Bill C-288 (Historical)

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister — to the extent that it is within its purpose — on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I have today the great pleasure to speak to a motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Québécois which has to do with the Kyoto protocol. The motion proposes:

That, having recognized the principle of complying with the Kyoto targets, it is the opinion of this House that the government should provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

We also took note of the amendment introduced by the NDP, the purpose of which was to indicate clearly that the $328 million is of course a minimum and that the government should also give the appropriate amounts to the other provinces that wish to embark on the fight against climate change.

I would say that the original Bloc motion plus the NDP amendment prove one thing. The first part of the motion refers to the fact that the principle of complying with the Kyoto protocol has been recognized in this House. What does that mean? First, it means that through the House of Commons and parliamentarians, we have taken strong action to send to the government the clear message that we want a credible plan for fighting climate change that incorporates the Kyoto targets.

I will remind you that last May, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion calling on the government to table this credible plan incorporating the Kyoto protocol targets. The majority of members in this House—from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party—voted in favour. The principles of compliance with the Kyoto protocol that are included in the Bloc’s motion today are thus repeated, and we would like the majority of the House to repeat this support many times expressed by parliamentarians, in the Bloc Québécois motion in May, in Bill C-288 tabled by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, and again this week in an opposition motion calling for compliance with the Kyoto protocol.

However, the reality is quite different. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 27% since 1990. So billions of dollars have been invested in Canada to fight climate change, but the results have not come. This means that, to comply with its Kyoto targets, as things now stand the government will have to reduce its emissions not just by 27%, but also by another 6% on top of that.

In my opinion, the results presented by the Conservative government in Nairobi—results that can be attributed to the Liberal efforts of recent years—must drive home to us the importance of changing our approach to combating climate change in Canada.

What is that approach? First of all, it is a voluntary approach which—if absolutely necessary, of course—would establish regulations, as proposed by the Liberal finance minister of the time, in a budget for example. But it was also an approach that would provide for regulations based on emission intensity.

What does that mean? It means that in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions imposed on industry, we would take production into consideration and not set a reduction target based on the total quantity of greenhouse gases produced by these different industrial sectors.

This approach which has been adopted by the federal government, both Liberal and Conservative, is nothing but a gain, a savings and an advantage for the oil companies and the big polluters.

We are calling on the government to base its greenhouse gas reductions and its emission targets for large industrial emitters on the total quantity discharged by the different industrial sectors. But the Conservative government, which has adopted the same policy as the previous government, an approach that is ineffective, inefficient and unfair, is perpetuating an approach that has not yielded the desired results in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions.

We are today proposing to change this approach, to adopt a territorial approach whereby the provinces would be asked to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in binding fashion, obliging them to cut emissions within their territory by 6%, while leaving them free to establish the plans, policies and programs they want.

The reason for doing this is quite simply because the energy policy of Quebec, which generates 95% of its power from hydroelectricity, is not the energy policy of Western Canada, which depends on hydrocarbons, oil sands and fossil fuels. The energy policy of Quebec is not that of Alberta. Neither is it the energy policy of Ontario, which has favoured coal in recent years, and more recently, nuclear power.

Therefore, since there is no common energy policy across Canada and since energy and natural resources are managed by the provinces, we must ensure that the provinces are involved.

Remember what the environment commissioner told us in her report on climate change programs. The provinces must be part of the solution because that is where electricity is produced, distributed and used.

The government must recognize today that we should stay away from a sectorial approach and adopt a territorial approach that will allow us to put in place an effective, efficient and fairer national policy with regard to climate change. Canada's problem in fighting climate change has nothing to do with the programs themselves, as they already exist, but it has to do with the fact that they are not adapted to the provinces' energy reality.

Tuesday, at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we heard from a prominent climate expert who is a professor at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. He told us, and I quote:

One of the reasons for Canada's failure is its desire to have the same approach for all the players, supposedly because it is more equitable, even though the situation is not the same for all the players.

Mr. Villeneuve also said:

It is clear that regional approaches are much more interesting since decisions regarding energy policies are made at the provincial level and natural resources are managed by the provinces.

Canada did commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. But can we adopt a so-called common approach that would be tailored to each province, something similar to what Europe did?

In 1997, Europe committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8%. That same year, Europe went to Kyoto with specific objectives and a territorial approach to meet that 8% target. Under that approach, its sovereign countries—there were 15 at the time—would have different targets where some could increase their emissions and others could reduce them, taking into account various parameters such as the climate, which has a considerable impact on energy consumption. The economic structure has to be taken into account.

Each country's energy policy and wind energy potential must be taken into account in the targets negotiated with these countries.

This is a flexible approach that would let Canada continue to demonstrate to the international community that it is determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its international commitments. Canada could also reach agreements with its provincial partners in order to develop a more effective climate change policy.

The third demand is the carbon exchange. Companies and industrial sectors are just waiting for greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

The government told us that it was going to base its regulation of the industry on emission intensity. In other words, in setting a target for each industrial sector, it was going to take into account production and greenhouse gas emissions. This approach cannot work.

On the one hand, this approach is unfair to industry sectors that have made efforts in the past, such as the industrial sectors in Quebec. Meanwhile, industrial sectors in the rest of Canada have increased their emissions by over 20%, nearly 30% since 1990. The industrial sectors in Quebec have succeeded in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 7%.

Sector-based intensity targets would clearly penalize companies and industrial sectors that have made efforts in the past and can show progress in fighting climate change. Not only is this intensity-based approach to climate change unfair, but it clearly jeopardizes the implementation of a carbon exchange in Canada.

The government has to understand that if it wants to set up a carbon exchange, which we support and would like to see in Montreal—I know that there is some discussion as to whether the exchange will be in Montreal or Toronto—then we must set strict reduction targets. Intensity targets will complicate Canada's implementation of a carbon exchange, a special tool allowed under the Kyoto protocol so that countries can reach their greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

This morning, the minister appeared in committee. I asked him whether he favoured a territorial approach or a carbon exchange. His response was clear. Quebec was asking for too much. That is what the Minister of the Environment said. He made it even more clear how little he understands the establishment of a carbon exchange. This morning he told us that Quebec could not call for a territorial approach as well as a carbon exchange. It is totally illogical.

How can the minister say such things when Europe has indicated it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%? In Europe, the Kyoto protocol targets were divided territorially and the world’s most innovative carbon exchange established. It is so innovative that the Montreal climate exchange signed an agreement with the European carbon exchange, a side agreement to the conference on climate exchange in Montreal.

At the economic forum in Davos on January 25, the Premier of Quebec, it will be remembered, called for such an exchange to be established as quickly as possible.

What is the government waiting for then? The Montreal exchange is waiting for the federal government. All of Quebec is waiting for the Montreal exchange to be established to help improve Canada’s situation generally in the fight against climate change.

The government must commit as soon as possible to formulating regulations and targets for the industrial sector. It must let Quebec achieve the Kyoto protocol targets within the province and establish a carbon exchange.

There is a fourth element: the $328 million we are demanding from the government.

The minister told us in committee this morning that he was consulting, discussing and negotiating with the Government of Quebec for the $328 million. I have been the environment critic for years. I have seen a succession of ministers. I have seen them say no to Quebec over this significant transfer of $328 million. The former Liberal Minister of the Environment, the former Conservative minister and the current minister have all turned a deaf ear to Quebec’s demands, although it has a strategy for climate change.

With Quebeckers ready to commit public funds to meeting 72% of the Kyoto targets in Quebec’s plan of action we are asking Ottawa for some 30% only of the financial effort required to meet Kyoto targets, and time is a-wasting.

It is odd that when we discuss, here in this House, bills such as Bill C-48, which gives tax breaks to the oil industry, things move along more quickly, bills get passed and there is agreement.

I am talking about $250 million granted annually to the oil industry, according to the figures from the finance department. Let me quote some of them. The oil companies will have saved $55 million in 2003-04, $100 million in 2004-05 and $260 million in 2007-08.

Does anyone realize that the $328 million is the total for just two full fiscal years that the oil industry will have benefited from through Bill C-48? For 2007-08 alone, oil companies will save $260 million, while Quebec has been negotiating for years to get $328 million to meet Kyoto protocol targets.

We, on this side of the House, are saying that the policies of the Conservative government and of the Liberal government promote nothing less than a polluter-paid policy rather than a polluter-pay policy. This is an example. While the $328 million would be used to fund a plan to combat climate change in Quebec, the government is saying no, but saying yes to the oil companies. This does not make sense.

The government needs to acknowledge that the Kyoto protocol targets are, for the opposition in this House—including the Bloc Québécois, of course—a non negotiable objective. The government need not expect that we will negotiate on achieving the targets in the Kyoto protocol or its inclusion in Bill C-30. We want the Kyoto protocol targets to be part of Bill C-30. Let that be clear. We feel that a refusal by the government to include them would be nothing short of a slap in the face in the fight against climate change.

Finally, giving $328 million to Quebec has nothing to do with the tax incentives given to the oil industry. It has to do with fighting climate change and having a sustainable transportation policy in Quebec that is in line with Kyoto targets.

In closing, I hope members will consider this amended motion and vote in favour of it.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. Can I just answer both parts of the question?

On the issue of the expectations, yes, there was Bill C-288, but there's also Bill C-377, which again comes back asking the commissioner to do policy analysis and provide advice to government. So we interpreted that to mean there were expectations of parliamentarians that we could not meet, and said this is something the committee might want to raise.

If the committee believes that this is easily addressed and there is no expectation gap, then that's fine. I interpreted these draft bills differently in thinking that people expected more from our office and from the office of the commissioner than we can do under our legislation and under the standards that guide our work.

You are correct to say that when there is a legally binding agreement or when there is a policy or a law from government, we can quite legitimately ask what the plan is to address this, and what kinds of measures you have put in place to ensure that you meet those targets. If government itself is saying that we're not going to meet them, it is quite legitimate for us to report that. That is what we did this past fall, in fact. We said that the measures are not in place—

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are pleased to be here to meet with the committee members and to speak to the motion that is currently before the committee. As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Ron Thompson.

As I indicated in my letter to the committee on Monday, policy advocacy and legislative audit are incompatible. This is a recognized principle in the auditing profession, and it is based on the standard that governs all auditors in Canada. This principle is also widely observed by legislative audit offices in many other countries.

It is interesting that the same issue arose in 1994 and 1995 when discussions about the creation of a commissioner of the environment began. At that time, my predecessor, Denis Desautels, indicated to the environment and sustainable development committee:

ln Canada, it's generally accepted that legislative auditors avoid observing on high-level policy and they concentrate their comments on implementation of that policy. Therefore, responsibility for such matters as review of the appropriateness of policy and arbitrating environmental disputes should not be given to my office, as this could quickly and seriously jeopardize the Auditor General's traditional independence, objectivity, and credibility. There would be similar risks for a separate environmental auditor general if he or she were given audit responsibilities along with these other duties.

The then Auditor General also explained to the committee how the office had in fact been conducting environmental audits since the early 1990s using the same rigorous audit methodology that was being applied to all other work in the office.

Nonetheless, in its May 1994 report, the committee recommended that the Office of the Commissioner be established separate from the Office of Auditor General, with access powers similar to those of the Auditor General, but with broader responsibilities: specifically, policy evaluation, advocacy of sustainable development and the evaluation of sustainable development practices and technologies. The committee also encouraged the Office of the Auditor General to continue to expand on its environmental audit role.

The government, in its response to the committee's report, explained that not all functions as proposed by the committee could be undertaken by a single body, and that the various roles, as envisioned by the committee, could be "undertaken more effectively and efficiently by working through existing institutions and mechanisms, new government initiatives, and the proposed new commissioner." It added that it was more efficient to have the Auditor General continue to play its audit role and that integrating the audit of environmental issues with the audit of economic and social issues would in fact reinforce sustainable development.

I believe that we have fulfilled that role. In fact, environmental aspects are considered in all of our work by all audit teams throughout the office. For example, in our review of financial statements, we audit the government's liability for contaminated sites. When we audit crown corporations like Atomic Energy of Canada, the audit scope includes the environmental aspects. The office has become a world leader in environmental auditing. Auditors from around the world have requested our advice and many of them have taken courses on environmental auditing that we developed here in Canada.

Should Parliament decide to establish a new office outside the Office of the Auditor General, with a focus on advocacy and providing advice to government, it is my view that environmental auditing should remain with my office.

The issue is about expectations that are being placed on us that we cannot fulfill. I mentioned Bill C-288 last week. In that case we were able to resolve the matter, and the policy advisory role was transferred to another body. In fact, it was transferred to the national round table. Bill C-377 is a more recent example, and that is the reason I have brought all of this forward for the consideration of the committee.

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. We will be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

Thank you.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

On February 2, 2007, prior to debate on report stage of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, a point of order was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and Minister for Democratic Reform .

He said that amendments to this bill reported by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 8, 2006 required a royal recommendation. Interventions were also made by the hon. members for Don Valley West, Wascana, Honoré-Mercier, Cambridge and Mississauga South.

The Chair thanks all the hon. members for having addressed this matter.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary referred to my ruling of September 27, 2006 where I concluded that Bill C-288, as it was introduced in the House, did not require a royal recommendation. He did not dispute this decision, but argued that two amendments adopted by the standing committee created a new and distinct purpose which involved new spending, and that comments by the sponsor of the bill in a CBC interview confirmed the fact that significant new spending would result from the adoption of the bill.

The Chair has examined the two amendments reported by the committee. The first one modifies clause 5 of the bill. That clause requires the minister to prepare a climate change plan and lists measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its Kyoto obligations. The amendment adopted by the committee adds a provision to the list of measures regarding transitions for affected workers. It results in an additional element that the minister must address in the climate change plan.

As I mentioned in my September 27, 2006 ruling, the measures which this bill obliges the minister to bring forward may or may not entail spending. The Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be, for they are not contained in this bill. Therefore, the amendment does not require a royal recommendation because it does not contain any authorization for spending; it merely directs the minister as to what should be addressed in the plan.

The second amendment modifies clause 10. That clause deals with the review of the Minister’s Climate Change Plan. The amendment gives the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy the responsibility of analyzing the plan and advising the minister. The Parliamentary Secretary argues that this is a new and distinct purpose for the National Round Table which will involve new spending.

In examining the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy Act, the Chair notes that section 4 establishes its mandate as follows:

… to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development by

(a) undertaking research and gathering information and analysis on critical issues of sustainable development;

(b) advising governments on ways of integrating environmental and economic considerations into their decision-making processes and on global issues of sustainable development….

In determining whether a royal recommendation is needed for a new and distinct purpose, the Chair considers whether some entirely new activity or function is being proposed which radically diverges from the activities already authorized in existing legislation.

In the present case, section 4 of the act calls on the national round table to perform activities relating to an analysis of sustainable development issues and to advising the minister on environmental and economic considerations.

The terms of the amendment to Bill C-288 appear to me to fall precisely within its ongoing mandate: that is, to analyze the climate change plan and to advise the minister. Now it might be argued that this would increase the workload of the national round table, but even if this were so, an increase to its budget would be sought through existing appropriation arrangements.

In summary, then, on the arguments related to the text of the bill, as amended, I must conclude that the amendments to Bill C-288, adopted in the standing committee, do not constitute new spending for a new and distinct purpose, and the bill, as amended, does not require a royal recommendation.

Let me now deal with various ancillary points raised during interventions on Bill C-288.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the transcript of a CBC interview where the member for Honoré-Mercier alleged to have confirmed the fact that Bill C-288 would result in significant public expenditures. The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier disputes this interpretation.

The Chair is of the view that this is a matter of debate and not germane to the point of order itself.

Another matter was raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South. He asked how the House is formally informed that a bill, amended and reported from committee, requires a royal recommendation. The Chair would strongly encourage any member who has doubts in this regard to raise a point of order shortly after a committee has reported amendments to the House. In this manner, the Chair would be able to return with a decision in time for the appropriate action to be taken at report stage.

Once again, I thank the House for its assistance on these matters and its patience in permitting me to deal with this particular complex question.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this may be more from a procedural standpoint, which could be very helpful. As we know, a decision was rendered on September 27, 2006, that Bill C-288 on Kyoto did not require a royal recommendation.

We are also aware, based on the work of the committee, that there were a couple of amendments. I think they were well-represented, in terms of the intent of the committee, one with regard to the national round table work, which appears to be totally within the purview of its scope of mandated activity and the funding therefore, and the first one with regard to the just transition for affected workers, which is the responsibility of all government programs that affect workers to ensure that it is fair and just.

We are quite confident that these are principles and criteria that should be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, the normal practice procedurally, as I understand it, and I ask for your feedback on this, is that bills would receive a final disposition from the Chair with regard to the need for a royal recommendation at the commencement of third reading and, should a royal recommendation be required, the debate would continue at third reading but a vote not be put at the end.

The House is aware that two amendments were made at committee which do affect and can affect the need for a royal recommendation if they were not considered in advance and certainly when the Officers of the House had done their review and due diligence on the whole aspect and to opine on whether or not there was a likelihood of a royal recommendation.

We have not heard anything since the opinion of the Chair on September 27, 2006 that a royal recommendation was not required. We can only assume that the Table properly reviewed the two amendments that were made at committee and, as a consequence of not having made a final decision on royal recommendation, we can only assume that their due diligence had not indicated any changes in the assessment of that need for a royal recommendation on this bill.

If that is the case, then I would like to advise the Chair that we would like to have full argument and reasons therefore on a decision on this matter expeditiously. The reason we are asking for that is that today, if appropriate, there will be a swap arranged so that this bill will come back again for its final hour of debate this coming Friday. That exchange has been already arranged for and the papers will be filed today.

I would ask the Chair if we could please have a clarification and a clear decision on this. It does affect the decisions that we intend to take in regard to this important bill, Bill C-288.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments. I presented the need for royal recommendation on Friday. I know you are taking that under consideration and that we can expect a ruling sometime in the near future.

However, let me just respond to my hon. colleague by saying, as he well knows, that should the private member's bill, Bill C-288, be passed into law, it will require the government to perform certain obligations and, as he pointed out in a CBC interview, it will probably be in the $4 billion range. Perhaps the member does not think that $4 billion is an amount that we should be concerned about but, quite clearly, it is consistent with the royal recommendation argument that we presented saying that there will be new expenditures required should Bill C-288 come into force, and that obviously requires a royal recommendation.

However, we are not here for debate, Mr. Speaker. I know that you are taking this under very serious consideration and we look forward to your ruling in the near future.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just before the debate on my Bill C-288, which would force the government to respect the Kyoto protocol, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order to argue, once again, that my bill would make it necessary to spend public funds and, therefore, requires a royal recommendation.

This shows how afraid they are of the Kyoto protocol, but it does not give them the right to say anything they want about the bill.

Mr. Speaker, you have already rejected, and rightly so, a similar argument that had been used by the government regarding the same bill. The arguments presented today and on Friday are the same ones that were used unsuccessfully at second reading stage.

On Friday, when they were making their new attempt, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons raised two points that I am going to address here.

The first point deals with two amendments made in committee. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons referred to two minor amendments made in committee, stating that they call for the expenditure of public funds and, consequently, require a royal recommendation. That argument is unfounded. In fact, the two amendments do not require any expenditure. These are minor amendments that complement perfectly the original version of Bill C-288 which, as you have ruled, does not require expenditures.

The first amendment referred to by the government inserts subparagraph 5(1)a)iii.1, which states that the Climate Change Plan must contain:

Measures to provide for a just transition for workers affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions,

Nothing in this amendment requires expenditures. The amendment simply calls for measures. It is up to the government to decide what those measures will be. In fact—and this is important—the committee clearly rejected a motion seeking to include the word “funds” in this amendment, because the committee did not want to make it necessary to have expenditures. Paragraph 5(1)(a) already provides a series of measures to be included in the plan and you have already ruled—quite properly—that paragraph did not require expenditures. This amendment only adds one measure to this series of measures. There is absolutely nothing new in that.

The second amendment raised by the government is subclause 10(1) of the bill. Once again, the amendment that has been made involves no expenditures. It does exactly what the original version of the bill did. That is to say, it requires that an existing government agency examine and comment on the Climate Change Plan.

In other words, it calls for an accounting. The only change consists in assigning that examination to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy instead of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. That change was made at the request of the Auditor General of Canada, who considered that the examination of a government plan prior to its implementation went beyond the audit role of her office. Thus, no new allocation of funds and no reassignment of funds is necessary.

You have stated that the fact of assigning the duty of examining the Climate Change Plan to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development—as was provided in the first version of the bill—did not involve an expenditure. This amendment simply replaces the government agency charged with that examination by another existing governmental agency. The original provision did not call for expenditures and neither does the amendment.

You stated previously that having the plan reviewed by a federal entity, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, did not require spending or reallocating public funds. It is therefore illogical to imply that having another federal agency conduct the same sort of review would require spending.

The government is grasping at straws and trying to find ways to avoid having the House vote on this important bill, which would require the government to draw up a plan to meet Canada's obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

The Conservatives' second argument hangs on a statement I made on the radio and is even more far-fetched. They are referring to something I said in an interview on CBC radio and trying to put words in my mouth.

During the interview, I said that, if it chose, the government “could” spend money to meet Canada's obligations under the Kyoto protocol. The bill does not require any expenditures by the government. It can do so by regulation. The bill simply requires that the government establish a plan to indicate how it intends to proceed and to make regulations. It is up to the government to decide how it will comply with the Kyoto protocol. It does not have to spend or reallocate public funds if it does not wish to do so. The decision is up to the government and only the government. The bill has been clear on that from the start.

The amendments the Conservatives mention are minor ones that do not necessitate any spending. There are no expenditures and no reallocations of funds. The government wants to drop a bill that is very important to our country, which shows bad faith on its part, and it is embarrassed to vote against it.

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to the private member's bill introduced by the leader of the NDP. Bill C-377 aims to ensure that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

I would first like to remind members that, for us here on this side of the House, any policy aimed at fighting climate change must incorporate the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol. Furthermore, on Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, submitted its fourth report on climate change. This latest report confirms that, more than ever, urgent action is needed.

The Intergovernmental Panel, formed in 1988, warned the public and the international community about the threat posed by carbon dioxide emissions, specifically concerning the fact that climate change and carbon dioxide production is closely linked to human activities.

The fourth report of the IPCC confirmed, with nearly 90% certainty, a link between the climate change we are seeing today and human activities. Last week, the IPCC report predicted that sea levels will rise by nearly 56 cm—nearly two feet—and that temperatures will rise by from 1.1^o to more than 6^o. It thus confirmed previous reports. It emphasized that urgent action is needed to fight climate change and stressed the importance of creating an action plan in order to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. We feel that any plan to fight climate change introduced by the government must incorporate the Kyoto targets and would be the only appropriate response to the IPCC fourth report on climate change.

Today we have Bill C-377 before us. However, it is important to remind the House that, last May, the Bloc Québécois introduced a motion calling on the government to table a plan that would include the Kyoto targets. The plan was to have been tabled last fall. We were asking that Canada provide international leadership. The majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of implementing the Kyoto protocol. We know what happened next. The former Minister of the Environment went to Nairobi, set aside the Kyoto targets and obligations, and made an irresponsible speech about the fight against climate change. This motion, adopted last May 16 by the House of Commons, created a framework for our expectations with regard to climate change.

After the Bloc Québécois motion, the Liberal MP for Honoré-Mercier tabled a bill that clearly articulated the Kyoto protocol targets in regulations and legislation. We studied this bill in committee. The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to include the territorial approach enabling a province, such as Quebec, to be responsible for and free to implement its own plan for fighting climate change while meeting the Kyoto targets. With these amendments, Bill C-288 was adopted by the House and we talked about it here last Friday.

Today, we have another bill, Bill C-377, tabled by the leader of the NDP. This is definitely support in principle. However, I have the feeling that this bill at times sets us back a few months.

Let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois presented a motion calling on the government to table a plan consistent with Kyoto to combat climate change. Let us also not forget the opposition initiative, a bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, again consistent with the Kyoto protocol. Today, the leader of the NDP is introducing a bill that does not incorporate the Kyoto protocol targets, particularly in terms of the first phase of reductions.

How is that the NDP, which has always said it is in favour of the Kyoto protocol, is today introducing a bill where the term “Kyoto” appears just once and there is no mention of the 6% target for the first reduction phase?

All this bill mentions are medium-term targets, or a 25% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020 and longer term targets of 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. However, the bill lacks a target for the first reduction phase between 2008 and 2012. This bill suggests that Canada is prepared to ensure that the targets for the first phase of reductions are met.

When asked, the leader of the NDP said that it was understood that Canada had signed the Kyoto protocol and ratified it. He said that as though this guarantees that the Canadian government will respect the Kyoto targets.

Since 1997, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have introduced measures that have not respected the 6% reduction targets. Greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 27% since 1990. If Canada wants to meet the first target, it has to make an overall effort achieving 33%. All of a sudden the NDP has confidence in the Canadian government, saying that the government signed the Kyoto protocol and therefore it intends to respect it.

We will support the bill in principle today, because this is a step in the right direction, but that is not enough. The Bloc Québécois could not support a bill that did not include the phase one greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are finding ourselves in a situation where only one political party in this House has been supporting the Kyoto protocol since 1997, when it came to be, and that is the Bloc Québécois. I was in Kyoto in 1997 and I have seen all the time that has been wasted before Canada committed, through ratification of the accord, to respect Kyoto.

We will recall that, at the time, there were discussions within cabinet between the industry minister and the natural resources minister about flushing out the Kyoto objectives. The then Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, was stuck between the oil lobby and provinces like Quebec which wanted the Kyoto protocol to be respected. Back in 1997, the Bloc Québécois already supported the Kyoto protocol.

Since last Friday, the Conservative government has merely recognized the existence of climate change, and the Minister of the Environment expressed surprise at the IPCC report. I think that the government ought to take note of the existence of climate change.

We would like four things to be added to this bill introduced by the NDP. First, compliance with the Kyoto targets, particularly the phase one targets — and if this bill goes forward, expect the Bloc Québécois to put amendments forward. Second, a territorial approach. I sense that, in the mind of the hon. member, clause 10 hints at agreements and bilateral accords that might be signed with the provinces. Third, a carbon exchange, which is clearly identified as an option in clause 10. Bear in mind also that, in our opinion, the reduction targets should be based on absolute value, and not intensity, as the government would like it to be. Finally, let us not forget the $328 million necessary to achieve the Kyoto objectives in Quebec.

If this bill moves further along the parliamentary process, we will propose amendments, especially with respect to the Kyoto objectives.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the merits of Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. This bill clearly deserves a careful examination on its merits. As I said moments ago, the sincerity of the member who is putting it forward I believe is beyond reproach. But the introduction of Bill C-377 is timely.

On Friday you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the House considered Bill C-288 put forward by my good friend the member for Honoré-Mercier. Of course, Bill C-288 is an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto treaty. Bill C-288 reflects our party's hope that Canada will choose the right path while listening to climate experts, playing a leadership role with the international community and transforming our economy to meet the challenge of the 21st century.

As we all know there is a legislative committee currently at work rewriting the government's failed clean air act. With the ongoing work of the environment committee, Parliament is seized with environmental issues these days. This should not come as much of a surprise.

Where are we now? The environment emerged as the number one issue for Canadians after the government cancelled successful programs like EnerGuide, halted initiatives to increase renewable energies such as wind power, and effectively killed a national plan to regulate large final emitters and worked to establish a carbon trading market in Canada, all in the first year of the Conservative new government.

In total, $5.6 billion worth of environmental programs were scrapped. The government has stumbled in particular when it comes to the question of climate change.

I have a simple question for the government, which has now been in power for a full year: will it table its plan to fight climate change? I have asked this question repeatedly, and I am still waiting for an answer.

Unless the government can prove otherwise to Canadians, 12 months into its mandate, Canadians can draw only one conclusion: there is no plan.

The government is making things up as it goes along. It is jumping from ice floe to ice floe, announcing programs here, handing out cheques there and holding photo ops. What is even worse, last week, the Prime Minister was asked 18 times to clarify his position on climate change—which he denied for 10 years before becoming Prime Minister, including while he was leader of the opposition—and to tell us whether he was right then or whether he is right now. He consistently refused to answer.

This is worse than having no plan. Clearly, the government and the Prime Minister have no vision.

Climate change was not one of the government's top five priorities. It was barely mentioned in the throne speech, absent in the economic update and, worse, the only attention paid to the environment was to be found in the 2006 budget, which demonstrated massive cutting.

The first year was spent aggressively discrediting our government's 2005 green plan. The new Minister of the Environment, the one sent to rescue a sinking ship, was not that long ago the minister of energy in a provincial government who led the fight to stop the ratification of the Kyoto treaty and to stop action on climate change. Since his appointment, the government has taken to regifting parts of our 2005 action plan.

The hypocrisy of this is so bad that the government regifted our government's report on our obligations under Kyoto for the calendar year 2006, imagine. It may have knowingly misled the international community by reporting programs it was cutting as actually being in place.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the government intends to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty and is doing so by subterfuge, by stealth, and by a thousand cuts.

Its spurious misleading of the House with regard to what it describes as “useless Russian hot air purchases” deliberately misleads Canadians and undermines the hard-fought clean development mechanism and the joint implementation mechanism, both in the treaty, that leveraged the power of the free market to meet our goals. It relies on, for example, the use of an international trading system to reduce greenhouse gases internationally at a lower cost.

That is why my leader, the hon. member, said:

I call on the Prime Minister to implement a comprehensive plan to honour Canada's Kyoto commitment, including a cap-and-trade carbon market, with more demanding targets than that proposed in 2005.

I call on the Prime Minister to implement environmental tax reform and fiscal measures to reward good environmental behaviour, and provide disincentives for behaviour that harms the environment and human health—all in a way that enables every region and province to succeed in the sustainable economy.

He also said:

I call on the Prime Minister to better support greener energy production and other forms of renewable energy, starting with a minimum target of 12,000 megawatts of wind power production.

I call on the Prime Minister to better support the research, development and commercialization of resource-efficient and environment-friendly technologies.

Most importantly, I call on the Prime Minister to do all this in a way that strengthens the Canadian economy, providing better jobs and a higher standard of living for our children.

If the government is serious about a global response to a global challenge, which reflects the fact that there may be 190 countries in the world but there is only one atmosphere, I challenge it further. I challenge all members of the House, including the government's caucus, to vote for our motion tabled in the House on Thursday.

Let me turn now to the merits of Bill C-377.

Like the clean air act, Bill C-377 is not necessary. It is important for Canadians to know that the bill was introduced in October, prior to his requested secret meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the clean air act. It is unclear to Canadians and to us, as an opposition, whether the NDP has cut a deal with the government on the so-called clean air act. If so, it is legitimate to ask whether the bill ought still to be put forward by the leader of the NDP.

Upon re-reading the bill, I was astonished to learn that the leader of the NDP has dropped any reference to respecting the Kyoto accord in its entirety. Just like the so-called clean air act, Bill C-377 sets no short term targets to curb global warming. Only two are defined: one in 2020 the other in 2050. Perhaps the member could explain why his bill sets no short term targets.

Perhaps the leader of the NDP could explain why he has called on Canada to unilaterally vary the targets for emissions in Canada without any mention of the penalties that would accrue to Canada and Canadians under the Kyoto protocol. Has he forgotten we are a party to the protocol? Is he proposing to facilitate a government skirting the essential issue of near term targets? Why would he suggest that we delay action?

Let me reiterate that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available now, this week, for immediate action. There is no excuse for avoiding short term.

What is the NDP's intention with respect to our motion on Kyoto? Will the leader of the NDP be fully supportive at the vote this afternoon? Will the government?

It appears as if the member's bill, by giving discretion to the environment minister to set targets starting in 2015, facilitates a further removal from Kyoto. I remind the government and all members that targets were negotiated internationally. I am convinced the member would not knowingly facilitate the government treating Canada like an island or under the guise of splinter groups, and have us withdraw from our 167 partners that support the Kyoto treaty. It is fundamental that Canada participate, globally, to fight a global threat.

Finally, I welcome the attempt in Bill C-377 to leverage the role of the environment commissioner to meet our targets. Given our proposal as the official opposition to make the environment commissioner fully independent, I also welcome his support of our motion to hive off the commissioner's position and make it a stand-alone one with a strengthened mandate.

I look forward to hearing answers from the leader of the NDP. I congratulate him for his positive contribution to this debate.

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

When Bill C-288 returns for debate, there will be two and a half minutes left for the hon. parliamentary secretary.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is the single most pressing ecological threat facing our country and our planet. I am here today on behalf of my constituents of Brampton—Springdale, the children, the youth, the seniors and families who are concerned about global warming and climate change. They are concerned about having an action plan for climate change.

The fight against climate change is one about which all Canadians are concerned, Canadians from all socio-economic backgrounds, Canadians from all cultural groups, Canadians from every walk of life, because environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and social justice are three pillars that are paramount to every Canadian family. This is why I stand in the House today to lend my full support for Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

We have seen not only in the last decade but in the last few months that climate change does exist. The threat of climate change is real and it is here. The levels of greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now rising faster than ever. This has led to record increases in temperature over the 20th century.

We must take action now to ensure energy efficiency of our economy and our productivity. It is an issue of quality of life of our citizens. As global citizens we have a responsibility to our fellow citizens throughout the world to take action and to provide leadership as a country. We have a responsibility to work with the international community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up our global environment. What we need is leadership and we need a plan of action.

I know that the Liberal Party and Canadians across the country all agree that we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we act now. We must ensure that we build a healthy and sustainable environment in which every citizen throughout the world has the highest quality of life possible.

On the environment file, the Conservative government has truly made a mockery of Canada's environmental stewardship. Canadians have a Prime Minister who has never really believed in the science of climate change. I am sure over the past few weeks many Canadians have read the letter written by the Prime Minister in 2002 in which he stated:

“battle of Kyoto“--our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.

Here is another quote from the letter:

It's based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence--

And yet another quote:

THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD....It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto.

The letter goes on and on. However, we have noticed that in the past few months the Prime Minister and the Conservative government have suddenly decided to go green, because the polls have shown that the environment is one of the top priorities of Canadians. But a leopard can never truly change its spots. The fact of the matter is that the government has embarrassed us at the international level and damaged Canada's reputation when it comes to the environment.

We have taken a look at some of the Conservatives' action plan initiatives. They have refused to honour the $538 million agreement that was struck between the governments of Canada and Ontario to shut down coal fired production plants. They have refused to honour their commitments of the partnership fund to fund climate change programs that were run by provinces and municipalities, a loss of $328 million to Quebec for its Kyoto plan. They have gutted 92% of the funding for climate change. They have shut down four successful climate change programs in Canada.

It has been a year and the Conservative government has not gotten the job done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the amended version of Bill C-288, and I wonder, where has the member been for the last 10 years? Unfortunately, the Liberals were strangely silent and inactive on the environment file, so I am glad they have finally woken up.

The fundamental premise of this bill is that Canada should simply push harder and make it our mission to meet Canada's emission reduction targets under the Kyoto protocol. This does sound good, but unfortunately, when our government took office a year ago, we found out that Canada was 35% above the Kyoto targets with only two years remaining before we would need to start meeting those targets.

We found out that the previous Liberal government had left us with an environmental mess. We are now finding out as Canadians and as a--