce those penalties. Those criminals, the government is not planning to get tough on.

One cannot help but wonder about the collusion at the moment of the crime, when the government puts forward Bill C-16 and other such bills and says it will quadruple the fines for individuals but it will leave the fines for corporations the same. Then the Auditor General says, with regard to the few regulations that exist for pollutants under the greenhouse gas emission acts that exist as law in this place, the government is unable to enforce them, unable to account and does not provide the penalties. How can Canadians have confidence in the government when it cannot follow through on such simple measures?

The very industries that are doing this polluting, or those that are suspected to, have asked the present government and the previous government for certainty. They want to know what the rules are.

Industry wants to know what the actual carbon emissions limits and pollution costs will be, because it can put that into its actual budgets. Industry can figure out what the cost of doing business will be.

Instead, the government slipstreams in behind the United States and is just waiting, forming a talk shop with the Obama administration.

The actual regulations are two years late in terms of the government's own promised commitments to bring them forward to industry and to Canadians. They are two years late by the government's own fault and admission. Nobody here is holding them up. These regulations are done in-house. They do not even have to be brought to Parliament.

For two years, industry and Canadians have been waiting and have received nothing. There is no excuse for the government. There is no logistical problem. There is no problem with the data. There is no problem with knowing what regulations to put in place, because all the other industrialized nations in the world have gone ahead of Canada and put the rules in place.

The fact of the matter is that the government is still stuck in a place where it is either the environment or the economy; it has to be one or the other. This is where the government is going to have to give itself a shake and wake up.

These are the same characters who would look at a GDP result and say it is the only measurement and number they need in order to know how the economy is doing.We in northwestern British Columbia know that after the Exxon Valdez spill, which occurred just north of where I live, the GDP went through the roof. It did fantastic that year for Alaska. Business was booming. According to the government's systemic failure to manage the economy, that was seen as successful.

The regulations that the government proposes in Bill C-16, which is now before the House on its third and final reading, take small steps. However, at the basis of the philosophy of whether Canadians can feel confident about the government's sincerity and ability to actually enforce its own laws, it is found wanting time and again.

When the government sets the limits and the penalties so low, as it did in Bill C-16, it allows business to slide them in as a cost of doing business. I do not see the government proposing such penalties in other areas of criminal law. With a $5 fine for a break and enter, a criminal could sit back and say, “Well, if that is the penalty to break into a house, that seems worth it.” The government understands in that case that it must present a penalty that is a deterrent, so that perhaps the criminal will not break into Canadians' homes and will not steal things.

Yet when it comes to the environment, the government provides paltry fines that a lot of the biggest and most profitable companies will look at as a cost of doing business. If the cost of making their production safe is x, as opposed y, which is the cost, maybe, of a fine, then if y is smaller than x, they will just not do it and will let the pollution run forth.

Industry knows that fines are not coming from the government, that enforcement is not coming. How do they know this? It is evidenced by the Auditor General of Canada, a non-partisan and unbiased officer of Parliament who looked at the government's own laws. It applied the test of those laws to the government and found it wanting yet again.

The only reason the government thinks it can get away with this is because it thinks there is no political consequence. The government thinks that presenting these laws with press announcements at the five-star hotel down the road will somehow replace actual effect, spending thousands of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to rent the place and send the whole press corps down the road so the minister can look tough standing in front of a bunch of enforcement officers, for what? Could it not have done the same thing 50 feet down the hall?

This reminds me of the previous environment minister who spent $85,000 to announce a plan in Toronto that he could have announced right here. He held three different press conferences: one for business in one part of the city, one for the media in another part of the city, and another one for the environmental groups. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent on this little charade. What was announced? It was the Turning the Corner plan.

What a fantastic plan, which was actually talked about in the auditor's report today, which the government cannot account for. The government has had three plans, three ministers, three years, and all have failed to get the job done.

So the government comes forward with Bill C-16, an amalgamation of old acts and old bills that it wants to combine. It tells us to rest assured that it is going to get serious about the environment, finally. It is going to go after the polluters. The Conservatives shake their heads and rattle their sabres, but unfortunately, nothing changes.

I will go back to the point around certainty because it is important for Canadians to understand that this is the actual intersect between business and the environment.

Businesses consistently said to us that they were frustrated with the Liberal Party and the Liberal government because it announced Kyoto. The Liberals went to Kyoto, signed onto Kyoto, ratified Kyoto and promised rules. A great number of businesses, in good faith and good intention, went forward and made some of the changes that would be required under a carbon-constrained economy, which is in Kyoto and which other countries have actually done. They would make the change and the government would come up with another plan and say that it would get to the regulations later. They would make more changes, spend more money, make their businesses less polluting, hoping to get some credit for it and the government would say “later”.

Then the Conservatives came in and the same movie started again. They said that they would get serious, that this was their climate change plan. Because the first two failed, now they would turn the corner, and they called the document “Turning the Corner“. The Conservatives are turning the corner so many times they are walking in circles.

The fact is when we look for regulations, when we look for the hard evidence of what businesses can count on and account for in their own ledgers as to where they spend the money, what the price of carbon will be, how they trade on the carbon markets with the U.S. and the international community, there are none. There are promises that are now two years old, and industry is still waiting.

The minister pretended today, during the question and answer period, that he would somehow show up in Copenhagen with some ability to negotiate. How can the we negotiate without credibility? The other countries know Canada's record. They know the government's intensity-based plan is used by no one else. Not one country in the world uses intensity to measure its carbon emissions.

Does that not give Canadians pause? Have we stumbled upon some unique solution to climate change with which the other countries will jump on board? No one else uses it because it does not work. It is not effective. We cannot measure, we cannot manage, we cannot control under an intensity regime. We told the Conservatives, when they first came to government, that it was a farce.

Finally, two weeks ago the Minister of the Environment stood and said that maybe the intensity regime would not work, that maybe the government needed an actual hard limit. Two years were wasted again. Why? Because the government is interested in only taking policy, not making it.

When it comes to protecting our environment, when it comes to being responsible on greenhouse gas emissions, the Conservatives are found wanting, not simply by New Democrats, who proposed a comprehensive bill. The government asked for policy. We proposed Bill C-311, which passed through the last Parliament, which the government killed by proroguing Parliament again. The Conservatives are addicted to this. How democratic and accountable is it when the government of the day, because it does not like what is going on, Parliament, shuts Parliament down and locks the doors.

It is getting to be a habit of the Conservative government. Three times it has done that. Three times it has killed its own legislation. The members will scream out “coalition”. Twice the Conservatives did it with no threat of anything other than laws that were in this place, put forward by elected people meant to represent the people of Canada, not the will of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Time and time again, Canadians have sent parliamentarians forward to do something about climate change, to bring legitimate legislation forward. It is no longer good enough for the Conservatives to sit on their moral high ground talking about transparency and accountability when the auditor of the country says that it is a lie, that it is otherwise, that it is a mistruth.

This cannot continue. The government has to own up to its responsibilities. It is the Government of Canada, not the government of the Conservative Party of Canada. When the Conservatives get that through their heads, they will finally start to bring legislation forward that matters, that makes a difference and that Canadians can start to believe in this place again and know this place can fix a problem that we all created.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a point that I would like to take up with him. Bill C-16 deals with the enforcement of essentially many environmental laws in Canada, the government's ability to apply fines, what those fines will be and the nature of them. The government needs these tools to enforce and apply its own laws, which is what some laws are guided by and how they are presented.

On the environmental side of things, my colleague mentioned the bill we proposed on climate change. Today, the Auditor General dealt with Bill C-288, a bill out of the previous Parliament. We now have Bill C-311, and the two are meant to join together and take us through the Kyoto period into what is now being called the Copenhagen round of climate change.

However, around all of these laws and prescriptions that we are giving to the government and to the economy around climate change and, in this case, the pollution of greenhouse gases, if the government is unwilling to enforce its own laws and apply the penalties that are contained within those laws, acts and measures, is it not up to conscientious, thoughtful members in this place to find a way to force the government to abide by its own laws? Are there any clauses in Bill C-16 that we can encourage and augment? It is a principle of Canadian democracy that we pass laws in this place and then the government enforces them. Have we lost it all with the government? Does it have any credibility left when it comes to the environment or climate change?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up precisely where we just left off. This is an important debate about the environmental regime in the country.

I would like first though, to go back and congratulate all of those hundreds of Canadian government officials, the lawyers at Justice Canada, all the witnesses who appeared and brought their wisdom and their experience to bear on this bill, a new environmental enforcement bill for the country.

I would like to pick up on something else I just mentioned to the parliamentary secretary. In response to his claim that the government is not whittling down environmental assessment standards, he said that it is all about the need to streamline. Maybe I could paraphrase for government members who are listening. Maybe what the parliamentary secretary meant to say is that it is all about eliminating red tape, or worse, maybe it is about eliminating green tape.

That is very interesting because that is the typical ideological spin that comes from far-right regimes that claim to be in favour of the free action of the free market. They believe their job is to remove impediments from the free market. That has been the mantra and the spin of successive far-right governments.

It certainly was the mantra of the previous Ontario government that led Ontario into almost economic ruin. It would not be surprising for Canadians to conclude that that mantra still resonates inside the current government's cabinet, given that five key ministers in the government were part of the Harris regime which set my home province of Ontario on fire. It was the same mantra we heard then, but here is the problem. There is not a single shred of evidence to substantiate the government's claim that there is a need to whittle down environmental assessment, which is linked to environmental enforcement whether the government likes it or not. There is not a single shred of evidence to link that whittling down of standards to its need and our collective need to invest in stimulus projects across the country. Nothing has been put forward by the government.

The real problem with this is that we have a Minister of the Environment who is trying to put drapes in the window by saying that the Conservatives are going to get tough on environmental crime, which again is part of the ideological spin of a typical far-right regime, while at the same, with his left hand, in the dead of night, without consultation, without parliamentary debate, without it coming to committee, he is actually issuing backgrounders and he is whittling the regulations on environmental assessment that are here for all Canadians to read and know.

It is really important to link these environmental assessment changes to the environmental enforcement bill because the two intersect and they are critical to drive up our environmental standards.

Let us take a look at what the Conservatives are doing here on environmental assessment.

As I mentioned, the Conservatives are bringing in regulatory changes, not through a House of Commons debate and not through a committee debate, but surreptitiously, in the dead of night, they are issuing new regulatory standards which will do the following. Effectively, from now until March 31, 2011, virtually every single project in this country that is subject to a federal environmental assessment that is worth $10 million or less, and $10 million is a very big project in the majority of Canadian municipalities, townships and towns, will no longer be subject to federal environmental assessment.

I understand that Mr. Mulroney is testifying down the hall on another matter. However, I suspect that if he found out that this new regime, this far-right Reform, Republican, Conservative regime was undermining the very environmental assessment that Brian Mulroney brought into this country in 1992, he would be displeased, I am sure. At best, he would be displeased.

The Conservatives are saying that where the sensitive area is protected by the federal government, the total cost for the project must be less than $10 million and measures must be in place to protect the area in order to be excluded. What measures? Set out by whom? By what department? By the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency? By the proponents? By a waste management company? By a municipality? By whom? What measures?

Then the Conservatives proudly herald in their news release that on as many as 2,000 infrastructure projects over two years, that is, 1,000 projects a year, as if they are going to move 1,000 stimulus projects a year through this Parliament, through the government, will no longer need an environmental assessment. They herald this proudly. Ninety per cent of environmental assessments for these types of projects will no longer have to be completed. Two thousand projects over two years will be exempted from the requirement for federal environmental assessment as a result of the government's regulation. Are the Conservatives serious?

It is unbelievable. It is actually more unbelievable because they are heralding this as progress. I am sure Mr. Mulroney, Mr. McMillan and real Progressive Conservative governments would have a lot to say about this.

It goes much further. They actually say that the federal environmental assessment process can be substituted by provincial environmental assessment regimes and processes.

Well, I checked into that too. It turns out that not a single province has an agreement with the federal government to allow for its EA processes to take the place of a federal one. Furthermore, evidence provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency tells us that if we substitute a provincial environmental assessment for a federal one, it is not actually catching all of the requirements under a federal EA regime.

Number one, provinces do not agree with this. Number two, it does not catch all the federal environmental assessment requirements. Number three, there is no agreement with any province anywhere. In fact, in the federal-provincial meeting where this was tangentially mentioned, there was not even a reference to this in the news release. It did not form part of any kind of communiqué. It was nowhere to be seen.

There was no discussion, no agreement, no substitutability and no identical substitutability. Then it goes further. The minister and his government say that the public have to have access to documents and they have to be able to participate if it is a provincial regime. If the provincial environmental assessment regime is kicking in and is substitutable for the federal one, the public must have access to documents and members of the public must be able to participate.

There is a problem with that. First, the Minister of the Environment allowed amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to be inserted into a budget implementation bill as one of nine poison bills because he knew he could not get them through the front door of Parliament. What is really going on here is under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the minister is given unfettered discretion to decide whether environmental assessments should or should not occur. There is no conditionality attached around the public having to have access to documents. There is no conditionality here about the public having to participate. What is it going to be? There is absolutely no coherence in these changes that are being brought here for the environmental assessment regime in Canada, and it links directly to this question of environmental enforcement.

What the government gives with its right hand, it is taking away with its left. It is taking away with a left hand that is incoherent in between the EA changes and the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

The Conservatives say that they are going to consider a comprehensive reform of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act by 2011. I am not sure what that means. They go on to say, as I said earlier, it is 2,000 infrastructure projects that will no longer be caught. That could apply to all kinds of wonderful projects. Let me give Canadians an opportunity to understand exactly what kinds of projects will no longer be environmentally assessed by these federal Reform Conservatives.

For example, on modifying a municipal or community building for energy efficiency, an environmental assessment is not required. On modifying a municipal or community building, an EA is not required. On putting in public transit under $10 million, and supporting structures, an environmental assessment not required. On modifying a municipal or community facility for collecting, processing, diverting, treating or disposing of solid waste, an environmental assessment is not required. Imagine that, for the vast majority of landfills in Canada worth $10 million or less as projects, no more environmental assessments are required.

It goes on. If it has to deal with, for example, setting up residential, institutional or other accommodations, no environmental assessment is required. For meeting rooms, hotels and related facilities, no environmental assessment is required. For hospitals and emergency facilities, no environmental assessment is needed. For schools, universities, colleges, banks, financial services and information facilities, no environmental assessment is needed. For cultural, heritage, artistic, tourism facilities and services, no environmental assessment is required. For setting up an ecotourism system or a waste management system worth less than $10 million, no environmental assessment is needed.

For municipal parking garages worth less than $10 million, no environmental assessment is required. No environmental assessment is required for artistic, cultural and sporting facilities, and the list goes on and on. But it gets worse. Public transit facilities are no longer subject to an environmental assessment, as long as the facility is more than 250 metres away from an environmentally sensitive area. No environmental assessment is needed for a $10 million public transit addition, for example, in a small city or municipality in Canada. If we are installing, operating, expanding or modifying a rapid transit bus system, as long as it is not closer than 250 metres to an environmentally sensitive area, no environmental assessment is required. If we are modifying or expanding a public transit or railway system, no environmental assessment is needed. It goes on and on.

It is very unfortunate. It is something that we intend to continue raising here on behalf of all Canadians and on behalf of all cities and municipalities, and all proponents of projects. We know there is a link between enhanced enforcement, and a link between environmental assessment and standards that will drive up our competitiveness in this international carbon constrained marketplace that we are hurtling toward at breakneck speed.

My second theme today has to deal with how the commissioner's report applies to the question of environmental enforcement. It is a very fascinating read. Canadians should read it on the website. They should examine it. They should take a look at what has been going on for three and a half years on environmental enforcement on the climate change side and on the fish habitat side.

Let us turn to climate change first. That is a fascinating read. It tells us exactly what we have been saying for three and a half years to the government with respect to its third, second and first climate change plans. First of all, the environment commissioner and the Auditor General of Canada said that Environment Canada could not demonstrate that the emission reductions expected were based on an adequate rationale. The climate change plans overstate the reductions deliberately. They overstate the reductions that can be expected from the government's own plan.

I am wondering if that means the government is ignorant of its own potential targets. Is it ignorant with respect to whether the plan can achieve those targets, or is it deliberately misleading Canadians by saying we are going to achieve more reductions than we actually can?

This is linked to environmental enforcement. If we are not going to be environmentally enforcing the most important and pressing concern of the century, if not the millennia, which is the climate change crisis, what would it apply to? The Conservatives cannot provide a rationale. They are overstating the reductions. The third point the Auditor General's office is making is that the Conservatives' plans are not transparent. They do not disclose how they expect reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to be affected by future economic conditions.

Why is that important? It is important because the government now, as we move to deal with the NDP's bill on climate change, Bill C-311, is demanding that it be costed. The Conservatives are saying that private members' bills now must be costed. The problem is that they have not costed their own plan. That is what the commissioner is telling us. How can we move to environmentally enforce a plan that the Conservatives themselves have not costed?

“It has no system”, the Auditor General goes on to say, “for reporting the actual emission reductions achieved from the measures in the annual climate change plan that this party, this official opposition, forced on the government to hold it accountable through the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act”.

The real kicker, and the really problematic part of the commissioner's report today is the following. I need to read this to be absolutely accurate. It states, “However, in the plans prepared to date”, the report says, “the department has not explained why expected emission reductions can be estimated in advance”--as the Conservatives keep telling us, for example, about 20% cuts by 2020, using intensity targets--“but the actual reductions cannot be measured after the fact for individual measures”. Something needs to give here in terms of environmental enforcement.

On the climate change front, we have heard enough now to conclude, Canadians must conclude, the commissioner is telling them to conclude and the Auditor General is telling them to conclude, that the climate change plan being put forward by the government is a fraud. Every time we raise questions about it, only one response is given by the ministers and the Prime Minister, which is that they are dialoguing with the American administration, as if it started in 2009.

We know that the energy dialogue was launched between Canada, the United States and Mexico in 2001. In 2006, when the government was elected, it wiped the slate clean because everything that came before was bad in Conservative speak and everything that came after was good. Therefore, it cancelled five years of dialogue and rebooted it in 2009 as an announcement when President Obama was here. However, Canadians will not be fooled. They know this is not a climate change plan.

I now turn to the question of environmental enforcement when it comes to protecting our fish habitat. Fish habitat, one might say, is not too important and maybe it is something that is tangential but not quite. The commercial fishing sector in 2005 generated $2.2 billion in economic activity and it employed more than 80,000 people in fishing and fish processing activities. More than 3.2 million Canadians participate in recreational fishing which contributed in 2005 some $7.5 billion to Canada's economy.

Now that we know the context in which we are talking here, the magnitude of the economic opportunities, let us talk about what is happening with environmental enforcement here.

First, the conclusion is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is not cooperating in any meaningful way with Environment Canada.

Second, with respect to the state of fish habitat in our freshwaters, our lakes and our rivers, we have no idea whatsoever about the current state of Canada's fish habitat. We have no measurement and no data. We have nothing. Now one would assume, given the magnitude of that economic opportunity inherent in our freshwater fisheries and in recreational fishing, leaving aside the huge costs associated, for example, with a collapse like the cod fishery, that the government would be investing more in science, more in tracking and more in monitoring. However, not quite. We found out today that the government's budget is cutting scientific and monitoring support for the very habitats we should be looking to first, quantify, and second, move to manage because we cannot manage that which we do not measure.

On that note, I would conclude by imploring the government, now that it has delivered up an environmental enforcement bill that began under a previous Liberal regime and amends nine acts, which were brought in by previous Liberal governments, to make a decision on what it wants to do. It needs to make coherent the environmental assessment regime, which is weakening, the environmental enforcement regime, which we are working collectively on to strengthen, and decide whether we are going in one direction or in two directions. This dichotomy cannot stand and I ask the government to turn its attention to making the entire system more coherent.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madame Caron, not to ping-pong back and forth, but I want to go back to the economic viability and recruitment theme that you raised at the beginning. Serious comments were made about the impact of this proposed regime on the ability to attract investment, expand fleets, and recruit folks to work in this industry. The government recently called for full costing of another bill, Bill C-311, which we will get to here at some point--in June, we hope. Did you cost the implications of this new regime and what impact it might have in economic terms on investment in the country, or its affect on difficulty of recruiting new staff?

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to take part in this debate.

Basically, this debate about climate change is one that is vital to everyone. And when I say everyone, I mean everyone.

For the members of the NDP, it is incredible that we are now having a debate on a greenhouse gas emissions trading system, while the rest of the world continues to make major investments and create a market that works.

The motion moved by my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry is an excellent motion, because, even though it is very short, it contains the basic principles needed to establish an absolute limit that respects targets and to finally have a goal for the country. It establishes a concrete goal and concrete targets with respect to climate change.

Under this Conservative government and the previous Liberal government, it has been a disaster. To this day it remains a political disaster for this country. A carbon exchange is crucial. First it should be integrated with the United States and eventually, with the rest of the world. Otherwise, it will be practically impossible for Canada to fight climate change on its own.

The motion fits well with what the NDP has proposed in a bill that now sits before the Standing Committee on the Environment, which says a target must be finally put into law.

The reason we have suggested this in law is because we have seen successive governments present targets and plans, after plans, after plans, that do not come to fruition. I do not essentially blame only the Conservatives because they have learned well from previous Liberal governments who presented so many plans we began to lose count. Nevertheless, greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise at an unprecedented level, faster than our neighbours to the south, and faster than virtually any other country on the planet.

There was this connection. I remember the former Liberal leader saying it and then repeated by the next Liberal leader that it was impossible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while having an economy grow so we had to choose one or the other. I have heard the current environment minister and the current Prime Minister misrepresent the issue time and again that these things are intertwined, that if greenhouse gas emissions rise, then our economy must rise.

This is the most false concept that has been presented in the debate around climate change to this point. It must be brought out into the light to show that a carbon market, for example, is an enabler for new technologies and new growth industries that Canadians have been wanting.

This morning I had some heads of corporations in my office describing and listing off the number of Canadian companies that have either been bought by American firms and moved south, or have simply picked up shop and moved south. These are significant companies from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec that have simply said that without a price on carbon, it is impossible for them to imagine a future in this country in order to develop their products. We are talking about wind, solar, and hydrogen economy. These companies have picked up and left, and are continuing to leave not because they want to but because they feel they must because they have seen where the action is and it is not here in Canada.

As a good example, in the last two federal budgets, both American and Canadian, when the support for renewable energies is pulled out, for example, and we look at what each of our countries is doing on a per capita basis, that is per person, for every $1 we are spending the Americans are spending $14. That is coming from the general accounting office in the United States. It is coming from the World Bank. It is establishing all the countries in the world and how much they are actually supporting, not through words, but through dollars.

A 14:1 ratio for Canada is an embarrassment. There is no doubt and it is with good conviction that these companies are leaving Canada because when they look south of the border and see the support levels for wind, solar, tidal, energies that do not pollute, they realize that the cap and trade system that the administration there is developing will be a concrete one.

We brought forward Bill C-311 that finally puts into law these targets because these governments will not be held to account themselves. They need it inscribed in law. It has to be put there firmly with an ability to adjust targets and plans as we go along. That will establish a firm market.

At the natural resource committee we heard from industrial groups, from all sectors, including those in the fossil fuel sector that have said we must have a price on carbon, we must be able to trade in that market, because without that we cannot compete. We have argued this with the present government and the one before that, that their inaction on climate change would eventually lead to a crippling of the Canadian economy and the energy economy, including projects like the tar sands because we knew a world market was coming.

The concept of putting a price on pollution, of having the polluter pay, is one that Canadians agree with. It is one that Canadians overwhelmingly support and over a number of years industry has quietly been saying “yes, in fact we need some certainty because we cannot do these large investments, these large projects, without knowing that one of our major cost line items which was, eventually and now must be, a price on carbon”. We have even moved the Conservatives to admit to that notion.

I am amazed by the parliamentary secretary's views on this and by extension the Conservatives' views. The notion that negotiating with the White House and that talking about a carbon market, mutually shared across our borders, would be an anathema to the government is spitting in the eye of the very industries that are going to need to trade on this market. These are the very industries that the Conservative government purports to support, such as the tar sands in Alberta and the electricity sector across the country. They will need access to a continent-wide market because the price, as has been mentioned before, of just a domestic-only Canadian market would be discouraging, difficult and harder than it needs to be for Canadian firms.

The government is very fond of talking about the costs of doing this for the environment or the costs of doing that. It has also been noted time and time again by Mr. Stern, formally from the World Bank, and others that the cost of inaction is extraordinary. In the very week that we see more of the Antarctic ice shelves peeling off, in the week that we see a further report by the IPCC, which has been monitoring the greenhouse gas emissions around the world and the intensity of greenhouse gas on the environment, we still see, in form if not in word, denial from the Government of Canada. It is offline with Canadians.

The enabling of the green economy can only happen if we establish a price on carbon. This needs to be noted time and time again for the government to see that it is not one or the other and to stop making the false posit for Canadians that they must choose between a clean environment and stable atmosphere or their jobs.

We have seen now the taking over of Chrysler. It sounds like Canada is going to have a member on that board. One of the key points in the restructuring of that part of the auto industry is to make more efficient cars, to make cars that pollute less. We have argued with previous Liberal administrations and the current Conservative administration that when we were handing money out to the big three automakers, which we have been doing for years for research and development, for technology and to support particular plants, to tie a little string to that. Ask them, as they are receiving public funds for this private enterprise, to include plans for more efficient cars and make more efficient cars.

New Democrats have been arguing this since 2000, saying that this only makes sense because that is where the puck is going to be. Do not pass it where it was, pass it where it will be.

In fact, here we are today with the big three in near meltdown status, all of them scrambling to keep themselves alive. Part of their revival plan is to actually do what New Democrats suggested back in 2000 and presented to the then Liberal government, a coalition among the unions, the environment and the auto sector itself saying, “We can come together on this. We can find ways that we can make the economy and the environment work together”.

Bill C-311 would allow Canada to finally get on track, stop the games with the intensity, and all the mess that the Conservatives have made of this file. Their plan has been supported by no one. Not in industry, not in the environment, not anywhere around the world is there a viable plan. We will have one in Bill C-311.

These motions put forward and put on the table again are about the need for a carbon market, to finally realize and understand the full potential of this country's green economy, a more sustainable economy, an economy that provides jobs that we feel more secure with and that are for the sustainable, long-term viability of our economy and environment.

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

Mr. Chair, I too was surprised to see the orders of the day for this morning. In fact, while we did not make any decision concerning our future business, I was under the impression that the Shipping Federation of Canada, the industry representatives, were going to appear this morning. Unless we are told that they were going to talk about something other than Bill C-16, it seems to me that we were to have them with us this morning.

Indeed, we have not agreed on our future business, except that the Chair of the Committee was given a mandate and he undertook to consult with the Chair of the House to see if we were to go ahead with the study of Bill C-311.

I would think that before we proceed with the study of Bill C-16, the Chair should at least report to us on his consultations with the Chair of the House so that we know if we should proceed to Bill C-311 immediately after studying Bill C-16.

Without this information, the government would clearly have an advantage while another bill should also be studied immediately after Bill C-16. Thus I would like the Chair to give us his report on his consultations.

The Environment

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberals voted for the NDP's Bill C-311 tiddlywink bill. It is a bill the Liberal member from Ottawa South suggests has targets that are fiscally irresponsible because there is no accompanying plan to accomplish them causing him to say, and I quote, “We might as well be sitting at a table with Monopoly money and Tidley Winks”.

Could the Minister of the Environment please explain to the House the right way forward on climate change?

Energy Efficiency Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the folks in Halifax have done this for a long time. In fact, in many respects, they have led the country, not only on energy efficiency but also on waste reduction. They have thought about these as comprehensive strategies.

Right now the natural resources committee, to which the bill will be sent, is looking at integrated energy systems. We have looked at whether communities and regions have integrated energy systems, and right most do not. A few communities such as Halifax, Okotoks, Guelph and Vancouver are trying to integrate their energy systems and are thinking about them in a comprehensive way.

These are very challenging questions in my area of northwestern British Columbia. We must always be consistent and thoughtful of folks who do not live in our big metropolises, of those smaller communities that make an effort to do the same thing, communities that are more car and truck dependent and are more reliant on the primary heat because they tend to be farther north.

These communities can also be brought in, with efficiencies that make sense at their level and in their circumstances. This is why the cookie cutter approach by the government has not worked. It is why its policies have not been adopted across the country. The Conservatives pretend that all Canadians live in the same circumstances and that is not true.

If we were more adaptable, folks in northwestern British Columbia, in Halifax and others would pick up this charge. It makes sense environmentally and makes sense on a financial and personal level. The ethics and economics work out in this scenario and we need to push that. We need to have something a lot more comprehensive than this.

Last night, we passed Bill C-311, by the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North. It is a good bill and it sets out the framework for this.

The House needs to be much more aggressive and progressive on this. Canadians are expecting it and demanding it.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

That's a very specific question that I would like to answer, Mr. Chairman, so I will.

What I am struck by, sir, is the incongruity between statements your leader has made about workable, realistic climate change plans and the fact that yesterday in the House of Commons your party supported what I refer to as the “tiddlywink” bill. That's Bill C-311, the bill that was put forward by the NDP.

Frankly, the bill contains unworkable and impractical targets that are completely unachievable in the Canadian context. We know, from the economic analysis that was done, that even in a good economy, the minus 6% by 1990....

I'd like to carry on with my response, Mr. Chairman.

The Kyoto Protocol called for Canada to reduce its targets by 6% from a 1990 base. This legislation calls for a minus 25% reduction. It is completely impractical. It's so impractical that Mr. McGuinty actually suggested that it was fiscally irresponsible because there was no accompanying plan. As he put it, we might as well be sitting at a table with Monopoly money and tiddlywinks.

And so this is the tiddlywink bill. It is completely impractical. Your party has supported it in the House of Commons. You have no idea how this is going to be made. You have been critical of it yourselves.

I think that is something that Canadians will be interested in.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. It being 3:02 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, March 31, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-311 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from March 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Energy Efficiency Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. Unfortunately, we are no longer even looking at a made-in-USA/copied-by-Canada plan in response to greenhouse gas emissions. We are looking at even less than that when we look at the minimal energy efficient provisions that have come forward today in this bill. We are not even copying the United States of America any more. We are even taking a minimalist approach at the provisions that it is bringing forward.

I think it is absolutely incumbent upon the Government of Canada to set the stage. Right now, as I understand, in Bonn, the governments around the world are talking about what they are going to bring forward to Copenhagen at the end of the year. I would strongly recommend that the House consider approving Bill C-311 when it comes up for a vote on Wednesday. That would provide at least a made-in-Canada target for the next 40 years.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for bringing forward this bill.

I have had an opportunity very briefly to talk to the member. I know that he is serious, sincere, and committed in mobilizing every resource possible to deal with the serious issue of climate change. I know that he believes that in this bill, as his party does, that they are putting forward the mechanism that will challenge the government to in fact enunciate by setting targets a strategy that conforms with the Kyoto protocol, and that in fact will serve as a legacy for future generations.

In that statement of mission, I think that the member and his colleagues are to be congratulated because in that mission we should all very emphatically state that we support the objective. In fact, we can see that the science tells us irrefutably that climate change is going to be probably the most significant threat to civil society globally in the near future.

Even this morning, we were reminded of the juxtaposition of the towns and villages in Nova Scotia that would be affected with just a small temperature change. That cataclysmic effect will be felt around the globe. Therefore, the seriousness of the bill and its relevance to climate change cannot be denied.

However, there are other issues at this particular point we also should keep in mind. The government, through its members, has spoken very eloquently with respect to the most recent action plan statement as a stimulus menu of those areas through research, commercialization and technology and is starting to seriously confront climate change with a template for action.

I appreciate that there are those who doubt what the impact is going to be. In fact, as we look at the very near past many have said that the government de facto had said that we have withdrawn from the Kyoto commitment and others have said that we are the only country in the world to have signed on to the treaty to have unilaterally declared we will not use, for example, the 1990 baseline, or at worst, we will not even try to meet our targets.

That has been suggested and it will be for the government to have the opportunity to illustrate very clearly that it is not true. On this side, we hope it is not.

I just came from the natural resources committee where in a non-partisan way the committee is looking at part of a strategy to deal with climate change across the country from sea to sea to sea with what is called a comprehensive investment in technologies that will be integrated and that will seriously reduce the threat of climate change and contribution to the targets that Canada implicitly at least has said that it is dedicated to.

The members of the committee have been, I think, tremendously impressed with the engineering and practical implications that this has on the future economy in terms of creating jobs, in terms of creating high value added investments, and at the same time dealing with climate change. In other words, we are combining the most important ingredients of sustainable development, economic growth on the one hand, and meeting our environmental challenges together, and not one to sacrifice the other, but both together marching down and meeting our climate change targets.

The reason we are having a bit of difficulty with this bill is we have already been on record, through two acts that were designed as a template to deal with climate change.

Prior to Bill C-311, in its last sitting, this Parliament approved the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act, which are superior to this private member's bill. If they were seriously used as the template for the mission that has been the subject of Bill C-311, those two acts have within them the mechanisms to deal with the issues and to measure the accomplishments that we discussed at our natural resources committee.

The worst thing in any organization is to have a goal that is very complex in a very large country like ours, which is to achieve sustainable development in our climate change objectives, but never get the feedback and measure what we have accomplished. If we do not stand back every so often and take account of what is happening, then we have this doubting Thomas approach that nothing is being accomplished, which is not altogether true.

A careful reading of those two acts would show us that the opportunity for measurement is encompassed with them. This private member's bill has suggested that we should have periodic reports, with the baseline targets of 1990 and the target of 2050, from either through the Auditor General or through the round table on the economy and development. In fact, those mechanisms are being used under Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

I have sat on the environment committee when the Auditor General, for example, has reported department by department. She has reported on how the department has met its sustainable development objectives. The committee has an opportunity to suggest what remedial action is required.

At some point we try to separate the politics of environmental sustainability and our strategies to deal with climate change and accurately position us in a non-partisan way with respect to what our mission is and how we have been dedicated to it.

In bringing this bill forward, I know it was not the intent of the member to detract or add a political dimension to it. When we do not use the acts we have passed, which are affirmations of what we believe, then we place ourselves in the position where we may marginalize the issue because of the politics.

I know this is not what has been intended, but if the alternative course had been taken that there are shortcomings to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and the Federal Sustainable Development Act, they should have been the subject of the bill, not one that appears to transplant them.

At this point we will be observing very closely what is happening in Copenhagen with respect to establishing those targets and we will support those. However, this bill marginalizes the two acts that are already affirmations of the mission we have to deal with climate change.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to resume this debate, rise again here in this chamber, continue on with the good news that the Government of Canada has in regard to our environment, and obviously address Bill C-311. I will just be picking up where I left off last.

Through the ecoEnergy for renewable power program, the Government of Canada is investing $1.5 billion to provide incentives to increase Canada's supply of clean electricity from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, low impact hydro, geothermal, solar and ocean energy.

Through budget 2007, we established the trust fund for clean air and climate change which provided $1.5 billion to Canada's provinces and territories for projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their respective jurisdictions.

The Government of Canada knows that provincial and territorial governments are committed to taking action on climate change and that they control many of the important levers for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our government continues to believe that it is legitimate and necessary to work with our partners in this and other ways to achieve our shared and common goals.

The government has already begun to catalyze investment in critical clean technologies in Canada. We began in budget 2007 by providing $500 million to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to enable projects that will spur the development of next generation renewable fuels.

More recently, through Canada's economic action plan, we are investing $1 billion in the research into and development and demonstration of promising technologies including large scale carbon capture and sequestration projects. These funds, under the clean energy fund, build on the $250 million invested to build the same technology through budget 2008.

I could not imagine resuming debate on a more profound day. Members will be delighted to know that March 26 is the day that my minister of energy in the province of Alberta, the hon. Mel Knight, is in Aspen, Colorado receiving the Aspen environment award on behalf of the Province of Alberta for the insightful and, shall I say, inspiring work that the Government of Alberta is doing through its $2 billion commitment in its previous budgets to move ahead on carbon capture and storage. This is a tremendous opportunity for Albertans. It is a tremendous opportunity for our country and I just want to congratulate my province and my minister on that.

Also, through Canada's economic action plan, we established the green infrastructure fund through which it will invest $1 billion in the construction of infrastructure across Canada that will both create jobs and growth in the short-term, and help us transform to a green economy through the long-term.

Canada's economic action plan also announced an investment of $300 million in the ecoEnergy for home retrofit program, which will support an additional 200,000 energy-saving home retrofits.

Our government has a great deal to be proud of in terms of the actions it has taken to address climate change since taking office in 2006, and with President Obama's recent visit to our country, we have opened a new and exciting chapter in those efforts.

It is not at all surprising that Canada would want to work closely with our greatest allies and trading partners on our southern border. Not only do our two countries share similar objectives in addressing climate change, but we are working from similar principles. In fact, our emission targets for 2020 are very closely aligned, though Canada's proposed reductions are in fact slightly deeper.

The Prime Minister and President Obama recently agreed to begin a clean energy dialogue that will see our two countries co-operate on several critical energy, science and technology issues. First, we will work to expand clean energy research and development by expanding collaboration on energy research related to advanced biofuels, clean engine technologies, energy efficiency, and a multitude of other areas.

The clean energy dialogue will also help us to develop and deploy clean energy technology. Carbon capture and sequestration technology holds enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we use our own energy resources to power our economy.

Canada and the United States will co-ordinate research and demonstrations of the technology at coal-fired plants, building on our experience with the North Dakota-Weyburn project. This will help accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale, near-zero-carbon coal facilities to promote climate and energy security.

Last, we will seek to build a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable generation. Our countries have significant expertise to share with one another on things like smart grid technologies. By investing in new transmission options, we will make electricity delivery more reliable, help avoid blackouts, promote energy efficiency, and increase the supply of renewable power.

In conclusion, this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, understands the critical nature of the needs to address climate change. We are implementing a number of responsible domestic initiatives to help reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions, while acknowledging that climate change is a problem that does not respect national boundaries. To this end, we are working with our partners in the United States, as well as within the broader international community, on solutions that will benefit us all.

The House resumed from March 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Environmental Enforcement Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the hon. member for Yukon and I share his love of the north. I had the pleasure of living and working in Yukon for three years. I share his concern with what will happen to the way of life up there because of the lack of action in addressing climate change.

I, therefore, put the same question for the hon. member. Will he be supporting the private member's bill, Bill C-311, so that we may actually hold the government accountable for the next actions necessary to address climate change?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to look at Bill C-311. It is important that Canada gets this right, that we look at the reductions in emissions. Do we go back to Kyoto? Do we get ahead of what is being done internationally? It is an incredibly important bill and it has to be looked at very carefully.

We as a country have to get this right. We have to get it right for our people. We have to get it right for our various sectors. We have to get it right for agriculture, for forestry.

We are already seeing tremendous changes here in Canada. For example, our Great Lakes levels are going down. We have increasing drought on the Prairies. We have shifting migration in fish. We are seeing an increase in heat waves, for example. Currently, about 200 people die each summer as a result of heat waves. By 2050, 1,200 people may die as a result of a heat in Toronto alone.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the question again. If the hon. member firmly believes in the need for binding regulations and binding laws, so that we can actually have laws enforced, will she stand and vote in favour of Bill C-311, which actually provides for accountability of the government in delivering a prescribed agenda for climate change?

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government's many concerns about the economic implications and potential unconstitutionality of Bill C-311 have already been brought to the attention of the House.

I would now like to comment on the action that the government is taking to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions, including working with the United States on a clean energy dialogue. Canada is also committed to working within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change towards a post-2012 implementation on global emission reductions, but it is Canada's domestic and continental efforts on which I will focus my comments.

Unlike the Liberals, who had 13 or so years to work on this issue and did virtually nothing, our government is committed to stopping the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and then dramatically reducing them. We have established a national target of an absolute reduction of 20% in greenhouse gases, relative to 2006 levels, by the year 2020. By 2050, Canada's emissions will be 60% to 70% below 2006 levels. This government has also established a target that, by 2020, 90% of our electricity will come from non-emitting sources.

While Bill C-311 would impose a long-term emissions reduction target that goes far deeper than anything proposed by the global community, our target would bring Canada in line with the accepted requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while striking the necessary balance between environmental and economic progress, as opposed to the economic evisceration of the Canadian economy, which is what the NDP is proposing to do through this bill.

Our government is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the industrial sector through regulations and is continuing to develop the regulatory regime. It will be the product of significant consultation, including the provinces, territories, industry stakeholders, and environmental non-governmental organizations. These industrial regulations will require mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and will also create the incentives for development and deployment of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which will result in significant emissions reductions over time.

In addition, this government is using its regulatory authorities to increase renewable fuel content in gasoline and to strengthen the energy efficiency of a wide variety of products.

Through this government's suite of eco-action programs, we will drive emissions reductions beyond the industrial sectors of our economy. Eco-action investments cover a range of sectors and activities, including renewable power, home retrofitting, and commercial transportation.

For example, through the eco-energy for renewable power program, the government is investing $1.5 billion to provide incentives to increase Canada's supply of clean electricity from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, low-impact hydro, geothermal, solar—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C-311 introduced by my hon. colleague. I wish to thank the hon. member who spoke before me for his very cogent and knowledgeable comments. Obviously, he has been working on the file a long time, and we appreciate his support.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in December 2002 and it came into legal effect in February 2005. As a consequence, Canada is now legally obligated to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. The next targets are being negotiated as we speak here in the House. We are into a countdown to Copenhagen. It is necessary for the members in this House to wake up and realize that we must develop a position that Canadians will support taking to Copenhagen. We are informed by leading scientists that these targets may now be overly conservative, that more substantial reductions, and sooner, may be necessary to prevent, or at least mitigate, catastrophic climate change impacts.

In Canada international obligations must be implemented through domestic law. Regrettably, to date the government has rejected science-based reduction targets, failed to establish legally binding caps, failed to enact any national emission trading regime, and relied on and invested dollars in unproven and costly technology of minimal practical worth to actually reduce greenhouse gases.

In addition, at the past two international conferences of the parties, Canada chose to block progress toward urgent action on science-based targets. But it is not too late to change course, as my previous leader was wont to say, to join forces with progressive nations committed to serious credible action and to do our part to address climate change.

If we are truly to be in sync with the Obama administration's groundbreaking environmental agenda, if we are going to ensure our industries a competitive edge in producing and exporting clean energy, if we are going to provide a level playing field for all generators of energy, both fossil fuel and renewable sectors, if we want Canadian industries to benefit from a continental emission trading regime, then this Parliament must support the passage of Bill C-311. The substance of the bill already received the support of the majority of votes in the last Parliament, which incidentally included the Liberal Party.

The definition of a democracy is straightforward. To qualify as a democracy, the nation must agree to abide by the rule of law. The rule of law means that those who make the rules are democratically elected. They enact laws to govern the affairs of the nation. Those laws are committed to and enforced, which is a refreshing concept in this House.

Why is this important to climate change? The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which the Liberals are proud of, was enacted by Parliament in 2007 and prescribes in law the requirement to comply with the Kyoto targets by 2012. To date the government has refused to enforce that law despite its purported support of and strong commitment to enforcement of environmental laws. That is a law on the books. So much for its commitment.

Bill C-311 imposes a positive legal obligation on the Government of Canada to take action to meet specified reduction targets in the mid and long term, targets which can be revised over time based on science. It removes the current unlimited discretion to delay action. The bill introduces both legal certainty and government accountability, something the government professes to stand by.

At the same time it allows for flexibility in measures used by industry and government alike to meet the targets. It requires reports on compliance by the minister and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Why is this important? Legislative or regulatory measures have been proven empirically to be the most effective mechanism to trigger new investment in environmental technologies. Twenty years of reliance on voluntary measures, as my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, and subsidies to fossil fuels have given us monumental increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Binding targets with prescribed compliance dates provide advance notice and clear price signals to the current and future cost of carbon. It prescribes directions for Canada's position in international and bilateral climate negotiations and dialogues, including the dialogue going on now with the United States of America.

The economic crisis has fostered economic uncertainty. Legal certainty is needed to give industry a secure footing for recovery and to attract investment. This is backed by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who stated at the United Nations' COP 14:

We also urgently need a deal on climate change to provide the political, legal, and economic framework to unleash a sustained wave of investment. In short, our response to the economic crisis must advance climate goals, and our response to the climate crisis will advance economic and social goals.

The United States has announced its intent to move forward on a hard cap and a North American emission trading system. They have committed $76 billion to renewable technologies, close to 100 times more than the investment by the government. The government's 2007 plan provides less stringent intensity-based targets, and budgets no new funds to incent renewable energy sources, despite an oversubscribed, successful program from an enthusiastic and burgeoning Canadian clean energy sector.

Billions of Canadian tax dollars will be redirected to subsidize experiments by the fossil fuel industry, with a vague promise to consider regulatory caps post-2020.

The government has refused to support the International Renewable Energy Agency, the recognized global forum for advancing technology for renewable energy. Bill C-311 gives the government a credible backbone for our role in the Canada-U.S. energy and climate change dialogue. It provides a credible action plan that Canadians support.

Current polls tell us that the majority of Canadians still want action on the environment. Canadians know that our environmental and economic crises are best addressed in tandem. In fact, 57% of Canadians support federal action on climate change even if it means a higher deficit.

By supporting Bill C-311, Parliament can finally show leadership. It provides the clear signal to our trading partners that we are committed to genuine engagement in global and bilateral action. It sends a new, positive message to the world that we are finally taking action to deliver on our international obligations to address climate change and forge a greener economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to speak today about Bill C-311. I have to say that I am very surprised at the Liberal Party's position this evening.

It will be interesting to reread the speech given by my colleague, the Liberal environment critic. It is quite a change from past Liberal positions on the fight against climate change. I remember debates on the Liberal bill, Bill C-288, when the opposition was in agreement that greenhouse gas reduction targets should be established. I remember debates on air quality when we also agreed on setting targets.

Basically, that is the goal of Bill C-311, which is before us today. The preamble to the bill clearly states that temperatures must not be allowed to increase more than two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period. That is the key part of this bill. The scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change propose and recommend that the increase in temperatures be limited to two degrees over the pre-industrial period.

It is the only way to avoid major climate change. It is the only way to avoid the worst case scenario. How do we translate this scientific objective into tangible results? By adopting short-, medium- and long-term reduction targets, as proposed by Bill C-311. Experts say that to limit the increase to two degrees, we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 25% to 40% below the 1990 lby 2020. The following is found on page 3 of Bill C-311:

—25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020—

Some members of this house have said that targets are not important. On the contrary, this flows directly from a recommendation made by recipients of the Nobel Prize. It is the only way to reduce emissions and to avoid the worst case scenario in future.

We like this bill because, unlike the government's proposal, it establishes 1990 as the reference year, as provided by the Kyoto protocol. We are pleased that this reference year is mentioned in the definitions on page 3 of the bill and in the undertakings because, among other things, it acknowledges the efforts made by Quebec companies in the past. In recent years, they have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by almost 10% compared to 1990. With 1990 as the reference year, we can take into consideration reductions made by Quebec companies. That would allow us to apply the polluter-pays principle rather than the polluter-paid principle. The government prefers to use 2006 as the reference year simply because it wants to reset the clock.

They would not want to take into consideration the greenhouse gas emissions over the past 16 years, that is from 1990 to 2006. It is not true that Quebec will accept that, for it has made efforts, some of its industries have made efforts to change their industrial procedures, because Quebec—along with others, such as Manitoba—has decided to put in place greenhouse gas reduction measures, because it has made efforts already. We hope that these efforts will be recognized by the government, and that is exactly what Bill C-311 does.

What is more, the bill proposes absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets, not intensity targets as the Conservative government recently proposed in its plan. When I compare the plans presented by the Conservatives with those presented by the Liberals in recent years, it is nothing more than cut and paste. One can see that since the Liberal party changed leaders, there has been a blurring of the lines between the Liberals and the Conservatives. This is a problem, and a very fundamental one, since it is going to weaken Canada's position internationally when the time comes for the post-Kyoto agreement to be negotiated in December 2009 in Copenhagen. We will have a government trying to water down the international agreements on the fight against climate change, with the backing of the official opposition. That is absolutely unacceptable.

Steps must be taken, therefore, to keep that opposition party from backing up the party in power. This is what we have been seeing in recent weeks, and it is a source of concern.

What is more, one of the interesting points in the bill we have before us is subsection 7(2), which reads:

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

That means that the bill supports the idea of provinces implementing their own greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans, agreeing among themselves about how to apportion the targets and using different approaches to meet those targets. That is the European model.

I was in Kyoto in 1997. I was there when Europe proposed an 8% greenhouse gas emissions reduction target to the international community. Europe reached agreements with its partners, with sovereign nations, about how much each EU member nation would have to contribute. The model is an interesting one, one that is the basis of the bill before us, and it would enable Canada to go back to the international community with a better greenhouse gas reduction record than it has had up to now. Why? Because it would recognize that Quebec's energy policy is not the same as the rest of Canada's. By bringing in a territorial approach, we could optimize every dollar invested in the fight against climate change. It seems to me that the government should be able to understand an approach that involves optimizing public investments.

We will support this bill. However, I have to say that I am disappointed. Of course, the Liberal Party will support the bill, but we need firmer resolve on the part of the official opposition to make sure that, when we go to Copenhagen next December, we will have a bill that represents a broad consensus here in the House. I hope that the Liberal Party will be firmer and more determined when this bill goes to committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate tonight on Bill C-311. The bill has been reintroduced under a new MP, a bill that was put forward in the last Parliament by the leader of the NDP. As such, it really has no material changes compared to its predecessor bill.

Before pronouncing on the bill, I want to take a few minutes to talk a bit about where we are now nationally with respect to this climate change crisis.

In the last three and a half years, I think it would be fair and objective to describe the government's performance as varied, at best. We really do not know any more where the government stands on the climate change challenge.

Just a year and a half ago the predecessor minister of the environment announced to the country and all the industries that operated their businesses that there would be, for example, no international trading. Yet the new Minister of the Environment says that apparently we will join the United States in a cap and trade system, as if the United States has even invited us to join.

The Government of Canada has said, de facto, that we have withdrawn from the Kyoto protocol. We are the only country in the world to have signed this treaty to have unilaterally declared we will not use, for example, 1990 as the baseline year or, worse, we will not even try to meet our targets.

In 2007 we saw a new plan emerge, the so-called made in Canada plan, called “Turning the Corner”. We have seen no regulatory text in the country yet. It is apparently supposed to come on January 1, 2010. The problem is the 11 independent groups, not political parties, but third-party groups, left-wing groups like the C.D. Howe Institute, that have looked at the government's plan have said that its plan cannot possibly achieve the reductions it claims it will achieve.

Right now I think we are in a situation of great flux. There are some, for example, in the NGO movement that declare the bill is the right text, or it is reaffirming the science of climate change and the need to take an evidentiary approach to setting targets. I agree with that claim.

Others in the NGO sector are telling the official opposition that, on the contrary, we do not need to be fixated any more on targets. What we need to do is develop a robust plan in Parliament like we tried to do with the government's failed clean air act when it was rewritten in a special parliamentary committee, a clean air act that was inspired completely by the clean air act efforts of the former Republican administration in Washington.

Now we have a big change. The Democratic government in Washington and the new President are using 2005, so far, as the baseline year. They are saying that the Americans will reduce their emissions by 14% from 2005, effectively meaning we are going back to 1990 levels of U.S. emissions by 2020.

The government says that this is in line with its targets, that its targets are yet more advanced, more ambitious than the American targets. The problem is we are talking apples and oranges because the government is talking intensity targets and the United States is talking about absolute cuts.

Recently President Obama went to Congress, 535 members strong, and asked it to deliver a comprehensive cap and trade scheme, along with renewable energy strategies for the United States.

Right now in the 110th Congress, there are at least 10 different cap and trade schemes on the floor of Congress, not 1 or 2, but 10. The United States is proposing a massive auction of permits to raise up to $80 billion by 2012, $15 billion of which is go to renewable energy and $60 billion for tax credits for modest-income Americans.

The United States is warning its citizenry that the cap and trade system it intends to bring in will have a profound effect on energy pricing. It will, to use the words of the Conservative Party, increase the price of everything, that unfortunate and infantile advertising claim the government used in the last election campaign to the detriment of the understanding of the Canadian people on the need to act now on the climate change crisis.

We have a situation where everything appears to be in flux. We found that the vast majority of the powers and the reporting provisions in Bill C-311 were already law as a result of the two Liberal private members' bills passed by the last Parliament: first, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act; and second, the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

We also know that medium and long-term targets will be set internationally at a United Nations conference culminating in Copenhagen this December.

What troubles the official opposition about this bill is it does prejudge the outcome of those negotiations. However, we have no idea in this Parliament where those negotiations are. Nothing has been disclosed at committee or in the House. We do not know if Canada is effectively still participating in the post-2012 world of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Having abandoned the Kyoto protocol, I am not even sure how Canada can come to the negotiating table with clean hands, as they say in international law, and purport to put forward a position to be received by 170-plus countries that have signed the deal.

What concerns us as well on this side is if the NDP were really serious about improving Canada's climate change laws, would it not be seeking to amend the existing Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, extending it beyond 2012, for example? All the regulatory standards that we would like to see and the powers that might or should accrue to a government to follow through on these commitments are there. I see in the bill so far nothing that is conferred to a government, which it needs in order to move forward on the climate change challenge.

Other than enunciating medium and long-term targets, Bill C-311 contains very few provisions, as I said, that are not already under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. For example, 90% of the wording in the bill is word for word the same as those already granted by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

Similarly, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy is already required, under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, to review the programs undertaken by the federal government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets and to report on the effectiveness of the measures and to report to Canadians on how well things are going, or are not going.

There is an awful lot of overlap. There is also an awful lot of factors in play.

However, in my view it is important to take this issue further. It is important to take the bill further. It is important to have a close examination of its amendability, for example. Because the situation is so much in flux, because we are waiting to a certain extent, unfortunately, for Washington, because we have no climate change plan from the Conservative government, it is our position that the bill requires more analysis and more examination as we go forward.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-311 is very straightforward. It sets science-based targets. It requires the government to publish a plan. It would ensure that the government has the tools to meet those targets and accomplish its plan. Therefore, the cost will depend on the measures chosen by the government in the plan.

This sets the direction we need to go and gives total flexibility on how we do it. For example, I hope that the Conservatives hope carbon capture technology will work. We do not know if it will work and it certainly cannot be the only tool in our toolkit, but if it works, more power to us. We must set the targets now so we know where we need to go by certain set dates between now and then or we are never going to get there.

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

moved that Bill C-311, 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, we are faced with the biggest challenge in the history of the civilized world. We have choices. Canada can choose to lead, we can follow the world's leaders and scientists, but what we cannot do is just get out of the way.

My riding is vast and covered with boreal forests and lakes. Today the boreal forest is under extreme stress: from insects and disease, not only the mountain pine beetle; from more forest blowdowns because of more wind extremes; from record low water levels in Lake Superior; and, of course, forest fires, more forest fires all the time.

Greenhouse gases, up to a point, are a good thing and give the earth an average temperature of 15° Celsius. Without them, we would not be here to complain about cold winters in Canada because even in the tropics life as we know it could not exist. However, in the last century, especially in the most recent decades, human activities have resulted in more greenhouse gases and the global average temperature is increasing steadily.

Let us look at a little history. How did we get here?

Temperatures are closely linked to the amount of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Temperatures have varied in the far distant past but human civilization has been here for a relatively brief period as a civilized entity, a mere 10,000 years. During this period, global average temperatures have been very consistent, with a variation of less than 1° over the past 10,000 years.

Droughts and little ice ages took place that forced people to move or perish. However, climate extremes, prolonged temperature shifts and weather catastrophes have been mostly limited to regional areas. They were not, as today, global in scope or scale.

The amounts of greenhouse gases were stable for this entire period. Humans used some wood for heating and cooking. Nevertheless, new plant growth easily captured that carbon. Around the beginning of the industrial revolution, CO₂ was at 280 parts per million.

Worldwide concern about climate change had its first peak in the 1980s. World gatherings of policy makers and scientists studied the problems and issued directives to parliaments and congresses around the world.

Right here in Canada, in 1988 the United Nations conference in Toronto called “The Changing Atmosphere” was the beginning of a more modern consciousness about climate change. At that conference, the UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, to assess changes in climate, estimate their impacts and present strategies on how to respond.

Delegates from 46 countries all recommended developing a comprehensive global framework convention to protect the atmosphere and a 20% cut in global carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005, and we have delivered a 28% increase. In many ways, we knew it all more than 20 years ago and we politicians did not listen to our own scientists.

The Rio earth summit in 1992 followed. Sustainability was the talk and there were more rehearsals about reductions. The Liberal government of the time announced an action program on climate change in 1995 but to no significant effect. There was so much well-intended talk but so little real action here in Canada.

The second peak in activity about climate change took place in the late 1990s. It was in response to new science and real world experience with nasty and extreme weather events. Some examples include: an unusual number of hurricanes; a number of billion dollar storms in the United States; a Chicago heatwave that killed 740 people; the Saguenay flood in 1996, Canada's first ever billion dollar natural disaster; and Winnipeg's Red River flood of 1997.

There was a lot of momentum leading to Kyoto in 1997 when almost all countries signed it, including Canada, to reductions below 1990 levels by 2012.

Unfortunately, the Bush years scuttled that process. The U.S., with nearly one-quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions, refused to ratify that protocol. Canada did ratify but with a puzzling disregard for a binding treaty. We continued to increase emissions.

The big three of emissions per capita, the United States, Australia and Canada, made only token investments in renewable energy technology. In fact, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions actually increased considerably more than the United States on a per capita basis.

Today, Americans and Canadians emit more CO₂ per capita than anywhere else in the world.

When will we reach the tipping point?

Those familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's book, The Tipping Point , will remember the example he uses of the light switch. We can move it, more and more, but it still remains dark, it is still dark we can move it, it is still dark then the room is suddenly filled with light.

There is a consensus among many scientists that at 450 to 500 parts per million, a climate tipping point will be reached from which we can never recover.

Most of us in Canada would welcome a few extra degrees more warmth on certain days, but it is a package deal. Warm temperatures increase the range of insects, for example the mountain pine beetle, and disease, such as the West Nile virus and Lyme disease, with predictions of malaria for southern Ontario in the not too far distant future.

All of our regions are vulnerable. Atlantic Canada: more intense hurricanes and nor'easters; more frequent and extreme floods in central Canada, indeed throughout Canada; more drought, hail and tornadoes on the prairies; more blowdowns on the west coast, like in Stanley Park; and, most vulnerable of all, our Canadian Arctic where the land and the ice are already experiencing major change. Permafrost is melting and has the potential to release huge quantities of greenhouse gases, like methane. Polar bears and traditional Inuit culture are headed for extinction.

We must heed these warnings. The severity of ferocious bushfires in Australia a few weeks ago shocked probably everyone but especially people in countries that deal with wildfires. Some people fled while others chose to stay and fight, and die.

On television, Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, symbolized a shocked nation. He looked around, barely able to find any words, and publicly wept. The final death toll will be over 240 in Australia. Our deepest sympathies do go out to the families and the Australian people.

However, the tragedy should not have come as that much of a surprise. A grim warning was issued by Australian scientists a few years ago. Their equivalent of our national research council stated:

...a new order of fires should be expected in south-eastern Australia [...] catastrophic fire events every five to seven years, with fires of such ferocity they would simply engulf towns in their path.

And here they are. Fire temperatures are estimated to have exceeded 1000 degrees Celsius, hotter than crematoriums typically set at 850 degrees.

Most of my own riding is in the boreal forest. I in fact I have spent most of my life in the forest as an ecologist, business person and forester. Forest fires are and have been a reality in our life there. It is not unusual for communities in my riding to be evacuated because of approaching forest fires. Some day we may be weeping when we lose entire towns full of people to wildfires right here in Canada.

Forest fires are part of a changing reality. According to the Canadian Forest Service, the area burned in Canada annually has almost tripled over the last three decades. Projected warmer temperatures and less reliable rainfall in the next decades may hugely increase that.

In the Arctic, the last two summers have featured records in ocean ice melting. There is the likelihood we that will see an ice-free Arctic in our lifetime. It is troubling that all these trends are predicted and, indeed, expected with increased greenhouse gases.

An essential part of the new weather is the higher frequency of extreme events. This is just a preview of the worsening next two decades. We need to act. Instead, we have Canada's inaction. We Canadian politicians have a sad record of inaction. Why is that?

Opinion polls keep saying that 80% of Canadians favour strict measures to reduce emissions, yet our own governments have been impotent and unwilling to confront what will be the defining issue of the 21st century: a changing climate and a dying world.

Voluntary compliance does not and will not work. I have already mentioned the failure of Sheila Copps' national action program on climate change in 1995. It is just one of many examples where we have failed. Canada is now approximately 28% above, not below, 1990 levels. To be blunt, Canada is an embarrassment on the world stage. We have retreated from recent world meetings in Bali and Poznan with a folder of fossil-of-the-day awards.

The next world conference in Copenhagen this December will provide another opportunity to regain some stature on the vital issue of climate change. This act would help re-establish our credibility at the bargaining table and increase the chances of persuading major developing countries to take on such commitments.

In this 40th Parliament, we have one last opportunity to take real action to prevent the threat of worsening economic and health effects of climate pollution. Bill C-311 would ensure that the government is accountable to Canadians on climate change and that Canada is accountable to the world.

This bill gives us a goal. It would require the Minister of the Environment, now and in the future, to implement measures to ensure that Canada reduces our absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. It introduces greater government accountability by requiring the minister to prepare five-year target plans starting in 2015 and report on progress every two years. It would mandate an independent body, the national round table on the environment and the economy, to review and report on the feasibility of each target plan.

The bill offers flexibility. The government has the option of setting targets, including for 2020, if it can make a convincing case that those targets are part of an appropriate trajectory between here and the bill's 2050 goal.

This bill builds on Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act. In particular, the accountability mechanisms where the government is compelled to public emissions reduction plans and have them independently audited would die with C-288 at the end of 2012 if this bill is not passed. This bill would continue where Bill C-288 ends.

This bill would give us certainty, with long timelines and much greater predictability for business and industry. The plan lays out targets for five-year periods until 2050, giving a very clear picture of future regulatory environments. Controlling emissions offers us new opportunities. Cutting emissions is promoted by some as being detrimental to industry, but in many countries cutting emissions has created abundance. New technologies in Denmark, Germany and other European countries are creating jobs and internationally marketable products, which Canada could also choose to do.

Reducing emissions creates financial opportunities with lots of money to be made in the green economy. Consider, please, the Canadian who came up with a new solar panel, and could find no Canadian buyer and whose company was bought up by Germany. ZENN electric cars are made in Quebec, but exported to the U.S. because Ontario will not buy or legalize them.

In reducing carbon emissions we would be building fresh companies that would be addressing our current energy and environmental needs. We would create rewarding green collar jobs by building solar and wind infrastructure, as well as safe and renewable energy for our future.

As parliamentarians we can choose to finally confront this crisis decisively. This crisis is about the survival of millions of species, including our own. This issue must not be a partisan issue. It is not about right versus left. This is about right versus wrong.

Albert Schweitzer said over 50 years ago that “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and forestall. He will end by destroying the earth”. Let us prove him wrong. Let us join together to save a future for our children, our grandchildren, and our beautiful world.

[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.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured to reintroduce the climate change accountability act. This act would ensure that Canada would assume its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. It received the gracious support of a majority of members in the House this last Parliament, and I look forward to working with my colleagues from all parties to make sure that this vital legislation gets passed as quickly as possible.

Recent developments make it even more urgent that we take immediate steps to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. This act would set firm targets to reduce Canadian emissions. It would set clear objectives that would have to be met on fixed dates. It would help safeguard future generations from the dangerous effects of climate change and it would make us credible again in the eyes of the world.

We must not delay action any longer.

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