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—Gasoline Prices

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard the hon. member say that gas has gone up 25¢ a litre under our watch. We know that is fundamentally not true. In fact, gas prices since Hurricane Katrina have been hovering in and around $1 a litre and, in fact, have gone down significantly since that date and the member knows it.

The member was asked a specific question but she did not answer it. It has been documented that Bill C-288 would drive the price of gasoline up to as much as $2 a litre. Does the member support Canadians paying as much as $2 a litre for gasoline because that is what her leader would have Canadians paying for gas?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on reading her very well-crafted speech this afternoon but Canadians want to know where the Liberals stand on gas prices, which is why the motion was brought forward today.

We need to look at the Liberal record. On October 13, 2006, a Liberal from Toronto Rosedale, a former NDP premier and a former leadership candidate for the Liberals, said:

Consistently high fuel costs is the only way to keep pressure on the auto industry to be more innovative and fuel-efficient.

The environment minister at that time and now the leader of the Liberal Party said that high gas prices were actually good for Canada in the medium and long term.

Canadians want the Liberals to come clean. They are supporting Bill C-288, a bill that leading Canadian economists have said will raise the price of gas to $1.60 to $2 per litre. If the Liberals had their way, today Canadians would be paying $1.60 to $2 per litre.

I am asking the member today to come clean. Does she support her leader and the former leadership candidate? Does she want higher gasoline prices for all Canadians, yes or no?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the motion from the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will share my time with the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am well aware of the concerns about the price of gasoline expressed by Canadians, Quebecers and the people of Beauce. Canadians work hard to earn a living. They work hard to have a healthy economy. The high price of gasoline is a financial pressure felt by all Canadians.

People must know that the price of gasoline is determined by the market, by the free market, and as far as we can see, the price of gasoline reflects at this time the changes in market conditions such as the increase in the price of a barrel, but mostly the low reserves in North America.

The increase in the demand combined with supply problems—yes, there are indeed supply problems—due to the maintenance of some North American refineries and even due to fires in some refineries in Canada and in the United States are partly to blame for the decline in the reserves.

We know very well that the Bloc members do not want to let the market work. As usual, they want government intervention. The Bloc members should know by now that controlling the economy, as Ronald Reagan said in one of his famous speeches, ultimately means controlling people and controlling Canadians. This government is in favour of the free market and prices in the petroleum industry that reflect market conditions. In contrast to the Bloc member, who would like a controlled economy, we are opposed to any socialist intervention in this sector.

The Commissioner of Competition is not responsible for determining how much profit companies will make. Companies are free to set their own prices in light of demand and their costs of production. Business people in this country work very hard to earn a living and make a profit. We have a capitalist system. Profits are healthy and generate further economic development. Businesspeople deserve to reap the fruits of their labour.

The spirit of the Competition Act is to maintain and promote competition in Canada. We want an efficient economy that is able to adapt to globalization. The Competition Act exists as well to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses participate fully in the development of the Canadian economy. It is also important to remember that the act does not apply to only one sector of the economy. It does not apply just to the oil industry. The Competition Act is there to stimulate market forces. Prices in all markets go up—certainly they go up sometimes—but they also go down.

Over the last few months, the price of gasoline went down at the pumps. Now we are seeing it go up, but in a few months, market forces should bring it down again because of a number of factors, some of which are predictable and some not.

Even though prices sometimes increase, I believe it is preferable to allow market forces to play their role rather than to increase state control of the economy. Sometimes, some companies may exhibit anti-competitive behaviour. It is important to keep that in mind. It is also important to have a Competition Act that works to eliminate that type of behaviour in Canada. That is the point where the Competition Bureau must intervene: when a company, regardless of its area of activity, acts in an anti-competitive way.

As Minister of Industry, I am convinced that the Competition Bureau will intervene very quickly if there is any suspicion that a company is not obeying the law. It has done so in the past and it will do so in the future. Competition Bureau investigations have led to 13 prosecutions relating to the price of gas and heating oil and there have been eight convictions.

I can assure you that the Competition Bureau follows the activities of the oil and gas industry very closely. It analyzes all the data available in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere in the world. In addition, it has carried out six major inquiries into the oil and gas industry.

It has made public reports on its investigations and it has never found any evidence that an increase in the price of gas could be attributed to any national conspiracy on the part of the oil companies. It has never found any evidence of collusion between the oil companies in terms of price fixing.

By introducing motions such as this one, the Bloc is only demonstrating once again that it is useless here in Ottawa. I really wonder what led the members of the Bloc Québécois to launch this debate in the House this week. If I may be permitted a guess, we know that war is being waged within the sovereignist camp since the crushing defeat of the Parti Québécois, on March 26. Not a single day goes by without more news of the battle between the leader of the Bloc Québécois and André Boisclair, the leader of the Parti Québécois.

By introducing this useless motion this week, the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to distract the attention of the media who have been interested in this dispute in the sovereignist camp for several days already. However, there is at least one positive aspect to this business; the leader of the Bloc Québécois appears to have finally understood that he is useless in the House of Commons and that the Bloc Québécois is useless in Ottawa. So now he wants to move to Quebec City. The leader of the Bloc is jockeying with his friends to take over the leadership of the Parti Québécois. During this time, the leader of the Bloc Québécois in the House is doing everything within his power to succeed him.

The fact is that Bloc members are not concerned about the price of gasoline this week; they simply want to deflect attention. The Bloc has been in a state of crisis since March 26. Sovereignist supporters are calling on the party to pack up. Meanwhile, the member for Repentigny here states in the media and outside the House that he is bored in Ottawa. Clearly more and more Bloc members are wondering why they are in Ottawa. They are realizing that they have not managed in any way to influence government policy over the past 15 years. They are recognizing their impotence.

Before I conclude, I must point out the Bloc's inconsistency in the matter of gasoline prices. I would point out that Bloc members unconditionally supported Bill C-288, introduced by the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier. Should the bill become law, as the Bloc wants, the price of gasoline would skyrocket. A number of analysts have said the price would vary between $1.60 and $2.00 a litre.

The members of the Bloc Québécois then have the gall to say that they defend the interests of Quebeckers in this House. Increasingly, Quebeckers are realizing that the Bloc members promote their own interests first, ahead of those of Quebeckers. I would add that Quebeckers are lining up behind our Prime Minister in increasing numbers because they can see that our party best defends the interests of Quebeckers in this House. Among other things, our government has put an end to the fiscal imbalance, has acknowledged that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada and has lowered income tax, which we will continue to do.

These are specific actions, not empty words. Action is what Quebeckers and Canadians want.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, again I find it unbelievable that we see the NDP members actually standing up saying they want to fight for consumers, that they want to fight for lower gas prices.

The member stated throughout her speech that the NDP appears to have lost confidence in the Canadian market economy. We know that the NDP is on the record supporting the Liberal bill, Bill C-288, which we know, and the economists have put forward, will raise gasoline prices by about 60%.

Therefore, in Canada right now today we are looking at increased prices that could be close to $2 per litre. If we did what the NDP wants today, that is what Canadian consumers would be up against. It is surprising to me because I wonder who actually does the NDP think it is fooling. I would like the member to clarify where the NDP long term approach is going to be.

The leader of the Liberal Party said, “High gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term”. He said that in the Calgary Herald, August 24, 2005. We know that the NDP is standing with the Liberal Party and supporting Bill C-288 which we know is going to raise gas prices even further.

I want the member to clarify because I asked her NDP colleague this question previously. Does the member agree with her friend, the leader of the Liberal Party, that higher gas prices are good for Canada in the medium and long term? Could she state that on the record?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I listen to the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc saying that they want lower prices for consumers and they want some stability. They are all standing together to support Bill C-288, which we know is going to raise the price of gasoline at least 60¢ per litre. Those members are saying they are really for consumers and they want to keep prices low, but the leader of the Liberal Party has been saying that Canadians and many of his own colleagues might cringe when they see the price at the pumps these days, but high gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term.

Does my NDP colleague agree with the leader of the Liberal Party? They seem to agree on a lot of things, such as Bill C-288. Does he agree that high gas prices are good for Canada in the medium and long term?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It is unbelievable.

Of course, then there is the deputy Liberal leader who, during the leadership debate, called for a form of carbon tax that would push up the price of gasoline. Just a couple of months ago, the Liberals were praising a $100 billion carbon tax, which again would have increased the price of gasoline.

Then there is the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering who was quoted in the September 11, 2005, Toronto Star as having said, “A lot of analysts say gas at $1.50 a litre is well within sight”. Then there are the Bloc members who have signed on to supporting the Liberal carbon tax plan, Bill C-288.

The costs of this so-called environmental plan were independently analyzed by some of Canada's leading economists and experts, people like Don Drummond and Mark Jaccard. Don Drummond was a former senior public servant under the previous Liberal government and is now a vice-president of the TD Bank and Mark Jaccard is another well-respected expert on environmental issues. What did they find? They found that under the Liberal plan, backed by their buddies in the Bloc, Canadians stand to lose 275,000 jobs. That is terrible. Also, under the Liberal plan, the price of gasoline would increase a whopping 60%.

I am from the Vancouver area, the riding of Langley, and the price out there right now is $1.269. If we add 60% on to that, it is over $1.90 a litre. That is what the Liberals want and that is what the Bloc wants. I guess that $1.50 a litre predicted by the member for Ajax—Pickering just was not enough tax on the backs of Canadians and families and businesses. That plan from the Liberals and the Bloc does not get it done on the environment or the economy.

Let us talk about the actions that our government is taking, not only to improve the environment but also the economy. For example, our government is taking a number of actions to reduce pollution from the transportation sector. These actions would not only reduce our greenhouse emissions but would also have economic benefits for Canadians.

The government is also assisting small communities and large cities by investing $33 billion in infrastructure, including public transit. The tax credit for public transit passes, first introduced in budget 2006, is being extended to initiate fare products, such as electronic fare cards and weekly passes.

All these resources are designed with one goal in mind; and that is, to help Canadians make better and more environmentally responsible decisions.

Renewable fuels are cleaner fuels that reduce air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The government recently announced its intention to develop a regulation requiring a 5% average renewable content by volume, such as ethanol, a Canadian gasoline, by 2010. Renewable fuel production is a new market opportunity for farmers and the rural communities.

Budget 2006 included $365 million to assist farmers in realizing opportunities through agricultural bioproducts, including renewable fuels. To meet the requirements of the proposed regulations, over 2 billion litres of renewable fuel will be required, creating tremendous business opportunities for Canadian renewable fuel and agriculture producers.

Budget 2007 invests up to $2 billion in support of renewable fuel production in Canada to help meet those requirements, including up to $1.5 billion for an operating incentive, and $500 million for next generation renewable fuels.

Support under the program to individual companies will be capped to ensure that the benefits are provided to a wide range of participants in the sector, not just the large oil producing companies. That is fair.

Budget 2007 also makes $500 million over seven years available to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to invest in the private sector in establishing large scale facilities for the production of next generation renewable fuels. Next generation renewable fuels produced from agricultural and wood waste products, such as wheat straw, cornstalk, wood residue and switchgrass, have the potential to generate even greater environmental benefits than the traditional renewable fuels.

Canada is well positioned to become a world leader in the development and commercialization of next generation fuels. For example, the Ottawa based Iogen is one of Canada's leading biotechnology firms. It operates the world's only demonstration scale facility to convert biomass to cellulose ethanol using enzyme technology. I encourage a visit to that wonderful facility.

Transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases in Canada. Cars, trucks, trains and planes all add to air pollution and they account for over one-quarter of all greenhouse gases and air pollutant emissions in Canada. For the first time, the Government of Canada will regulate cars and light trucks to ensure they use fuel more efficiently. Our standard will be based on a stringent North American standard. We will work hard with the United States to pursue a clean auto pact that will create an environmentally ambitious North American standard for cars and light duty trucks.

We will make air pollution rules for vehicles and engines that are sources of smog, like motorcycles, personal watercraft, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, and align them with world leading standards. We will also continue to take action to reduce emissions from the rail, marine and aviation sectors and we will work with our U.S. neighbours to administer these regulations as efficiently as possible.

Those are all great things that the government is doing to balance the environment and the economy. Unlike the Bloc members, who have done absolutely nothing but complain in this place for years and have nothing to show for it, it is this government that is getting it done for Canadians and the environment.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and for giving me the opportunity to clarify things a little bit.

When we are looking at the absolute price of gasoline, it is not just as he said, one event around the world. We have to take in events in combination, internationally, nationally and locally. We are looking at issues of supply and demand, the market.

What is really curious in this debate though is why Bloc Québécois members are supporting Bill C-288. If their issue is the price of gasoline, they are supporting a bill that would cause a 60% increase in the cost of a litre of gas. I find this quite hypocritical. If today we are going to be debating and standing up for consumers, saying consumers are paying too much for gas, why would the official position of the Bloc Québécois be to support a bill that known economists say would dramatically raise the price per litre? It could be $1.60. It could be up to $2.00 per litre of gas. I see that the whole motion that the Bloc brought forward is very hypocritical.

Gasoline Prices

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the price of gas.

Under the Liberal plan for the environment, which is supported by the Bloc and the NDP, Canadians will pay up to $160 a litre for gas. The leader of the NDP wants the federal government to force oil companies to ration gas. According to economists and under Bill C-288, proposed by the Liberals and supported by the NDP and the Bloc, the price of gas would go up by 60%.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec today, the price of gas has reached $1.16 a litre. Quebeckers are worried and want gas prices to stop climbing.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell this House what will happen to the price of gas if the Liberal plan for the environment, Bill C-288, which is also supported by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, indeed passes?

Opposition Motion—Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP talked about Bill C-30 and about Bill C-288. We are technically debating what the Bloc has put in front of us.

My issue is this. I have heard a number of times today about fearmongering about the numbers. I guess my colleague does not like the numbers. Those members are certainly capable of talking about what is going to happen to the environment if we do not do anything. We agree that we need to do something about it, but we do not call that fearmongering. When they get the facts on the financial side on Bill C-288, they like to call it fearmongering, which just does not make any coherent sense to me.

It would take a cut of about 30% a year to 2012 because we have to catch up from where we were to get to where we have to be in order to meet those targets in 2012. Based on Bill C-288, which is in front of the Senate, and based on the fact that we are so far behind because of Liberal inaction, does my colleague think it is actually feasible to cut greenhouse gases with no cost to the economy at a rate of 30% a year between now and 2012?

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member chairs the committee for a party that did not get the job done over 13 long years. The member chairs the Liberal committee that brought out a proposal that is not compliant with Kyoto. The member also voted for Bill C-288.

Let us look at what the National Post and Don Martin said about Bill C-288:

Look, anyone who believes Canada can actually meet its Kyoto obligations on schedule without serious economic complications is a common sense denier.

Opposition Motion--Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

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

Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I am pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate on one of the most fundamental issues we are facing today, which is the protection of our environment and the future of our children.

We are once more discussing the issue of climate change, because the government refuses to understand.

I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for introducing this motion, which reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal.

This motion is directly linked to my private member's bill, Bill C-288, which seeks to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol. This motion, as well as my private member's bill, are primarily focused on taking concrete action immediately for the future.

I think, however, that the motion, and my private member's bill, should not have been necessary.

Indeed, as a Canadian, I would have expected the government of my country to take action against climate change and to respect international agreements. Unfortunately, violating international law does not seem to bother this government. Nor does it seem bothered by the fact that we are headed for a climatic catastrophe and must face the irreversible consequences.

The Prime Minister spent his career denying the existence of climate change, questioning both the science and the need to act. Now his government has spent more than a year, consistent with its Reform and Alliance past, trying to avoid taking action, looking for sound bites, excuses, misleading statements and misinformation, instead of making good policy.

That is wrong. As elected officials, we have the political and moral obligation to work toward building a better society, not only for those around us but, more important, for those who will follow us, for our children and for our grandchildren.

This is why, when it comes to climate change, failing to take action is not an option.

Let us take a moment to look at the state of our planet today. Without being alarmist, I would like to share a few facts.

We all know, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in 650,000 years. We also know that 11 of the last 12 years have been the warmest years ever recorded. Average Arctic temperatures are increasing at almost twice the global average rate. Scientists have also discovered that Arctic sea ice is melting even faster than their models predicted.

Here is what scientists predict a rise in temperature of 2° Celsius would mean for the planet: tens of millions of environmental refugees fleeing from rising sea levels; more intense rainfalls and storms; tens of millions of additional people at risk of hunger from crop failure; and increased water shortages that could affect billions.

Add to that the economic impact, which we know would be considerable, and we can see how unacceptable, even irresponsible, the government's failure to act is.

If I may, I would like to focus for a few minutes on the economic aspect, since the Conservatives are trying to instill fear in this regard. They are trying to scare Canadians with their completely apocalyptic scenarios.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, where he put on quite a show. He had one goal in mind, and that was to instill fear in all Canadians. He shouted himself hoarse as he presented a study based on false premises, a study that is incomplete. That study does not take into account all the mechanisms set out in Kyoto and claims:

—that there are no breakthroughs in current energy efficiency and other technologies pertaining to GHG emissions.

The minister does not, in fact, at any point see the campaign against climate change as an investment. His hatred of the Kyoto protocol is so strong that it renders him incapable of seeing beyond its costs. He is incapable of seeing the benefits in the short, medium or long term. He just envisages one disaster after another. For him, the beneficial impact of energy efficiency does not exist. Job creation in fields related to the new environmental technologies does not exist. The export potential of these new technologies to such countries as China, Brazil or Mexico does not exist either.

What makes me say this? Because there is no sign of any of these in his apocalyptic report. His report does not mention a single benefit. It is as if he had instructed its authors to set aside anything that was good, to take no notice of it, and to merely focus on all the bad things; to focus on all the things that will cost the most and to tell us just how much they will cost. It is as if he had done exactly that. The minister has made a fool of himself in everyone's eyes. He has shown himself to be incompetent, so much so that he should even be apologizing.

What he does not understand is that an end must be put to this old-fashioned attitude of forcing us to make a choice between jobs and a healthy environment. In this 21st century governments need to understand that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. He does not get it.

In a highly credible study, former chief economist of the World Bank Nicholas Stern has calculated that the cost of unchecked global warming would be somewhere between 5% and 20% of the world GDP. However it would cost around 1% of the GDP deal with the situation. According to Mr. Stern, addressing climate change is good for the economy and ignoring it is what is likely to create a recession in the long term.

There are, in fact, a number of examples of businesses or sectors which do consider action against climate change as fostering economic growth. British Petroleum, for example, has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 10% compared to its 1990 level. It did so as long ago as 2001, nine years before the deadline, and estimates that the changes it made to achieve this have increased its worth by $650 million.

The Forest Products Association of Canada tells us that in the last ten years, the forest industry has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared to 1990 levels. Why has it done so? It has done so voluntarily because this is good for the environment and also because it is good for the economy.

As the Pembina Institute has shown, it would be possible and affordable to set targets for heavy industry in line with the Kyoto protocol targets. Even in the tar sands, reaching those targets would only cost $1 a barrel, when right now, oil from the tar sands costs $60 a barrel.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, neither the motion nor my private member's bill should have been necessary. The government should have taken concrete measures to fight climate change, but it did not do so.

Instead it chose to renounce the Kyoto targets. It decided to do nothing and refused to act.

I want to say again that when a government does not comply with international law, when it does not recognize the will of the people, when it does not shoulder its responsibilities to address one of the most important challenges facing our planet, the opposition can and must force it to act.

Today's motion is an important step in the right direction, because it is clear that Canada must adopt absolute targets and establish a carbon exchange right away.

That is not an end in itself, but it is a tool to reach the Kyoto targets. It is a lot more than what the government is prepared to do. The government says that it would be difficult to reach the Kyoto targets. To that, I reply that just because something is difficult to do is no reason not to try. The sheer difficulty of the task makes it more important to fight with energy, courage and determination. When one wants to find solutions, one can find solutions. They do exist. One only needs the courage and the determination to put them in place, and the government does not have that courage or that determination.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning to speak to the Bloc Québecois motion tabled today. I am hoping it will lead to a very fulsome and honest debate. I am not overly encouraged by some of the things I am hearing from the government, but I am pleased, as I said, to rise to speak to this motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Let me preface my comments today by saying that I was very disappointed by the environment minister's remarks last week before a Senate committee examining Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation act. The minister's remarks dealt with the subject we are debating today: the need to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.

Bill C-288 restates Canada's commitment to the Kyoto process. The government signed the treaty. Parliament ratified it.

Now that Bill C-288 has passed through the House of Commons, the democratically elected House of Commons has shown twice and for all time 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 for doing anything in the first year of this government's short life.

The new minister tabled a dishonest economic analysis that refuted a plan to meet Kyoto that no one is proposing anywhere in the world.

If the government were serious about analyzing economic possibilities, it would not have done it on the back of a napkin. The Department of Finance would have been engaged and would have done the job, or at least would have been involved in some small way. But that was not the case at all. Its analysis would have included benefits, as well as costs, to come up with a reasonable conclusion and we would have seen that Kyoto is not only feasible but economically sound.

We should not overlook the fact that the Conservatives have been trying for years to prevent the implementation of concrete measures to fight climate change. We are asking the Prime Minister to ensure that Canada joins the rest of the world in significantly reducing carbon emissions. Let us remember that, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the official opposition, he wrote a letter to his supporters to raise money and to “block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord”. In his letter, the Prime Minister makes his views on the Kyoto protocol perfectly clear: “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations”.

Yes, the Prime Minister described Kyoto, the protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by 168 nation states, as a socialist plot. It is hard to believe. It is actually outrageous, ludicrous and ridiculous.

There has been some very serious scientific and economic work done only recently. Scientists have established that global warming is real and caused in large part by human activity. Economists have worked to demonstrate what strategies we can take to fight climate change.

In keeping with past behaviour among those who would deny climate change and drag their feet, it is interesting how, when we look back at the familiar pattern of conduct over the years, those who would have us not respond to such environmental challenges rallied first around the case of acid rain when Inco in Canada was the largest single source of acid rain, causing emissions in North America. Inco, once regulated, went on to become one of the most efficient companies in North America, leading the way and taking credit now for significant environmental achievement.

Then it was followed with the United States clean air act and the example there, where U.S. electrical utilities denied the need to take action and hollered and shouted to the sky that the atmosphere itself would collapse if they had to put a price on their emissions. We now know that industry's estimates, in terms of the costs per tonne of acid rain causing emissions, were $1,500. The United States Environmental Protection Agency was predicting $750. Only several years later, when these tonnes of pollution were being traded in a domestic emissions trading system in the United States under the U.S. clean air act, the real cost was about $100 per tonne.

Finally, the third example of a familiar pattern of conduct is the Montreal protocol and our global efforts to eliminate CFCs. This engaged one major company, DuPont, that went on to eliminate the lion's share of the problem and became a significant environmental player in the industrial world around the world. It went on to reduce its greenhouse gases.

What is interesting were the comments made by the Prime Minister himself on March 22, less than a month ago. I quote the Prime Minister when he said:

In 1990 my predecessor, Brian Mulroney, convinced the US government to sign a treaty requiring industry to drastically cut sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions.

The alarmists said this would bring about a terrible recession.

Quite the contrary, the North American economy thrived, posting one of the longest and strongest periods of growth in history.

That was said by the Prime Minister of Canada four short weeks ago, just before he dispatched his Minister of the Environment to use shock and awe communications tactics to try to frighten Canadians into believing we could not achieve our Kyoto protocol targets.

The House will recall, and so will Canadians, the Stern report, which was conducted by the esteemed former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, the man now teaching at the London School of Economics, my alma mater. In his time at the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern was hardly ever conceived of or seen as a socialist economist who would pursue a socialist plot to strip the north and the industrialized countries of their wealth.

Sir Stern's widely accepted report concluded that 10% of global output could be lost if we allowed our actions to raise temperatures by 5° over the coming century. In other words, if I can paraphrase the 681 page report of Sir Nicholas Stern, we are looking at the mother and the father of all market corrections if we wait until we are forced to take real substantive climate action.

I have long said that we must stop the fiction, that we can continue to expect our biosphere to assimilate unlimited amounts of waste without consequence. Much of our economic activity is financed by the DNA bank of nature, where the accumulated capital of 500 million years of evolution is on deposit. We need a new economics that values and in many cases gives a dollar value to our natural capital.

We measure our financial capital. We measure our social capital. We even measure our human capital. How well educated we are. It is time for us now to move, take the final step and start to assign a value to our natural capital, and Kyoto is essential to this evolution.

The World Bank reports that carbon markets were worth $10 billion in 2005 and slated to triple in value this past year. We are looking at a market of hundreds of billions of dollars at the very least. According to Deutsche Bank, one of the largest investment banks in the world ranked by revenues and profits, a fully operational international carbon market would surpass in size every single stock exchange on the planet today.

This is why the Minister of the Environment received a pointed letter from the president of the Toronto Exchange, Richard Nesbitt, on December 21, four months ago, in which he made it clear that Canada must be involved in an international emissions trading system.

We must not turn our back on free market mechanisms. Free markets are well known for encouraging behaviour in the most cost efficient way possible. I can say that the opposition has been in favour of this approach every step of the way, provided of course that emissions reductions can be properly verified.

However, the minister has made it clear as recently as yesterday, once again, that Canadian businesses will remain on the outside looking in as long as the Conservatives have their way. The government by denying that there is a problem will ensure that Canadian businesses and average citizens end up paying much more than they have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

In short, we will become, under the present government, policy and price takers, not policy and price makers, something heretofore reserved almost exclusively for the governments of Australia and the United States of America. Is it only coincidence that the only country not to sign the G-8+5 memorandum, just three short weeks ago, was the United States, trying not to participate in the multilateral and emerging Kyoto based international emissions trading systems?

Every family understands the importance of a budget. Income and expenditures must 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 will also serve to stimulate the development of green technologies here in Canada. We know that our businesses will seize the opportunity to promote environmental technologies and that Canada will seize the opportunity 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, like the pulp and paper sector in our country, which is already 44% below its 1990 collective greenhouse gas emissions, using 1990 as the baseline.

It has been three and a half weeks since Liberal, Bloc Québécois and NDP amendments to the clean air act were passed to set tough but realistic targets for absolute emissions reductions.

Yesterday the minister was saying that he still had not made up his mind about whether we would ever see the clean air and climate change act again. However, he certainly made up his mind to spend millions of dollars hiring economists to mount a case to frighten Canadians to the greatest extent possible, telling us again what we could not do, rather then what we could do.

Meanwhile, behind closed doors this last weekend, he was saying that the clean air act was dead. Then yesterday, in the national media, he denied having said so. That is no way to provide certainty. That is no way to provide clarity. That is no way to provide leadership.

The retrofitted clean air and climate change act has so much to offer. Cast in the form of a national carbon budget, our commitment to the Kyoto process will allow us to create a green economy, an economy that profits from the move, the shift to sustainability.

We have already achieved substantial reductions in emissions on an intensity basis, something the government continues to pursue and refuses to acknowledge that if we adjust for growth in the economy, that is, if we look at greenhouse gas emissions on an intensity basis, our emissions fell over 10% from 1993 to 2004. Now we know the reductions have to be in absolute terms. It is non-negotiable. We are not addressing climate change unless we are reducing the amount of CO₂ and CO₂ equivalent gases that we pump into the atmosphere.

We must act now. We cannot fight climate change with a strategy that deliberately plans for an increase, rather than a decrease, in pollution.

This government wants to make Canadians believe that it is doing what is required to combat climate change, but it is incapable of making the necessary decisions.

It is time to give industry a carbon budget and to develop a policy that establishes the financial incentives required for this budget to work. That is exactly what we did with our amendments to Bill C-30.

Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister almost had me in guffaws of laughter when he actually said that if the opposition had a plan to meet Kyoto it should table it. Members can check Hansard. He actually said that.

The plan that we have delivered for the country, a positive, workable strategy to fight greenhouse gases in a cost effective way, is in the government's own clean air and climate change act. The government asked for a solution. It referred the bill to a special, powerful legislative committee to have it completely reworked.

It was reworked. The Conservatives got a plan, a real made in Canada plan, from the opposition parties. It makes real reductions, absolute ones, not intensity based. It puts a price on carbon. It sets short term, mid term and long term targets for the country.

It does everything that the government should have been working to do from day one, and it goes further, because for months the government has been trying to frighten Canadians, misleading them into believing that this involves somehow transferring billions of dollars to purchase hot air. The bill was fixed again. Hot air purchases from any jurisdiction have been expressly ruled out.

Instead, we have had delays, we have had distractions and we have had excuses. I do not think it is a coincidence that the only speech the current Minister of the Environment has posted on the Environment Canada website in three months, actually four months now, is all about what we cannot do. It exaggerates the costs. It ignores the benefits. It is a vision that wants to fail. It is a defeatist speech.

This week, the government has once again promised us action, but I can tell members that we do not need regulation that ignores the principles of innovation and refuses to cooperate with 168 partners around the world. We need to buy into a system that leverages Canada's intellectual powerhouses: our research and development institutes, our universities, and our federal, provincial and municipal R and D.

There are massive billions of dollars of research, development and innovation in these intellectual powerhouses. We need to harness these powerhouses to move forward.

We know that we Canadians led the world as the driving force behind the Brundtland commission and the earth summit. Both of these were, of course, the foundations of the Kyoto protocol. It is time for us to take the reins of leadership again. We can become the clean energy superpower. We need to be able to deliver our know-how to the other 98% of the world. The opportunity is clearly there.

Thanks to Kyoto, markets elsewhere now price carbon. This integrates economic and environmental imperatives for the first time. Pricing carbon enhances measurement and management of a product that ought to be scarce: our emissions. As well, it allows private operations to efficiently invest to reduce emissions. However, it will not happen here with a fearmongering government that does not believe we need to act and get out in front of the issue.

I am here and my Liberal colleagues are on board because we will not accept defeatism. There will be costs, but there will also be great opportunities. We cannot afford to keep our foot off the pedal any longer.

Finally, let me say this for those who mischaracterize multilateral action as an unjustified transfer of billions of dollars offshore: they need to go back to biology 101. There is only one atmosphere, something I am regularly reminding the government of so that it can actually make the right choices.

Those are my comments. I look forward to the debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, asking the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets, so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and, ultimately, to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal.

Greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have constantly been increasing over the past 10 years and now exceed by 35% the targets set under the Kyoto protocol. This is a direct result of the inaction of the previous Liberal government, which claims to be the great protector of the environment.

More than 13 years ago, when it had the opportunity to produce results, it missed the target. In order to reach the targets set by the previous government in the Kyoto protocol, Canada would have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 33% for each of the years covered by the commitment made under the Kyoto protocol.

As the Minister of the Environment said last week, before the Senate committee, achieving such drastic reductions over such a short period of time would require very compelling measures that would have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. We are talking about increased production costs for businesses and the possible loss of 275,000 jobs, not to mention higher energy costs, including natural gas, electricity and gasoline.

We know the Liberals have tried to scare Canadians by misrepresenting the report but the facts are clear and have been independently validated by some leading Canadian economists and experts.

Some members of the opposition have also tried to mislead Canadians. For example, they have said that the report issued by U.K. economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, debunks the report on Bill C-288. Sadly, they are wrong.

While the Stern review is an important study that we should all read, it focused on the cost of global climate change action over the next 30 to 50 years. It has almost nothing to do with the cost Canada would face to implement Kyoto over the next five years, which Bill C-288 would require by law.

Our report on Bill C-288 takes into consideration Canada's unique circumstance. It is the only up to date report in existence that reflects the reality of our geography, demographics and economy.

Some opposition members would want us to ignore the socio-economic effects of attempts to reach the targets of the Kyoto protocol. However, as a government, we must act responsibly and adopt measures that are based on a balanced commitment between protecting the environment and managing the economy.

We recognize that the environment is the number one concern for Canadians. We share that concern and this is why, as soon as the new Government of Canada took office, we immediately introduced a number of initiatives that will not only clean up our environment, but will also protect the health of Canadians.

In October, we stated our intention to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air pollution and tackle the issue of climate change.

The government is working to set targets for industrial greenhouse gas emission reductions that will be more aggressive than those proposed by previous governments. We are working on setting short term targets for industrial air pollutants, reductions that are among the most aggressive in the world.

Rather than do as the previous Liberal government did and announce unrealistic and unreachable targets, our government is focusing on setting targets that will strengthen Canada's long-term competitiveness. These targets are a major positive step forward in the fight to reduce dangerous emissions, air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Canada's new government will soon announce a regulatory framework that will give industry clear guidance for reducing greenhouse gases. The framework will include emissions credit trading. Currently, there is nothing preventing Canadian exchanges from creating carbon exchanges similar to those now operating in Chicago or in Europe.

Canadians will soon learn more about our environmental plan, which will set achievable targets to improve the quality of the air Canadians breathe and enable Canada to take its place as an international leader in the fight against climate change. Our plan will include a commitment to developing integrated regulations governing outdoor air pollutants and greenhouse gases. It will set performance standards concerning products that may release air pollutants when they are in use.

Our approach will avoid regulatory overlap and support the development of national standards to eliminate emissions into the atmosphere. This government is committed to making environmental progress while managing the economy. We must ensure that regional economies will not be annihilated in the process. We are determined to find solutions without creating new problems. We will establish mandatory reduction targets for big industries that produce greenhouse gases. These targets will be strict and will become stricter over the years. As a result, Canada will achieve absolute greenhouse gas emissions reductions, reductions that all Canadians and opposition members will be able to support.

This government is already headed in the right direction, I believe, in view of all the environmental initiatives it has introduced over the last few months. These initiatives bear out our promise to provide solutions that will protect the health of Canadians and their environment. We obviously take our promise very seriously, as can be seen in the implementation of financial and tax incentives to encourage Canadians to drive green vehicles and the support provided to sources of renewable energy, such as wind and tidal power. We are also giving Canadians incentives to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Recently in the 2007 budget, we announced a $4.5 billion investment to help clean up our air and water, manage chemical substances, protect our natural environment and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This investment plus more than $4.7 billion in others add up in total to more than a $9 billion investment in the environment.

As we have said on many occasions, Canadians are very interested in their environment. They constantly demand that steps be taken to clean it up. Before our new government took power, though, nothing was done in response to these demands. Now our government is taking concrete action, as can be seen in the examples I just enumerated. We know, though, that a lot more needs to be done in order to ensure that future generations have a clean environment.

Air pollutants and greenhouse gases have many sources in common, and that is why we are taking a coordinated, integrated approach to protecting the health of Canadians and their environment. The federal government not only intends to make major reductions in emissions but promises as well to monitor emissions and report on them in a completely transparent, public, responsible way in order to ensure that the announced reductions are actually achieved.

Regardless of their political allegiance, all members of a government should strive to achieve the objective of improving and protecting the quality of the air we breathe.

Everyone has a responsibility to take action on climate change, and the Canada's new government is clearly doing this.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the questions that was asked of the sponsor of Bill C-288. We asked, what is the cost? Unfortunately, the Liberals would not bring the cost, so we had to do the work for them, as it is too often.

This is what Mark Jaccard said:

--the Kyoto Protocol is likely to trigger a major economic recession. From what I understand of our legal options for compliance with Kyoto and my knowledge of the energy-economy system, I concur with this conclusion.

He is right. The Liberal way does not work.