Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of the second hour of debate on the motion I introduced on May 2. That motion concerned implementation of the Kyoto protocol and called for respect and recognition of the efforts made in Quebec since 1990.
I would like to thank my colleagues from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Richmond—Arthabaska for their contribution to this debate, which is of importance to Quebeckers.
I respect the dissenting views of the other parties, but at the same time have trouble understanding what prevents them from acknowledging the efforts made by Quebec.
We are already fully engaged in the process of attaining the Kyoto protocol objectives. Quebeckers are concerned about the environment. They have made serious efforts to encourage industries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Much work has been done. Quebec has made a huge effort. But what does the government do? Once again, it introduces a bad plan based on the polluter-paid, instead of the polluter-pay, principle. The government really ought to do its homework better.
This motion calls for efforts to reduce polluting emissions to be assigned according to territory, with the reference year being 1990. Quebec would then be required to make a fair effort at reduction that would recognize its past pro-ecology choices. This motion also calls upon the federal government to enter into a bilateral agreement, to give the Government of Quebec full responsibility for implementing the Kyoto protocol within the province, with fair financial compensation. Most importantly, the motion calls on the federal government to respect the territorial approach and give top priority to the following: making public transit passes tax deductible; establishing a reduction for the automobile industry eight and a half times that set out in the voluntary agreement, which must be accompanied starting today by a regulatory framework setting out heavy fines for non-compliance; eliminating tax incentives to oil and gas producers; and offering tax deductions for purchasing hybrid vehicles. These are just examples.
This forward-looking motion will enable all the provinces to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and help strike a better balance by requiring that the efforts made to date by Quebec be recognized.
Let me reiterate what was said about Canada's Kyoto protocol implementation plan. In various joint statements, environmental groups denounce the environment minister's plan, the lack of detail on the mechanisms and concrete measures that will be used, the lack of deadlines and interim implementation targets, the lack of transparent mechanisms and instruments for measuring results, and the target for major emitters, which is so low it puts an unfair burden on other aspects of the plan.
Some 64% of reduction objectives are achieved by the individual efforts of Canadians or with the help of public funding, while individuals are responsible for only 23% of all emissions. Environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Équiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, have come to an alarming conclusion.
I call on all hon. members to support this motion to give the country a chance to honour its Kyoto commitment, by giving the provinces concrete, tangible, viable solutions that will ensure environmental sustainability for our families and our children.
I am asking all my friends and colleagues to vote with me in favour of Motion M-162.
