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.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the very best way to predict future success is to look at past action. The past action of the leader of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government was to do absolutely nothing on the environment by presiding over the biggest increase in harmful greenhouse gases around the world.

They have put forward a plan in terms of Bill C-288, a plan that they have not costed out. It is an irresponsible, reckless plan. If they believe Kyoto can be implemented with absolutely no cost, I challenge them to put this free Kyoto plan before Canadians.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning, the Minister of the Environment tabled a report with the Senate which said that if the Liberals rammed through their disastrous Bill C-288 environmental plan, the economic impact on Canadian families and businesses, including those in my home riding of Peterborough, would be devastating. I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that families in my riding consider that unfair.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House just how the ill-conceived Liberal environmental plan will hurt Canadian families and businesses from coast to coast?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party asked us, through Bill C-288, to present a plan to implement Kyoto because it did not have its own plan. The Liberal Party needs to be honest with Canadians.

I know someone who is being honest. I will read a letter we recently received. It says:

I would like to begin by congratulating you on the important steps you have taken to address climate change by supporting provincial efforts through the ecoTrust Fund and through your financial support of public transit initiatives.

Does the member know who sent this letter? It was someone named D. McGuinty, the Liberal member for Ottawa South.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

This is a big issue. For most of us, sometimes we get sidetracked by other issues but the damage that continues to be inflicted on our planet is a warning to all of us to do something to make a difference and to work together in developing strategies that will make a difference so that we can tackle the issue of climate change. We can no longer afford to be complacent and merely speak about the subject.

A number of things put this issue in perspective for me. I spend a lot of time in schools in my riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, in high schools, junior high schools and elementary schools. While Canadians are focused on a number of different issues, the environment has always been a major issue for young Canadians.

As a parent of two young children I am very concerned about our environment. I want my children and all young Canadians to grow up in a world that places a priority on a clean environment, a world where new technologies are employed to combat climate change. I want them to grow up in a world where Canada honours its commitments, leads the world in tackling the effects of climate change and is prepared to take our responsibility to the planet seriously.

Every day we read about or witness on television or in our own communities the effects of climate change. It is our behaviour as humans that has brought us to the brink. Far too often we put more value on the present than on the future.

As parliamentarians we have no greater obligation than to do what is right. There is no longer any debate on what is causing climate change; it is us. There is no longer a debate as to the validity of the science, and those who dispute the science are often the same people who believe the world has only been in existence for a few thousand years.

Last year, as I suspect all members of the House did, I watched the movie by Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth. This movie did not have as its goal to entertain the world, though it did. It was not meant to generate box office revenues, though it did. It was meant to alert us, to wake up the world to the crisis that exists with respect to climate change, and it did that as well.

Today we debate Bill C-377. This bill in many ways mimics an earlier bill introduced by my Liberal colleague from Honoré-Mercier. Bill C-288 recently passed with the support of all opposition parties, including the NDP. It seeks to have Canada meet its global obligations to the Kyoto accord. That bill is now before the Senate.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Honoré-Mercier, along with the member for Ottawa South, both of whom have been leaders on the issue of the environment, calling for the government to take serious action to combat climate change. It is our hope that the current government, whose members continue to play politics with this issue, would respect Bill C-288 and honour the Kyoto accord.

We have also had significant successes with another bill that is before the House, Bill C-30, the clean air act. Shortly after the introduction of this bill, it was recognized by most members of the House that it fell short of accomplishing any real measures to combat the crisis of climate change. Shortly thereafter, the government agreed to strike a special legislative committee. At the end of March, after a week of intense negotiations and late night sittings, opposition parties rallied around Liberal amendments to the bill and passed a comprehensive plan.

Having served on a special legislative committee on civil marriage a couple of years ago, I can appreciate the time and effort that all parties put in to rewriting the government's bill. I thank each of them for the hard work that they did on this very difficult issue.

To the surprise of many, the renamed clean air and climate change act was reported back to the House on time. When the clean air act was proposed by the government in the fall, many of us on this side of the House were very disappointed because it offered nothing new in our fight against climate change. The bill appeared to distract us from the fact that the government was not using its tools to negotiate with large industrial emitters, as the Liberal government had done. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act as amended in 1999 is already a very robust toolbox to confront large emitters.

Draft regulations to limit emissions were in place in the fall of 2005, but the Conservatives threw them out of the window when they came into office. When the government referred the clean air act to the special legislative committee, we had hoped the Minister of the Environment would propose improvements to the legislation. In the end, the government did not come up with one single substantive improvement.

Further, when it became obvious that the government was not serious and had no intention of taking substantive measures, our leader proposed a white paper called “Balancing Our Carbon Budget”. It is an aggressive and innovative plan to meet the challenge of real and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Balancing our carbon budget would work in the following way.

A hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions would come into effect on January 1, 2008, for the three largest industrial emitting sectors: electricity generation, upstream oil and gas, and energy intensive industries. The cap would be set at the Kyoto standard of 1990 emissions levels less 6% and would establish an effective carbon budget that companies within these sectors could be expected to meet.

Those companies that do not meet their carbon budget would deposit $20, growing to $30, per excess tonne of CO₂ equivalent into a green investment account. At a rate of $10 per tonne every year, companies could freely access the funds in the GIA to invest in green projects and initiatives that would contribute to tangible reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

GIA funds would be held in trust by an independent operating agency governed with participation from the private, public and not for profit sectors. Funds not allocated to a project within two years would be administered by an independent operating agency to be invested in other green projects and initiatives.

At least 80% of the funds would be invested in the province where the facility of the depositing firm is located.

Companies that surpass the reductions called for in their carbon budget would be able to trade their unused allotments to other Canadian firms. Large industrial emitters would also be able to buy international emission credits, certified under the Kyoto protocol, to offset up to 25% of the amount they are required to deposit into GIAs.

Opposition MPs from all parties supported the solutions outlined in that plan and incorporated much of it into the new clean air and climate change act.

The bill now endorses a national carbon budget based on our Kyoto targets and reaches out to 60% to 80% reductions from 1990 levels by 2050. It requires the government to put in place the hard cap for large emitters and uses this hard cap to create market incentives for deep emission reductions.

For years businesses have been looking for the guidance and certainty that this law would provide. When the bill passes Parliament, it will allow companies to plan their investments and green technologies, reward early action and help us avoid the most dramatic climate change scenarios.

I am proud of that work and I am proud of my colleagues. There is more to be done. The next step is to ensure that the government does not ignore the special legislative committee's amendments. In line with that work, I am pleased to support Bill C-377.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the actual wording of the bill tabled on October 31, 2006, by the member for Toronto—Danforth, the purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In a second stage, the bill will create an obligation for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the measures proposed by the government to meet targets and comply with the obligation to submit a report to Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-377.

The fight against climate change is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most important issues of the planet and represents a major challenge for Quebec and Canada. Although the Bloc Québécois is concentrating on respect for the first phase of the Kyoto protocol, namely the period from 2008 to 2012, we should plan for the next stage in order to improve further Quebec’s and Canada’s environmental record.

While awaiting the results of the official negotiations among the 163 signatory countries and stakeholders of the Kyoto protocol, led by the special working group which began meeting in Bonn last May, Canada must determine a medium and long term plan to show it really wants to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. By adopting credible targets acknowledging the importance of significantly reducing greenhouse gases so as to reduce global warming, Canada can resume its role as a leader on environmental issues, a role it has stopped playing in recent years.

The Bloc therefore supports the principle of Bill C-377 in the hope of being able to examine and debate it in committee. The Bloc will seek to improve this bill. For example, the Bloc had Bill C-288 amended so that it includes a mechanism for a territorial approach, the simplest approach, but above all the most effective one for Quebec and the other provinces of Canada, in order to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

We are in favour of the principle of Bill C-377, and we wish to study it with all due seriousness, given the seriousness of the issue of climate change.

There are three parts to this bill: first, new targets for the years after 2012; second, the publication of an annual report; and third, the new obligation on the environment commissioner. I want to turn now to one of these three parts.

Clause 5 of the bill sets medium and long term targets. The Government of Canada will therefore have to ensure, as a long term target, that Canada’s emissions are reduced to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050.

The second target that is mentioned is 25% below the 1990 level by the year 2020, which is considered the medium term target.

Between 2012 and 2020, Canada will therefore progress from a 6% reduction to a 25% reduction on its way to finally achieving its objective for 2050.

Clause 6 adds something else: it sets interim targets. It establishes the targets to be achieved every five years beginning in 2015. This interim plan also specifies certain other things such as a greenhouse gas reduction target for each of 2015, 2020, and 2025 as well as the scientific, economic and technological evidence and analysis used to establish each target.

The second part of the bill requires that an annual report be published. Since there are certain targets for each of the years mentioned, the purpose is to see whether the government achieved these targets.

The measures may include: lower emissions and performance standards, market-based mechanisms; spending or fiscal incentives may also be mentioned in these proposals or in the objectives in order to reach the targets. Cooperation or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments are another way of achieving these targets.

In regard to the latter point, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the approach is in accordance with the territorial approach always specified by the Bloc. In complying with the Kyoto protocol, the Bloc Québécois still insists that the federal plan must include a mechanism allowing for the signature of a bilateral agreement with Quebec.

This bilateral agreement based on a territorial approach should give Quebec the financial tools it needs to implement more effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its territory. This is the most efficient and the only truly equitable solution that takes into account the environmental efforts and choices made by Quebeckers in recent years, particularly with the development of hydroelectricity. This measure must be included in the measures taken following the 2008-12 period, so that Quebec may also continue to implement its own greenhouse gas reduction plan.

The third point is the new obligation of the environment commissioner to produce a report. It is important to note that there is no provision in Bill C-377 that would make the environment commissioner an entirely independent officer of Parliament who would report directly to Parliament. The Bloc would like such a change to be made to the environment commissioner position so that he has the latitude to fulfill the new duties assigned to him.

As I said earlier, the Bloc Québécois has always sought a territorial approach. Given the major differences between Quebec's economy and those of the other provinces, as well as efforts that have already been made, this is the only fair and effective approach that does not require years and years of negotiation. It is very simple: Quebec and the provinces who wish to do so can opt out of the federal government's plan and implement their own measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels within their territory. To enable Quebec and the provinces to make their own choices, the territorial approach should be combined with a permit exchange system.

As the deadline nears, the federal government must opt for the territorial approach to speed up efforts to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible. However, the Conservatives twice rejected this promising approach and seem no more open to it now than they were before. For the period following the first phase of the Kyoto protocol, that is, after 2008-12, Quebec must be in a position to undertake its work according to its own plan.

The Bloc Québécois has no doubt that human activity is the cause of greenhouse gas production and is responsible for climate change. During discussions prior to the climate change conference in Bonn, the Bloc Québécois sent a clear message to the Conservative government. The federal government must shoulder its responsibilities and start thinking about medium and long term objectives. Since the conference, the Conservative government has stubbornly rejected the Kyoto protocol. It has lost face in the eyes of all of the countries that ratified the protocol. As my colleague said earlier, the past two years and the past few months have been a total loss in the fight against climate change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Now that you've done that--you didn't word it that way before, so I was waiting for you to do that--what we have here are the elements of a plan, not the plan itself. Again, it goes back to the elements of something that may show up when the plan is developed. If it becomes part of legislation or regulation that does specify spending, then at that time it may require a royal recommendation.

I'll go back to Mr. Godfrey's point about Bill C-288, which did have specifics, or elements, in it that were similar and was ruled by the Speaker of the House not to require a royal recommendation. Therefore, I'm going to follow that precedent, and my ruling is that this does not require royal recommendation and is therefore admissible.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

No.

First of all, we do accept this as a friendly amendment in its current form.

Second, I would take advantage of having the floor simply to respond to a couple of the points. I'm afraid I didn't get them all written down, but let me deal with a couple of the points Mr. Jean made.

One was the comment about the royal recommendation.

Once again, the language that we find under the plan to which he referred and that he quoted—under proposed subparagraph 103.03(1)(a)(iii), “spending or fiscal measures or incentives”—that whole language of proposed section 103.03 is lifted from Bill C-288. The difference is that Bill C-288—and the language is exactly the same—says this is what we're going to do up to 2012 for the first Kyoto period; the language of this amendment picks up the story and reiterates exactly the same list of measures that may be undertaken: “market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets”, “spending or fiscal measures or incentives”, etc.

In other words, Bill C-288 was deemed to be in order by the Speaker of the House, so we used it as the precedent for using the same language while extending the principles out from 2013, so that the royal recommendation.... We were very careful about putting it that way. That's the first point.

On the second point, on air quality, I think we're probably going to have a more extensive discussion with the help of our friend Mr. Cullen in a moment, but I'll simply expand a little bit about what we're doing here.

Essentially the proposed bill speaks of objectives; it does not speak of standards. What we wish to do is be more ambitious in this passage and to speak of standards to be established for the country.

The basic format is taken from what happens currently in the United States, so the question that Mr. Jean was raising about zones very much picks up on the language of airsheds, which is used in the United States. We're doing this partly because where there are airsheds that cross borders, it gives us interoperability; we will be able to talk to our American counterparts for these airsheds and deal with those quality issues.

Simply, there are two points. The zones make sense because that's the nature of pollutants: they take place over certain geographic areas. They're not like greenhouse gases in that regard. As well, we have tried to make this consistent and interoperable with the American regime because we think it will allow us to recognize the reality that often those pollutants come from south of the border and we would want to be able to work cooperatively with them.

That is a beginning of the discussion on air quality, although it's a very important discussion that I think Mr. Cullen is going to want to pursue at some other length.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I have two points, Mr. Chair.

The language of NDP-15.2 says, “The Governor in Council may establish a greenhouse gas reduction Transition Fund to provide transition assistance”. I note that when we were debating Bill C-288, on page 4, it was ruled by the Speaker that references to the idea that there might be measures that include ones “to provide for a just transition for workers affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions” did not imply a royal recommendation.

I realize the wording in Bill C-288 is not the same as it is in amendment NDP-15.2. I'm just wondering how we square the non-royal recommendation acceptance by the Speaker of the phrase “just transition fund” and the fact that this is simply a possibility for the government—it's not a “shall” recommendation—with possibly ruling it out of order.

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

One important piece—and this is going straight to Mr. Jean's concerns—was around addressing the short-term targets. The false debate that we can't allow to continue is that all action taken under Kyoto was meant to be taken domestically only. There was never any such negotiation under the protocol. Canada, the United States, Australia, and Europe all insisted that there be several tools in the toolbox for countries to achieve their targets, understanding that some of these changes are difficult to make.

There are two other significant options for the domestic targets in terms of doing them all in-house. One was the international credit option, which I know the Conservatives have an ideological opposition to but which other countries are successfully using. It fits in well with the clean development mechanism, and I believe it fits in well with Canada's long-term overseas development and strategic goals. It also combines well with the export of Canadian technology, which is how we use much of our overseas aid right now.

The government should be much more open than it has been to this point, and we've seen some movement from the minister. He was here only last week, and in scrumming with the press afterwards, he was claiming that he is open to the concept of CDM, open to the concept of this clean development mechanism.

The second thing is the application of missed targets to the second phase. This government and the minister have claimed that they will engage in the second phase vigorously, the second round of targets. Kyoto is partly designed and built so that you can encroach upon that second phase with more restrictive targets. If the government is truly serious about making these structural changes on the domestic front, this is one of the ways open to them.

The government simply can't, by its own decision, limit the options it chooses to use and then go back to Canadians and say it didn't have any options, that it only had this one and this option was too severe. It's a patently false argument to see several tools available and to just choose not to pick them up.

In terms of Mr. Bigras' point, it's well taken and understood on what was built into Bill C-288 to give the government some options. The reason we have some conflict with the territoriality—and I've explained this in private, but I'll put it on the record—is that with certain things, particularly the carbon market that has been proposed in Montreal and in some suggestions from Toronto, when you don't take a sectoral approach, when you don't have a hard cap on particular industries, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand and figure out how the carbon market works. It's not as clear or clean.

We have also done some analysis showing that Quebec will do very well under the sectoral approach. As he pointed out, much of the energy produced and consumed in Quebec comes with very few greenhouse gas emissions. Much of the industry in Quebec, in manufacturing or some of the other sectors, will not be taking a significantly larger hit when you look at things sectorally.

I understand that there might be some ideological reasons and bases for the argument, but we've looked at both. If there's some language that you would like to suggest that would open up some options for government, we're seeking that type of consensus around the table. We're trying to find places where we can all agree. The fundamental point is that this option really does give clear accounting for Canadians. It does allow the government to put forward a plan and then be judged by that plan in a most public way.

As Mr. Warawa pointed out earlier, that was the thing most lacking under the previous government. It was very difficult to account for actions. Canadians were left wandering in the dark in terms of what was actually getting done, and the results were actually quite tragic and have become increasingly expensive.

Committee members must appreciate this. The longer we delay and put off the setting of those firm targets, allowing business and communities to respond, the more expensive this process gets, because we must do this thing. We absolutely must.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, imagine that, a Liberal asking a question on the environment. The Prime Minister made it very clear that if and when Bill C-288 becomes law he would respect that.

The real question Canadians are asking is, why did the Liberals not act on Kyoto when it was ratified, why 13 years of doing nothing? The other question Canadians are asking is, why, right after that vote, did the former prime minister go to the Rideau Club and leave his big V-8 limousine idling for over two hours?

Opposition Motion—Government Policies

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on another issue, with regard to the Kyoto protocol, yesterday the House passed Bill C-288. The bill basically commits to meet our undertakings under an international agreement to which we are a party.

The Conservative government eliminated every reference to Kyoto from its websites. It has constantly indicated that it does not support the protocol and that it is not interested at all in trying to meet the targets under that protocol.

Quebec has shown some leadership in terms of climate change initiatives. I wonder if the member would care to comment on why it is important for Canada to make commitments as outlined in the Kyoto protocol in the best interests of the future generations of Canada.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government is failing to act in accordance with the democratic and open values expected of its office by imposing a narrow minded, socially conservative ideology as reflected in its approach to the judicial appointment process to dramatically increase the influence of right-wing ideology in the judiciary, its refusal to honour Canada's international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol including a refusal to act immediately to introduce regulations under the Canada Environmental Protection Act, its misconception that Canadians don’t want or need a dramatic increase in child care spaces on a national basis, its budget spending cuts directed at aboriginal people and silencing advocacy work done on behalf of women and the most vulnerable Canadians even in the face of budget surpluses, its failure to protect and promote linguistic and cultural diversity, and its undemocratic assault on farmers who support the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

We have a motion in the House today that calls on all of us to take a hard look at the government's record. It is a moment to ask some questions. What is the big picture? Where is the Prime Minister taking the country?

The official opposition is concerned about the direction the government is taking and this is the day on which the House of Commons gets to call it the way we see it.

We on this bench start with the standard that we set in government. We have been nation builders. We create the institutions that make our country strong: the Canada pension plan, old age security, employment insurance, medicare, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Kelowna accord and a national child care program, that is until the Prime Minister scrapped both of them.

Thanks to Liberal leadership, Canadians benefited from sound public finances and enviable economic growth. The contrast between the Liberal record and the record of this minority government is striking.

This government has no plan for economic growth, no plan for employment, no plan for post-secondary education and no plan for investment in science and research. That means no plan for Canada's future. That means no plan to help Canadians succeed.

This Prime Minister is governing only to win the next election. He has forgotten his country's future, and the future will judge him.

The government just does not understand that we cannot have a successful and united country unless we have a just society and a just society is one that offers everyone in Canada an equal chance.

Canadians have built a society with less poverty and less crime, a society that sends more young people to college and university and fewer to prison.

Canadians have abandoned the 19th century notion of a single dominant culture in favour of a constitutional and institutional framework that promotes a bilingual and multicultural diversity of peoples, including our aboriginal fellow citizens.

We on this side of the House have come to see that our differences are our strengths, unlike the Conservatives who see differences as wedge issues to exploit.

Thanks to the Liberal governments in the 1990s, Canada has had a budget surplus for a decade now. All Canadians should be proud of what we have accomplished together. These achievements are now threatened.

After just one year in office, the government has shown its true colours. The Prime Minister is turning back the clock on the social reforms of the last 30 years. It is not surprising that the Conservative Party decided to drop the word “progressive” from its name. That means we are no longer faced with the conservatism we know but with an ideological conservatism, a movement conservatism that will take Canada backward.

Bit by bit, the Prime Minister is shaping Canada into his vision and it is less progressive, less fair, less just and less equal. He cut funding for women's advocacy groups, and he was wrong to do so. If we want Canadians to have an equal chance, we need to do more to reduce economic and social inequality between the genders and not less.

In the last election, the Prime Minister told Canadians that our court system would protect them from the Conservatives if they pursued an ideological agenda.

But then he cut the court challenges program, the very program that funded a number of important cases that sought to advance equality rights. Abolishing this program is a serious step that directly reduces Canadians' ability to defend their charter rights.

The government also wants to appoint socially Conservative judges and rig the judicial appointment process to shift our courts to the right. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to choose judges on the basis of whether they support his criminal justice agenda. This fails to respect the separation of powers that is the basis of Canadian freedom. Governments pass laws, judges enforce and interpret them. One branch does not seek to bend the other branch to its will, except under the present government.

I again urge the Prime Minister to reverse the changes he has made in the way the government selects judges. I urge him to stop trying to politicize our judiciary.

The Prime Minister has even politicized the issue of equality in our country. He tried to reopen the same sex marriage debate and most Canadians regard this as a settled matter. We need to ask why a sitting Prime Minister would want to put into question the equality gains made by his fellow citizens.

The Conservatives have also cut funding for adult literacy programs, calling such programs “repair work after the fact”. For the government, adults who cannot read do not count.

This government inherited a $13 billion surplus, but still made $1 billion in cuts, mainly at the expense of those people who need help the most. These Conservatives have promised to cut another $1 billion before the next budget. What other social programs will be axed? When will it be enough?

This is a government that has plans to build more prison cells instead of child care spaces.

This is a government that has scrapped the historic Kelowna accord between Canada and its aboriginal citizens. For this government it appears to be acceptable to break faith with aboriginal Canadians once again.

Yesterday evening, this House adopted Bill C-288, which requires the government to step up to the plate and introduce a plan to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. Instead of a plan, all we are seeing is fear and denial. This is not leadership. This is not governance. It is shameful. We need action and a comprehensive sustainable development plan, with accountability and targets, and we need it now.

This is a government obsessed with cutting taxes, not tax cuts that create jobs or enhance Canadian competitiveness or make it easier for Canadians to make ends meet, but tax cuts which weaken our capacity to build a just society for all. The Conservatives will strip back the government until the cupboards are bare in Ottawa and across the country, and that will weaken Canadian citizenship and it will weaken the national unity of our country.

The Prime Minister will try to hold onto power by using so-called wedge issues in the hopes of dividing Canadians. When will these politics stop? Canadians do not want a country where the values of a right-wing minority are imposed by stealth on a progressive majority. Canadians sense the reactionary drift of their government. They can feel the daily descent of their country into a place where opportunity is shrinking.

This is a progressive country, a place held together by faith in compassionate, smart and accountable government, and we are not going to get compassionate, smart and accountable government from a party that loves power but actually dislikes government.

We are not going to get national unity from an ideologue. We are not going to get the country pulling together under a party that governs for its base and not for all the people.

I urge all the opposition members to vote for this motion and send a clear message to this Conservative government and the people of Canada.

Let us declare that it is the opinion of this House that the government is failing to act in accordance with the democratic and open values expected of its high office. Let us draw a line in the sand. Let us say together that enough is enough.

Enough is enough.

My fellow parliamentarians, this country deserves better.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

moved that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-288.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.