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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I know that member, in good conscience, probably wants to support this budget but is being prevented from doing so.

However, I just want to get back to speaking about the economy, the environment and energy and how these three are intrinsically linked. We cannot talk about one without talking about the other. We cannot deal with them in isolation.

We know that the opposition parties want to deal with the environment, for example, in isolation. They want to ram through Bill C-288. We know what the effects of Bill C-288 would be and how devastating that would be to the Canadian economy and to Canadians in general. However, they do not care about that. They want to replace 10 years of inaction on the environment with 10 years of a bad economy and 10 years of hardship for Canadians.

This government does not want to do that. We want to act but we understand that the environment, the economy and energy are intrinsically linked in Canada.

When we talk about the economy, perhaps the biggest challenge that we face is productivity. We hear a lot about how productivity is affecting Canada's economy. Why? A number of things have been indicated as to why productivity in Canada is lacking. The Certified General Accountants of Canada point the finger at the former federal government and say that the Liberal sponsorship scandal really damaged Canada's overall productivity because there was no focus on productivity.

There is focus now. In this budget we talk about support for manufacturing. In fact a unanimous report submitted by the industry council made recommendations to the finance minister as to how we could support manufacturing in Canada. Virtually all of those recommendations are contained in this budget. We respected them. We moved forward on them because we believe in manufacturing and in the success of manufacturing.

In my home province of Ontario, manufacturing is incredibly important. The number one private employer in Peterborough is General Motors in Oshawa and I am committed to its success. I am also committed to the success of General Electric, Quaker Oats, Fisher Gauge and to the success of all manufacturing in my riding. I support this budget because it is good for manufacturing.

The budget also makes record commitments to infrastructure because we know that if we want to improve Canada's overall productivity we need to invest more in our roads and in our transit. We need to invest in border crossings.

One of the members from the Liberal Party mentioned earlier that a new crossing at Windsor would be a great thing. My goodness, we have been talking about that for more than a decade. The Liberals did not get it done. We will get it done because we understand how incredibly important that is, certainly to the auto industry in Canada, but to every industry in Canada. It is absolutely paramount that we deal with the infrastructure deficit in Canada if we are going to move forward on productivity.

Another important factor to productivity is education. We know that in 1993 the Liberal red book committed to making post-secondary education more affordable. The Liberals committed to making it easier for people to get into. I know the NDP Party, for example, has long argued for investment into post-secondary education. It has long pointed out the failures of the former government in owning up to what it committed to do. The Liberals committed to investing into post-secondary education but they cut the heart out of post-secondary education.

In this budget, we commit an additional 40% immediately in additional money to post-secondary education. The president of Trent University, Bonnie Patterson, said that they could not have asked for more in this budget than what has been delivered. In addition to the 40% increase this year, there is a 3% annual inflationary increase to the post-secondary transfer.

We also have specifically indicated how much money we are putting into the post-secondary transfer. When we spoke to post-secondary educational officials across the country, they talked about the need for a dedicated transfer. They needed to know how much money was there so that they could then go to their provincial governments and ask about the shares and the buy-ins.

Those officials now know exactly how much money is available, which helps them to deal with the provincial governments and ensure that post-secondary education is the priority in Canada that it deserves to be, and it will improve our productivity.

On the environment, as I said earlier, the former government did not have a plan. Now it wants to ram through a plan that would just absolutely derail our economy. This government has a plan. We have made significant commitments, such as the $1.5 billion for the ecotrust program that we will be sharing with the provinces. This will have significant short and long term benefits.

Ontario will be able to use that money to bring in clean hydroelectric power instead of the coal-fired power that we have had to rely on because the former government provided no support whatsoever to the province of Ontario to replace that power. This government will do that and all the provinces will be able to direct the money as they see fit to help clean up the environment in their backyards.

We need to face the fact that cleaning up the environment is always local. We tend to think about things on a global basis but we need to clean up things in our own backyards if we want to clean up the nation. This money will specifically assist the provinces to clean up our own backyards.

The budget contains money to clean up invasive species and to clean up the Lake Simcoe watershed which is something the hon. government House leader has been arguing for over the years.

The government has committed a total of $4.5 billion to the environment so that it can turn the corner on the environment. The previous government did not get it done. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. This government will get it done. As we hear coming out of the G-8 summit, this government, this Prime Minister, is a world leader on the environment.

Gasoline Prices

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices depend on factors including world market trends, the price of crude, and local variables, such as competition and transportation costs. In Canada, only provinces and territories have the power to regulate gasoline prices. If it were up to the opposition parties, they would let the price of gas rise by 60% under Bill C-288. The opposition parties want Canadians to pay between $1.60 and $2.00 per litre.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government is committed to helping Canadians reduce their gas consumption so that they can save money and protect the environment. We believe that we can make real progress on environmental issues without endangering economic growth or unfairly increasing the burden on thousands of Canadian families, which an excessive increase in the price of gas would do.

The three opposition parties have proposed unrealistic emissions targets that would have devastating consequences on Canada's economy. Economic analyses supported by leading independent economists show that implementing the nonsensical measures in Bill C-288 would lead to a dramatic increase in the price of gas—as much as 60%. Canadians could have to pay $1.60 to $2.00 per litre of gas. The measures proposed by the opposition parties would combine with factors that already contribute to the rising price of gas.

The government has made available online a wide range of practical tips on buying, driving and maintaining cars, tips that can help Canadians save money and gas while reducing greenhouse gases. For example: obey the speed limit, because driving at 100 km/h rather than 120 km/h—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm right on topic, Mr. Warawa. Thank you very much for reminding me.

There's huge uncertainty, and this speaks directly to this bill. We cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. You cannot. We must examine this bill in the context of Bill C-30, in the context of Bill C-288, in the context of CDM, and in the context of what's happening this weekend in Germany. We have to. We have to examine this in a more fulsome context, a larger context. I'm strongly supportive of examining this bill precisely because of the uncertainty created by the government's plan. There is uncertainty internationally, uncertainty in the provinces, uncertainty in the financial markets, uncertainty with industrial players. There's great uncertainty in Canada now. This is where we've arrived.

I think Bill C-377 is going to take us more time rather than less time. I support Mr. Cullen's idea, for example, to bring the IPCC forward to give us some clarity on two-degree, three-degree, five-degree changes going forward. I support the idea of examining the California plan. We heard yesterday that the California plan is to a certain extent aligned with Bill C-377. It's clearly not aligned with where we're going as a country, but it's aligned with Bill C-377, and it's certainly more aligned with Bill C-30.

There's also uncertainty in the European Union. The French president is now saying they're taking the notion of trade sanctions to the European Union to react to countries like Canada, who unilaterally change the terms and conditions of the treaty they've signed. There's uncertainty.

I think this is something we have to examine in some detail. I don't know whether we're going to get to it, Mr. Chair, and get to all these witnesses before the government decides to have the House rise. There's even uncertainty as to when the House is rising.

We're now in a situation where if we can roll out a plan that makes sense, I want to table it.

I think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that we cannot examine Bill C-377 in isolation. It does speak to a larger question, and once again the greater uncertainty created domestically and internationally by the government's plan.

Thank you very much.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to support the comments made by Mr. Cullen and Mr. Bigras.

I think this is an important bill to examine closely, because we're in a period of great uncertainty.

We asked the minister on Tuesday of this week whether we're going to see Bill C-30 arrive on the floor of the House of Commons, as it should, and the answer was no.

We asked the minister if he was prepared to work with us on examining whether Bill C-30 could be even further improved. The answer was no.

For meaningful debate, as Monsieur Bigras said just moments ago, there is the question of Bill C-288: where is Bill C-288 going, and how does the government intend to treat Bill C-288? Also, what are the government's constitutional responsibilities? What is it intending to do with a bill that may or may not receive royal assent? The government has been silent so far.

There is great confusion around the potential use of CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. As the minister let us know on Tuesday, he's not clear about how we will or will not participate in CDM.

There is huge uncertainty in the financial markets. I was speaking this week to—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am more or less in agreement with what the government is proposing. On the substance of it, I want to remind you that my party supports the principle of Bill C-377, even though we consider that it has major flaws. One would be that the first greenhouse gas reduction period, for 2008 to 2012, does not appear in clause 5 of the bill.

Given that we managed, in committee, to amend Bill C-30 and to pass Bill C-288 which has a 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal for the initial period, I feel that this bill deserves study and major amendments, particularly as far as clause 5 is concerned, so that we could incorporate the 6% greenhouse gas reduction goal, which is not part of Bill C-377.

As far as the approach is concerned, I agree entirely with Mr. Warawa. I think that we must wait for the G8 meeting in June, which will probably give us more information. We also have to wait to see what the Senate will say and what will happen to Bill C-288. If it were to come into effect, that would perhaps change the aspects we would want to work on in Bill C-377.

I am suggesting more or less the same thing as Mr. Warawa. When we look at our agenda, we can see that we have little time left. We know that several committee members will not be here on June 5^th, because they will be in Germany. In the full knowledge that there will probably be a proposal that we'll have to vote on in a few minutes, I think that we will, indeed, have to draw up a witness list and prepare a schedule to study Bill C-377 at the steering committee, as Mr. Warawa has moved. I believe we will be in a position, when we return in September, to study the bill with a witness list and a well-structured agenda.

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

The question is then to put forward a series of folks from whom we think we need to hear. We've looked over Bill C-288's and the Bill C-30's witnesses. We don't want repetition.

There will be some witnesses who we will suggest to hear from again, only because it's a different conversation. Everything we heard from on Bill C-30 and Bill C-288 was first round, first target-setting. This is all about much further into the future, into 2050, which has different industrial and economic implications.

Certainly we're going to suggest that we hear from the IPCC, in terms of some of their long range; from UN science representatives and their long-range predictions regarding impacts of certain degrees, temperature change, and those types of things; from the UNFCCC; and from some assortment of national domestic environment groups—and balance this with some of the industrial players who will have some comment.

We think there's some interest with Mr. Schwarzenegger's visit yesterday, in looking at what California's plans are. There seems to be some interest from the government side, and certainly from those of us in opposition, towards understanding. It seems that California is taking much of the lead in U.S. domestic policy and is likely to have some effect on Washington.

Maybe we could look at inviting some official American delegation from the federal level in Washington. The reason is that there's been much talk from both the previous government and this government not to be offside what the Americans are planning to do.

The Senate

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians knew it all along but now it is official. We finally have confirmation that Liberal senators have been caught manipulating democracy by their disingenuous use of their majority in the Senate.

Their unaccountable behaviour in pushing Bill C-288 through a Senate committee in mere seconds has been found by the Speaker of the Senate to be a violation of the privileges of the Senate. These Liberal senators have been caught red-handed.

Canadians are also concerned that these same Liberal senators have now delayed the Senate term limits bill for one full year. Not a happy birthday. Liberal stonewalling continues to demonstrate to Canadians that the party opposite is more concerned with protecting its entitlements than delivering accountability.

Despite being on record in favour of Senate term limits, the Leader of the Opposition has been unable or unwilling to persuade his Liberal colleagues to accept the change.

The choice is crystal clear for Canadians. The Prime Minister is delivering strong leadership and this Conservative Party is delivering accountability.

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

People have spoken about broken promises. To some people here, the Kyoto Protocol was so important that it had to be drafted on a napkin. Two weeks ago, to everyone's surprise, officials from the Finance Department told us that an analysis had been undertaken in 1992 with respect to the potential costs of reducing CO2. Then nothing more was done until 2007. There were no consultations with industry, nothing was done and a magic number was pulled out.

Furthermore, just before Christmas, within our study on Bill C-288, there were some discussions about how long it takes to develop new technologies. All the witnesses told us that at least four, five or six years were required to develop these technologies.

The Kyoto targets focus on the year 2008. How could we build a nuclear power plant in eight months? Is that possible?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Michaleski, you had a broader question on the oil industry. I would like to ask you a broader question on the oil industry, since that window has been opened.

The Liberal Party brought forward a private member's bill, C-288, that proposed to bring in Kyoto measures by 2012, which is a very short timeframe. The broad speculation, particularly in Alberta, is that this would absolutely devastate the oil industry there, since they would not be able to meet this timeframe. Would you care to comment on that?

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party today. The opposition parties are united in their desire to see Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, re-emerge from the government's politically induced coma, the coma that started when the environment committee substantially rewrote its weak and original effort.

Where can one begin on the merits of Bill C-30? Bill C-30 gives us a consensus based realistic plan that aims at meeting our Kyoto targets, something the government has adamantly refused to do. In fact, as every day progresses we learn that the government is ripping us out of the Kyoto protocol by stealth, by subterfuge and by the death of a thousand cuts.

Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation act, passed this week in the other place. Now we hear that the new president of France is considering taking to the European Union trade sanctions and potential carbon taxes on countries like Canada under the present government, which would presume to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of our Kyoto obligations.

In committee yesterday, we discovered that massive amounts of money have been spent by the government attacking Bill C-288, millions and millions of taxpayer dollars in a shock and awe communications campaign, mounted by the Minister of the Environment, not to bring any kind of light to the issue but to generate way too much heat.

When asked, government officials concluded and confirmed yesterday that there had been no analysis whatsoever of any kind, economic, environmental or social, on the government's own bill, Bill C-30.

Bill C-288 restates Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol process. The government signed the protocol, and Parliament ratified it. Now that Bill C-288 has passed through the House of Commons, the democratically elected members have shown twice that we are fully committed to this goal. The minister's comments were defeatist. His confused rhetoric talked about a more realistic way forward. What he meant was that he is not willing to show any leadership whatsoever. He could not get the job done and neither could his predecessor who was summarily dispatched for failure to do anything in the first year of this government's short life.

After saying that Canada needed a new clean air act, the Conservatives presented a plan that will allow emissions to continue to increase for the next 10 years. To do so, they decided to use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, completely contradicting their claims that Bill C-30 was needed.

The irony is simply too rich: the Conservatives' bill, their legislative committee, their admission that Bill C-30 was fatally flawed, centre overhaul, without a single substantive amendment put forward by any member of the government's caucus.

Thankfully, a lot has changed over the past few months. On February 8, the minister said that “This is bill is essential to protecting the environment and the health of Canadians”, referring, of course, to Bill C-30. If he really meant that, I guess we would be debating it today, and not as an opposition day motion.

However, the government, as we have seen and learned today, is more interested in censorship around the national climate change response than it is about putting forward a reasonable and defensible plan.

The minister said instead that our targets will be the toughest, a subjective word that he plucked out of a hat, and he is ridiculed for it by the United Nations head of the climate change secretariat, to guffaws of laughter in the 168 partner nations that have signed with us into the Kyoto protocol.

The numbers he shows are weak, and even these targets have no credible plan through which we can reach them.

We learned just yesterday that the mandatory, cabinet decreed, environmental assessment of the government's own climate change plan has not been performed. It has not been performed by the PCO, by Finance Canada, by Environment Canada, by Natural Resources Canada nor by Health Canada. There is no environmental assessment on this plan. It is in breach of its own cabinet decree.

The minister's comments are nothing short of defeatist. His confused rhetoric talks about “a more realistic way forward”. What he really meant was that he was not willing or, more likely, he was not allowed to show leadership because the PMO staffers who pull his strings tell him that he should control the message that more closely.

He cannot get the job done. His history of working to obstruct, no, to undermine, Kyoto is well-written. In partnership with thePrime Minister, who is an isolationist, triangulating between Canberra, Washington and Ottawa, a Prime Minister who is viscerally opposed to a multilateral, the only single multilateral response we have to an international phenomena.

Bill C-30 is the way forward. The centrepiece of it is a functioning carbon budget for Canada. Every family understands the importance of a budget. Income and expenditures need to be balanced. If we save, we can invest in our future, it is time to adopt such a strategy in order to reduce carbon emissions.

A balanced carbon budget is an innovative and bold plan enabling large industrial emitters to reduce, in a tangible and significant way, their carbon emissions. Our plan provides a concrete and effective strategy for significant reductions in carbon emissions.

It would also serve to stimulate the development of green technologies here in Canada, second only, globally, to the emerging ecotourism trade as one of the fastest growing sectors of the international global marketplace.

We know our businesses will seize those opportunities to promote environmental technologies. We know that Canada will seize the opportunities to become a green superpower.

Our companies are aching to take advantage of a new green economy, but only if they have certainty and clarity. They need to know in which direction our country is moving, especially those that have moved so aggressively to reduce their emissions of those greenhouse gases since 1990.

I will leave it to my colleague to follow up with some of the details in Bill C-30, which is the culmination of the cooperation, negotiation and mediation of 65% of the members of the House of Commons. We speak for Canada. The government does not.

It is important for viewers and Canadians to know that the government was bluffing when it brought the clean air act to Parliament. Worse than that, it deceived the Canadian people, an art of deception mastered by the minister at the heels of his previous political mentor, the former premier of Ontario.

The government was not ready but we were. It counted on what it excels at, division. We were not divided. We are united.

The Conservatives are isolated. They have struck out twice with two different ministers and it is now time for the House to accept nothing less than Bill C-30.

We call on the government to bring Bill C-30 back to the House transparently and accountably so Canadians can see that if it refuses it will speak volumes for the party opposite to defy the will of Parliament and remain foolishly silent.

Gasoline Prices

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, everybody here knows that the price of gasoline is dictated by market forces, but the real question is how all three opposition parties can be such hypocrites.

They stand and ask these questions when they know darn well that Bill C-288 would drive the price of gasoline in the member's own riding to over $2 a litre. Those are the facts. They are confirmed by independent economists such as Don Drummond, Mark Jaccard and others.

Those members do not like the truth.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the real question is how all three opposition parties in this House can support gasoline prices of $2 a litre. That is exactly what they are advocating.

They make a lot of noise and they deny it, but those are the facts. Under the Liberal environment plan, Bill C-288, the price of gasoline will rise by 60%.

They may want to go back and talk to their own constituents and see if they would support paying up to $2 a litre as the price of gasoline.

Committees of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

No, Mr. Speaker, but I am happy to blame the Liberals for complete, utter delay and obstruction, as they have done in the Senate. I have talked about their unwillingness to deal with Bill S-4, which they have punted off until June. They dealt with Bill C-288 in 43 seconds.

I found out why the Liberals want the month of May available. I saw this memo that says that the Senate has reserved the services of Mr. Jean Luc Lavallée. Mr. Lavallée will be giving chair massages every Thursday afternoon during the month of May in the Senate, May 17, 24 and 31, from 1 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. I thought they were sitting then but apparently they are sitting in massage chairs at that time, which is why they cannot deliver on Bill S-4.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first a Liberal called for a new national energy policy. Now Liberal candidate for Papineau, Justin Trudeau, is panning capitalism and millions of jobs it creates. Like father, like son.

Two days ago the Liberals went from zero to Bill C-288 in 43 seconds to kill the auto industry. Now Trudeau muses about ending capitalism in the automotive capital of Canada, built by capitalists like Ford and Chrysler. Perhaps Trudeau is revealing a deep dark secret Liberal agenda dating way back to his dad?

The weak Liberal chief will not rein him in like he refused to with his other star mouth, Elizabeth May, for her Nazi hysterics. I guess he concedes no capitalism and no jobs are his Liberal Party's position, and to prove it, the Liberals voted against budget measures to make it easier for industry leaders, a.k.a. capitalists, to create more Canadian jobs.

With his star candidate, the Liberal so-called leader has gone back to the Trudeau days of deep recession and high inflation to chart their future. Canadians just cannot afford the Liberals again.