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.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-210, which we will naturally support, along with all the other parties in this House. This essentially administrative bill was presented in the Senate on April 30, 2010, and it would amend two acts: the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act. It would ensure that when the environment commissioner provides a report on the progress of sustainable development, this report is tabled in both the House of Commons and the Senate. That is the first amendment.

The second amendment would give the environment commissioner more latitude to decide when it is necessary to table reports on sustainable development. The Federal Sustainable Development Act, which is in its infant stages, since it was just recently passed, was the result of a bill introduced by one of our former colleagues, John Godfrey. He thought it was very important for Canada, and more specifically the federal government, to have a sustainable development strategy. I will come back to this shortly.

Mr. Godfrey worked with all of the parties to ensure that Bill C-474 would be passed. The Bloc Québécois did not like the bill in its original form because it proposed only a national sustainable development strategy. In addition, this bill interfered significantly in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction, such as agriculture and recycling. It was a national, coast-to-coast strategy that would not have produced results at the end of the day.

Following talks, the parties have decided that it is important for Canada to have a federal sustainable development strategy that falls within its own areas of jurisdiction. Thus, Canada will be able to meet the Rio targets and truly put in place a sustainable development plan using resources that already exist in its various departments. This strategy would also aim to increase greening of public services and provide Canada with the means to reach its international environmental goals.

That is how Bill S-210 was introduced. It will ensure that the commissioner has more flexibility in reaching the set targets. We need greater accountability and the environment commissioner must be able to report more frequently. Over the past weeks and months, we have come to realize that the environmental strategy presented by the federal government in order to comply with Bill C-474 contained targets that were vague, weak and insufficient.

Clearly, the government was just paying lip service to the ideas of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting ecosystems and oceanographic resources. We need a transparent sustainable development strategy with clear goals. However, that is what was missing from the strategy that has been developed.

The commissioner will be responsible for assessing whether the government has met those targets. The targets are inadequate, so, naturally, the commissioner will have a hard time in the coming years figuring out whether Canada is keeping the promises made to Parliament.

We need more transparency, more accountability and greater responsibility to ensure that the government is reaching its international targets. That is almost certainly what Parliament has been lacking these past 10 or 14 years. The government was unable to achieve its environmental targets at the international level because there was no oversight and no accountability with respect to Canada's commitments.

The best example of this is the fight against climate change. Since 1997, successive governments have introduced greenhouse gas reduction plans that were supposed to be in line with Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets. But we are a long way from reaching those targets.

In 1997, Canada promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Where do we stand now? Our greenhouse gas emissions have risen by more than 25%.

Why have we failed to reach our targets? One of the main reasons is that there have been no progress reports. There has been no way to determine whether the measures, plans, policies and programs implemented are taking us in the right direction. The government can set greenhouse gas reduction targets, but without the right plans, policies and programs in place, those targets will not be achieved. The environment commissioner needs more power to present more frequent reports. That is one of the goals of this bill.

We have already given the environment commissioner a greater role. A few years ago, the Liberal Party's Bill C-288 gave the environment commissioner more power with respect to accountability for reduction targets.

We support this bill. We believe that the environment commissioner must play a greater role in efforts to reach the targets set by Canada and the federal government by focusing on three basic objectives: transparency, accountability and responsibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to Bill S-210. It is a bill, as we were saying earlier, that originated in the Senate, was introduced in the Senate, and is today being studied in this House.

This bill is quite simple. It amends two acts, the Federal Sustainable Development Act and the Auditor General Act. It makes two amendments, including one that simply would have the commissioner table reports not only in the House of Commons but also in the Senate. That is the first amendment in the bill we are studying today.

The second amendment would give the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development the possibility of tabling reports more than once a year on the progress made by the government in matters of the environment and sustainable development.

We will support this bill. Why? Because these amendments are quite simple. This is part of what we might call a new environmental governance that leaves more room for independence and assessment. Why? Because Canada has given itself a number of tools and instruments in the past few years.

For example, Canada now has environmental indicators it can use to assess the government's progress in a number of sectors from water to forestry. These tools are available to us.

We have to ensure that there is more accountability and more independent auditing, and that the commissioner can play an increasingly significant role.

I remember when a sustainable development bill was passed a few years ago. It was a Liberal member, John Godfrey, who introduced the initiative. He received the support of all political parties, with a few amendments of course. Why? Because it was high time we responded to all of the big international summits, all of the Earth summits from Johannesburg to Rio, by coming up with a sustainable development strategy.

However, a few months ago, after the government decided to respond to the passing of the bill, we realized that it had introduced its own sustainable development strategy. A close look at that strategy reveals that it contains no quantitative or numerical targets that would make it possible to really assess the government's progress. It does contain targets, but they are not clear and quantitative targets. They are just qualitative targets.

We have to give the auditor more tools to assess sustainable development progress.

This is not the first time we have wanted the Commissioner of the Environment to pay a larger part in various laws. Among others, I am thinking of Bill C-288, which was introduced by the member for Honoré-Mercier. That was a bill to implement the Kyoto accord and to get the Commissioner of the Environment involved. There was also Bill C-311, the climate change bill, which was a response given at the end of the Kyoto accord and an attempt to follow up on it.

Once again, parliamentarians tried to give the commissioner more tools to assess the government's progress.

This is important, because the Commissioner of the Environment has already looked at how the government carries out and applies its sustainable development policy.

I remember a report from the Commissioner of the Environment, when the government was examining the application of the strategic environmental assessment as part of its sustainable development policy. There is a directive from the Prime Minister's Office, dating back to 1994, which requires all departments to carry out impact assessments. Those are what we refer to as strategic environmental assessments.

These ensure that all departments' three Ps—policies, plans and programs—are consistent with sustainable development. Each policy, plan and program must be assessed by the department, looking not only at sustainable development, but also at environmental protection and social development.

What did the Commissioner of the Environment observe a few years ago? I remember the title of one of the chapters from the commissioner's report. It had to do with assessing the application of sustainable development within the Department of Finance. Talking about strategic environmental assessments, the commissioner at the time, Johanne Gélinas, titled the chapter, “Greening the tax system: Finance Canada dragging its feet”. If there is one fundamental department within a government, it is the finance department. And the tabling of the budget is a crucial time for parliamentarians, because the budget makes it possible to guide policies and utilize the tax system to bring about social and environmental governance.

What the commissioner basically indicated was that the Department of Finance was not applying the strategic environmental assessment to its policies, programs and plans. What are the consequences? The Canadian government tells us that it is important to protect the environment and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, at the same time, the finance minister provides tax breaks to the oil industry. On the one hand, the government says we must protect the environment, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change but, on the other, it uses an available tool, taxation, to give breaks such as depreciation deductions to an industry that is a major contributor to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Had the Department of Finance respected the 1994 directive from the Prime Minister's Office requiring the Department of Finance to conduct an environmental assessment of its policies, governance would probably be quite different.

That is why we have to give the Commissioner of the Environment a bigger role to play. We have to make sure that we really get independent audits, independent being the operative word because that is what will be used to guide all sectors in Canadian and Quebec society. I am talking about independent audits, but also independence for the media and scientists. The point is that we have to make sure policy is not influenced by vested interests.

That is why we have to amend the Sustainable Development Act to give the commissioner more powers, and at the same time, the government has to be aware that when the so-called environmental watchdog sends out clear messages and strongly recommends that the government do something different, the government has to listen. The more reports the Commissioner of the Environment produces, the better governance will be, as long as this government decides to listen to independent advice and respect the people's wishes to build a sustainable society for the future.

Bill C-469--Royal Recommendation Requirement

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the arguments made May 6, 2010 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding my private member's bill, Bill C-469, An Act to establish a Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights.

The parliamentary secretary argued that the bill requires a royal recommendation because it would require new spending on the following basis: one, that part 2 authorizes environmental protection actions against the government by enabling Canadians to seek recourse in the Federal Court to protect the environment in relation to any action or inaction by the government which has resulted in significant harm; and two, that part 4 authorizes the Auditor General to review new regulations and bills to ensure consistency with Bill C-469 and to report any inconsistencies to the House of Commons.

I wish first to respond to the argument put forth that part 2, clause 19 of the bill, “would create potential legal liabilities for the government by adding the power to the Federal Court to order the government to pay for the restoration or rehabilitation of the part of the environment, and the power to order the government to pay for the enhancement or protection of the environment generally” and the argument that “clause 19 would result in a potential increase in the government's legal liability since payments resulting from decisions of the Federal Court would be made from the consolidated revenue fund”.

First, Bill C-469 merely establishes standing to bring an environmental protection action against the government. The enactment of this provision would create no immediate or automatic liability on the federal government. In point of fact the overall intent of the law is to encourage action by the federal government to assert its existing jurisdiction and legislated powers to protect the environment in the interests of current and future generations of Canadians.

The bill's purpose is to ensure greater transparency and participation in environmental decision making. The intent is to make the government accountable for the actions it takes or fails to take to protect the environment in the interests of Canadians.

If those broad rights and powers are asserted, then no action would likely be precipitated. Further, if the federal government's powers to protect the environment are exercised with due diligence, then a successful court action against the crown is unlikely. As a consequence, no new liability would arise.

In making his case, the parliamentary secretary referred to, for example, the Senate Speaker's ruling on May 5, 2009, at pages 739 to 740 of the Senate Debates, that Bill S-219, an act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, required a royal recommendation because it would increase the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act by expanding the range of conditions under which government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under that act.

However, the Senate Speaker in his ruling then went on to quote from the 23rd edition of Erskine May to distinguish those cases that would and would not require a royal recommendation:

While page 888 does state that the Royal Recommendation may not be required if the “liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law,” this does not save Bill S-219, since the changes proposed to the student loans regime are not merely incidental to the bill, but its primary purpose.

Based on this analysis, it is submitted, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has asserted, Bill C-469, which merely provides standing to a defined class of potential litigants to consider seeking a court order would not require royal recommendation. No immediate spending or liability arises from part 2. Any potential liability would arise only as an incidental consequence of an action actually being filed proving failure by the government to fulfill its duties as trustee of the environment, to enforce an environmental law or for violating the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

Further, the litigant must provide proof of actual or potential significant harm to even file the action. The imposition of new spending by the government is not at all the primary purpose of the bill. No immediate liability arises with the enactment of the bill and most certainly not as a result of part 2.

It may also be noted that Erskine May, 23rd edition at page 888 clearly provides that “Liability on the Crown or local authorities to pay costs, compensation or damages does not require a money resolution if such a liability arises as an incidental consequence of a proposal to apply or modify the general law”.

It is further specified that in the case of widening the jurisdiction of a court, a money resolution is not required even though the proposal may have the incidental consequence of increasing the costs of administration of justice.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Speaker's ruling on June 12, 1973, that Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act required a royal recommendation because it proposed substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

However, this ruling was subsequently considered by the Speaker on February 12, 1998, on page 3766 in considering Bill S-4, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, who held that there was already statutory authority under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to make the payments that Bill S-4 outlined.

It may be noted that many federal environmental laws, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, already provide that the Crown is bound. According to Erskine May, 21st Edition at page 717, “No further authorization is required for an expenditure covered by an existing statutory authority, including liability to pay damages covered by existing law”.

By way of example, crown agencies such as the Department of Public Works and the Department of Defence have been held by the courts to be liable to pay damages where they have failed to take appropriate actions to comply with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Further, the provisions in Bill C-469, related to proceedings against the federal Crown, are consistent with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, chapter C-5, section 33. Section 3 clearly provides that the Crown is liable for damages for torts committed by a servant of the Crown.

It may be noted that John Mark Keyes in his article, “When Bills and Amendments Require the Royal Recommendation: A Discussion Paper and Guidelines”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, volume 20, number 4, winter 1997-98 at page 8 cites Erskine May, 21st edition, page 717, on cases were a royal recommendation is not needed as including, “Widening the jurisdiction of a court or creating offences although they may have the effect of increasing the costs of the administration of justice”.

Further, any potential liabilities under part 2 of the bill are highly speculative and that they would be substantial is even more so speculative.

For example, government might first avoid a court action or settle such an action if filed by diligently exercising its powers or duties to undertake an environmental assessment or to complete an action plan for a threatened species within the statutorily prescribed timeline or by passing new regulations, or by a myriad of other measures.

Even if an action under Bill C-469 has its day in court, the court is provided a wide range of remedies, including directing the government to implement measures previously announced and budgeted for, or otherwise prescribed by another law. Thus any court-ordered payments under section 19 of the bill are highly speculative and could only occur after the government has made decisions to not avoid or remedy the problem by any other means.

The Speaker similarly rejected such speculation in multiple rulings on September 27, 2006, page 3314; on February 8, 2007, page 6548; and again on February 14, 2007, page 6816. The Speaker found that Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act did not require a royal recommendation.

The parliamentary secretary's second argument was based on part 4 of the bill. Section 26 requires the Auditor General to examine proposed regulations and bills for consistency with Bill C-469 and to report any inconsistency to the House. It was the parliamentary secretary's assertion that this role differs significantly from the current duties of the Auditor General under section 5 of the Auditor General Act and would require new government spending.

This section requires the Auditor General, in accordance with such regulations as the governor in council may choose to make, to review any new regulations or bills to ensure consistency with the purposes and provisions of Bill C-469, and to report such findings to the House of Commons.

Let us first consider the mandate of the Auditor General as prescribed in the Auditor General Act. The act also establishes the Office of the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development. Section 21.1 prescribes a broad mandate to the commissioner to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting including on matters reiterated in the preamble of Bill C-469, inclusive of integrating environment and the economy, protecting ecosystems, and respect for the health of Canadians and the needs of future generations.

Section 23 of that act requires the commissioner to make examinations and inquiries considered necessary to monitor the extent to which specified departments have contributed to meeting sustainable development targets and report to the House actions including exercising the authority of the governor in council. Part of that authority includes the promulgation of regulations, and review and authorization of proposed laws.

The Auditor General Act also requires that the commissioner, on behalf of the Auditor General, report annually to the House of Commons on the progress of the federal government in implementing the federal sustainable development strategy and meeting its targets, which would include consideration of new statutes and regulations.

Thus, Bill C-469 would not create a substantially new or radically different mandate than that already prescribed for the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General, as provided in the Auditor General Act.

I further submit that section 26 of Bill C-469 is very similar to that considered in the Speaker's ruling on February 8, 2007, at page 6548 on Bill C-288, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. The Speaker in that instance held that the bill did not require a royal recommendation as the new responsibilities placed on the national round table on the environment and the economy by that bill did not meet the test, to quote the Speaker's words, of “whether some entirely new activity or function is being proposed which radically diverges from the activities already authorized in existing legislation”.

It may be noted that in the same ruling, the Speaker also provided, “Now it might be argued that this would increase the workload of the national round table, but even if this were so, an increase to its budget would be sought through existing appropriation arrangements”.

As the Speaker has clearly ruled, it is important to distinguish between an effect of a bill potentially increasing the workload of a department or agency and an effect of establishing distinctly new activity or function. It is my humble submission that the same logic and same conclusion would apply to part 4 of Bill C-469 regarding the role specified for the Office of the Auditor General.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Speaker's February 11, 2008, ruling on Bill C-474, Federal Sustainable Development Act; however, in that case, Bill C-474, at first reading, originally proposed repealing the sections in the Auditor General Act concerning the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and creating a new independent commissioner appointed by the governor in council who would not only assess federal progress on sustainable development but also provincial progress.

At committee stage, Bill C-474 was amended to rely on the existing position of the commissioner established under the Auditor General Act and to add the monitoring and reporting duties on federal progress toward sustainable development granted to the commissioner under that act. The Speaker on June 10, 2008, at page 6819, held that the amended bill no longer needed a royal recommendation. It is that amended Bill C-474 that is analogous to Bill C-469.

Finally, in closing, as a private member's bill can proceed through second reading and committee stage regardless of whether it requires a royal recommendation, in whole or in part, recognizing it may potentially be amended in committee or at report stage, a ruling from the Speaker would be most welcomed in advance of the vote at second reading and referral to the committee. This will inform the committee members whether any amendments may be necessary to be considered to avoid any potential need for a royal recommendation and thus maintain the possibility of a third reading vote.

Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate, which is very important—fundamental even. I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona for having introduced Bill C-469.

First of all, we support the underlying principle of the bill. We need to thank and congratulate a number of civil society groups, such as Ecojustice, which the Bloc Québécois leader and I met with over a year ago. The group helped us understand how important it is to have a Canadian environmental bill of rights.

We wholeheartedly support the five principles stated in this bill because we need to make fundamental changes to what I would call governance. We need to move toward a new form of environmental governance. Bill C-469 clearly moves us toward that goal because it incorporates the precautionary principle. This principle was developed in 1972 as part of the Stockholm convention, and it took root in 1992 at the Rio summit. This principle is fundamental. Lacking scientific certainty in various fields of human activity, we must act according to the precautionary principle.

This issue has been incorporated into some legislation. We would like to see it included in even more laws. Several environmental laws include the precautionary principle in their preamble, but we would like to see it in the laws themselves. That would force departments to make decisions about issues such as genetically modified organisms, for example. The precautionary principle is therefore fundamental.

The polluter pays principle triggers an important debate about what I call a green tax system. We have to ensure that every dollar spent is invested in renewable economies. That is not what Canada has done in the past. Since 1970, over $60 billion has been spent on tax breaks for the oil industry, while renewable energy has received just a few hundred million. We need changes to taxation in Canada; we need a green tax system.

If we undertake this change, we would respect the second principle in this bill, which is the polluter pays principle, and encourage true sustainable development. We have some tools at our disposition. For one, we have the strategic environmental assessment, which was passed in the early 1990s and which is a directive in the Prime Minister's Office. In theory, it forces each department to evaluate its plans, policies and programs to ensure that more than just economic issues are taken into consideration. Social and environmental aspects must be considered as well.

The third main principle in the bill is intergenerational equity. How can we guarantee that the resources we use today will also be available for future generations? We cannot make decisions based on a short-term outlook. We have to look at each decision and ensure that it will allow us to ensure a future, and better intergenerational equity as well as environmental justice.

We agree with part 1 of the bill, which says that every citizen has a right to a healthy environment. That is obvious. It is the right to life. It is the right to live in an environment where the air and water are of the highest quality so as to ensure human survival.

This is a fundamental right in part 1 of the bill.

Second, we agree with the principle in part 2 of the bill, which would put in place various mechanisms allowing for legal and civil action against the federal government and entities under its exclusive jurisdiction. I want to emphasize that. We support this bill because we believe that it and the bills of rights would apply to areas under federal jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons we are supporting this bill.

The third principle is the protection of employees. Mechanisms to protect employees are clearly set out in part 3 of this bill, and they are important. Why? Because scientists who become aware of a situation have to be able to tell the public about it when it poses a threat to humankind or the environment. Europe and especially France have what are known as “whistleblowers”. These people, who are sometimes ordinary citizens but more often scientists who work in government and become aware of something that could have a negative impact on the environment and humankind, decide to speak out publicly. We have to ensure that these scientists and ordinary citizens are not fired the next day, because in becoming aware of a situation they would run afoul of a government approach or ideological policy. So scientists are protected. I would hope that part 3 also protects these whistleblowers so that the public can find out about the real state of our environment.

Part 4 of the bill ensures greater independence by subjecting the government's messages and policies to analysis by independent parties. The Auditor General has a greater role to play. We have seen this in three bills: first, Bill C-288 on the application of the Kyoto protocol; second, Bill C-311 which aimed at following through on the Kyoto protocol; and finally, the sustainable development strategy that was adopted and that gives the Auditor General a clear mandate to independently analyze and verify the government's policies.

This is important because this independence is not always a given. We saw this with the instructions given to scientists. As we saw, scientists were not necessarily allowed to speak up. So this is about allowing independence. In a new environmental governance, independence is important. The media, businesses and scientists must all be independent in order to really engage in this new approach towards a real vision of sustainable development and to give scientists a chance.

I am thinking of GMOs in particular. Over the past several years, successive governments have refused to ask the Royal Society of Canada, an association of Canada's best and most eminent scientists, to assess the impact of GMOs on health and the environment. A government that valued independent thought and allowed scientists to do their work would have referred the GMO issue to the Royal Society of Canada for a truly independent analysis.

I will close with a brief quote from Albert Jacquard's latest book, entitled Le compte à rebours a-t-il commencé?, or “Has the countdown begun?”

For ages, humans have lived as though their time would never run out, as though progress would never cease to make the world a better place for us, as though humans would always grow richer, more beautiful and more capable, as though we could create an infinite number of nuclear bombs without ever having to use them, as though we had the right to plunder the planet's riches at will without ever making a dent in an endless supply. Those days are past. We now know that our time is running out and that if we continue to work against ourselves, we may well create a planet on which none of us want to live.

Pay Equity Task Force Recommendations Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on December 10, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, An Act respecting the implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force and amending another Act in consequence, standing in the name of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue, as well as the member for Vancouver Centre for her comments. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary noted that Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes a duty on the government to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report. Second, it repeals the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA. The parliamentary secretary dealt with each of these proposals in some detail as, in his view, each of them infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown.

He began by noting that the first recommendation of the pay equity task force report concerns the need for legislation. That recommendation reads:

The Task Force recommends that Parliament enact new stand-alone, proactive pay equity legislation in order that Canada can more effectively meet its international obligations and domestic commitments, and that such legislation be characterized as human rights legislation.

The remaining 112 recommendations in the report, he pointed out, describe the measures that should be included in that legislation. The recommendations taken overall seek to establish a new regime for the oversight of the pay equity process and the adjudication of pay equity complaints. Among these recommendations, several call for the establishment of pay equity oversight agencies. He referred to the fact that clause 2 of Bill C-471 states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011 and that all the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force are implemented no later than January 1, 2012.

The parliamentary secretary raised two concerns with respect to the requirement to implement the recommendations. He felt that the bill imposes a requirement on the government that can only be met by the passage of legislation, a requirement which seemed to bind Parliament to passing that legislation. In his view, such a requirement was both impossible for the government to carry out and unconstitutional.

As well, he noted that the establishment of new agencies clearly requires the expenditure of public funds and therefore requires a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary then turned to clause 3 of the bill, which repeals the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and related provisions from the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

As he saw it, two effects would follow from repealing the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. First, a new purpose would be given to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. They would now be given jurisdiction for public sector pay equity complaints. Further, as the liability arising from the statutory grounds of complaint under the Canada Human Rights Act differ from those under the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, the Crown, as employer, would be faced with potential expenses not currently provided for. The parliamentary secretary explained the difference between the liability schemes in some detail, which I will not repeat here. He also made reference to a number of Speakers’ rulings from both this House and the other place, in which the need for a royal recommendation to accompany new or increased liability of the Crown is clearly illustrated.

The member for Vancouver Centre pointed out that the repeal of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act does not constitute a new legislative regime. Rather, in her view, it leaves the currently existing legislation in place. Second, she claimed that the requirement to establish a framework is not the same as the actual implementation of the framework.

As the House has no doubt gathered from this brief summary, the issues confronting the Chair in this case are complex. I would like to begin by reminding honourable members that the Chair is obliged to confine itself to dealing with the procedural aspects of the question. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2nd edition, p. 261 states:

... it is not up to the Speaker to rule on the “constitutionality” or “legality” of measures before the House.

The procedural issue which faces the Chair relates to the possible requirement for a royal recommendation.

There are three distinct elements in the bill. The first relates to the introduction of legislation to implement the recommendations of the pay equity task force, including the setting up of two statutory oversight agencies. The second element is the repeal of the PSECA, from which flows the third element, that of the repeal of the consequential provision stimulated at sections 395 to 405 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

With respect to the implementation of the pay equity task force recommendations, it was indicated by the parliamentary secretary that such provisions would, in all likelihood, require a royal recommendation. Those provisions, however, are not part of Bill C-471, but of some future bill not yet before the House. It is my view that this aspect of Bill C-471 is similar to Bill C-288, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, from the last Parliament, despite the arguments to the contrary advanced by the parliamentary secretary.

I remind the House of the ruling given on September 27, 2006, where the Chair stated at page 3315 of Debates:

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

Bill C-471 implements no recommendations and establishes no agency. It simply requires that the government bring forth legislation and thus it is difficult to see how these provisions could be construed as requiring the expenditure of public funds.

The second main objective of Bill C-471 is the repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, enacted by section 394 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 and the repeal of the transitional and consequential amendments stemming from the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act and stipulated in sections 395 to 405 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009.

While it may impact the operations of government, the repeal of a statute does not normally require a royal recommendation. The parliamentary secretary contended that repealing this act and the related sections of the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 would have the practical effect of assigning a new mandate to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

If Bill C-471 were adopted, the situation with respect to oversight of the pay equity process and the hearing of pay equity complaints would revert to that which was in place prior to the adoption of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. In effect, this is a change in the mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

As stated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 834, this kind of change requires a royal recommendation.

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

Consequently, it is my ruling that in changing the objects and purposes of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Bill C-471 infringes upon the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Accordingly, the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the very important Bill C-311 today. I will probably not take all the time I am allowed, because I want to give more of my colleagues the opportunity to speak.

This bill is very crucial because it is part of a strategy to fight climate change. Yes, it is a Canadian strategy, but it is first and foremost an international one.

I remember when Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 1997. A few years later, the protocol was consolidated by the introduction of Bill C-288 by the Liberal Party. Countries like Canada must not just sign international agreements or an international protocol on climate change. They must follow up with legislation supporting these agreements. That was the reasoning behind Bill C-288, introduced by our Liberal colleague at the time.

With only months before the important conference on climate change to be held in Cancun in December, Canada must wake up and be a leader on the international stage. The government must immediately invite its counterparts to discuss climate change at the G8 and G20 summits. Discussions will focus on three aspects—financial reform, banking reform and international assistance—but the issue of climate change must also be addressed.

For that reason, the Minister of the Environment must invite his G8 and G20 counterparts to a meeting as soon as possible to discuss the issue of climate change. Why? Because the discussions prior to a conference of the parties on climate change are vital. If the major players—the industrialized countries or the emerging countries—are unable to come to an agreement in the weeks or months ahead, the success of the Copenhagen summit will be compromised.

We must also send a message to Canadians and Quebeckers indicating that we are prepared to adopt legislative measures to fight climate change. A law must be passed to engage in this fight. Section 5 of Bill C-311 provides all that is needed to send a clear message.

First, we must prevent temperatures from rising more than 2°C above industrial era temperatures. This must be very clear because a number of international studies, in particular those conducted by the IPCC, no longer refer to a 2° increase in temperature, but an increase of 4°C or 5°C. We must make it very clear to our partners, and to all those concerned, that we must prevent temperatures from increasing by more than 2°C.

Now, how can we limit that increase? By setting clear objectives and specific targets. Bill C-311 goes beyond other bills that I have read or motions that have been passed in the House. It does not just set a long-term goal like 2050. An 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 is fine, but there need to be short- and medium-term goals. The proposal is for a 25% reduction by 2020, in relation to 1990 levels.

This is what experts and scientists are recommending in order to limit the increase in temperature. The bill has the advantage of using all available options to reach these objectives.

One of these options is the creation of a carbon exchange to cap greenhouse gas emissions. We have been proposing this for a decade or so.

The entire Montreal market was ready. At the end of the 1990s, when an agreement was signed with the Toronto Stock Exchange and Montreal decided to specialize in derivatives, some specialists in the Quebec financial sector brought up the carbon exchange. They knew that it was an attractive derivative and that Montreal could make a significant contribution to this specialization. And that laid the foundation for the Montreal climate exchange.

Then two weeks ago, the government announced that we would have to wait at least a year, if not two, before a carbon exchange could be set up in Canada. Two years ago, the environment minister at the time was so pleased with himself when he launched the Montreal climate exchange. Two years later, his successor announced that the whole thing was being put on hold. The government has refused to set targets that respect scientific recommendations and has decided to ignore all of the options set out in the Kyoto protocol. Yet it is allowing some large groups to contribute to the fight against climate change. Basically, this government has decided to give up.

I remember making similar speeches in the House in the 1990s. I was sitting in more or less the same place, but about four rows back. Back then, Reform and Alliance MPs said that climate change was a natural phenomenon and that there was no link between human activity and rising temperatures.

Now we are back at square one. We are back to having to discuss the issue yet again. How long will that last? Nobody knows. But one thing is for sure: the G20 summit in June will provide a golden opportunity to put this issue on the agenda and to make sure that the G20, which is made up of important partners, can agree on a plan for the Cancun conference in December.

That is why I see this bill as part of a comprehensive strategy to fight climate change that starts with getting the G8 ministers together as soon as possible and ensuring strong support in the House for Bill C-311.

I thank my colleague for introducing this bill. We will be very happy to vote in favour of it.

Bill C-471--Royal Recommendation

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today to address the issue of private member's bill, Bill C-471, standing in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore.

As the House knows, the Conservatives have raised concerns on this issue in the House arguing that the bill needs a royal recommendation. The government contends that the repeal of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act, or PSECA for short, requires a royal recommendation because delegating jurisdiction to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to oversee public sector pay equity complaints is “essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations”. We take exception to this argument on two grounds.

First, this repeal is a restoration of the status quo. The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal have been charged with these precise responsibilities for nearly a quarter century. This repeal hardly constitutes a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. They have the expertise and resources necessary to continue to undertake these responsibilities in the short term.

Second, the PSECA has not yet come into force, meaning that Bill C-471's repeal of that legislation would have limited impact on the ability of either the Public Service Labour Relations Board or the Canadian Human Rights Commission to carry out procedures relating to pay equity complaints.

The government further argues that Bill C-471 represents a cost increase to the treasury but nowhere in the 2009 budget does the government indicate that the new PSECA represents a cost savings. It is difficult to evaluate cost implications when the government provided no such information in its own policy change.

Bill C-471 calls on the Government of Canada to ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place by a specific date. The creation of statutory oversight agencies simply constitutes the creation of a framework under which a proper, proactive federal pay equity system could function. Expenditure of public moneys and liability of the Crown need not be considered in the creation of such a timeline. The framework costs nothing.

I am reminded of two rulings made in 2006 that dealt with a royal recommendation in which you, Mr. Speaker, ruled on both occasions that there was no need for a royal recommendation.

Members will remember your decision, Mr. Speaker, on Paul Martin's private member's bill, Bill C-292 regarding the Kelowna accord, where you explained:

...the Kelowna accord tabled in the House sheds light on the plan of action, but it is not clear whether the accord could be implemented through an appropriation act, through amendments to existing acts, or through the establishment of new acts. From my reading, implementation would appear to require various legislative proposals.

Also, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling dated September 27, 2006, regarding private member's Bill C-288 on the Kyoto protocol, which had been brought forward by my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier, you indicated:

Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

It would be the responsibility of the government to enact these changes in a manner that does not put a new charge on the treasury. We cannot prejudge how exactly this framework would be established. Once the government establishes the pay equity framework proposed in this bill, cost implications would become factors to consider. As this bill does not actually enact such changes, a royal recommendation is unnecessary.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak today to the Liberal opposition motion on climate change. In the next 20 minutes I will try to show that, as we look ahead to the climate change conference in Cancún eight months from now, we must take real action to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through.

I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not, but it is a bit paradoxical that the Liberal opposition motion comes just a few hours before an important vote on NDP Bill C-311. It is as if the Liberal Party were trying to show that a parliamentary motion was the best response to a legislative initiative. There is nothing stronger legislatively than a bill, whether it comes from the government or from a private member.

The Liberal Party showed leadership on this issue in the past. I remember when the Liberals introduced Bill C-288, which was sponsored by the member for Honoré-Mercier. The purpose of this bill was to implement the Kyoto protocol. At the time, the Liberal Party understood that it took a bill to ensure that international climate change agreements, and the Kyoto protocol in particular, had some regulatory teeth. This is what the NDP has understood in recent years, and a parliamentary motion is no substitute for a private member's bill.

That is why, in a few hours, we will support Bill C-311, just as we supported Bill C-288 introduced by the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier.

We think the Liberal Party motion, which I would describe as epic in length, is commendable. In the 13 years I have been sitting in Parliament, I have rarely seen such a long motion. I have read it and re-read it. There are no less than 10 points in this motion. The position of this Parliament could very well have been summed up in just three or four points, as the Bloc Québécois did on the eve of the Copenhagen climate change conference.

What did the Bloc Québécois say a few weeks before the Copenhagen climate change conference? The Bloc limited its opposition motion to three points. First, Canada must commit to doing everything in its power to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2^oC higher than in the pre-industrial period. Second, it must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 25% lower than 1990 levels by 2020. Third, it must commit to giving developing countries the technological and financial means to adapt to climate change.

The motion could have stopped there, but no, here we have a 10 point motion, which we support, of course. Nevertheless, the motion could have been clearer.

Let us look at the first point. The Liberal Party wants the government to:

...use the legislative, regulatory and fiscal authorities already available to the Government of Canada to put in place immediately a national climate change plan that implements economy-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and invests in renewable energy, clean technology and energy efficiency in order for Canada to compete in the new green economy;

How could we be against this first point of the motion? We are somewhat surprised that today, in 2010, the Liberal Party is proposing regulation. I remember what the Liberal Party was proposing in 1997-98. I was here in the House at the time. It was not proposing a regulatory approach to fight climate change. It was proposing a voluntary approach.

It proposed sector-by-sector negotiations of greenhouse gas reduction agreements that would not have the force of law. This was done in the pulp and paper sector and the steel industry. However, it became evident that the voluntary approach put forward by the Chrétien government made it impossible to respect our international commitments on greenhouse gas reductions. Today, the Liberal Party realizes that the voluntary approach proposed by the Liberal government at that time has not achieved its objectives and that a regulatory approach is needed.

We have before us a Conservative government that does have a regulatory framework for fighting climate change. However, after all these years, we are still waiting for greenhouse gas reduction regulations. We have not found an approach that could have resulted in substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The government has two means at its disposal: the regulatory approach and implementation of a greener tax system, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide tax incentives to environmental industries that contribute to those reductions. I will come back to that later.

However, we only have a regulatory framework before us, one without targets and without greenhouse gas emission regulations. We support the climate change regulations. However, we do not want to adopt the sectoral approach proposed by the federal government, which consists of putting all Canadian industrial sectors on an equal footing, especially the major industrial emitters.

In Quebec, we figure that we have been taking responsibility since the beginning of the 1990s. Manitoba was one of the first provinces to implement a plan to fight climate change. These plans have produced concrete results: in 2007, we saw a 23.6% reduction in greenhouse gases in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, compared to the 1990 levels.

Now, all the federal parties seem to be proposing putting the Quebec manufacturing sector, which has cut its greenhouse gas emissions, on an equal footing with the other major industrial emitters. I am referring, of course, to Canada's oil and gas industry. This is unacceptable, because this approach favours the polluter-paid principle, instead of the polluter-pay principle.

We are saying yes to regulations, but as my colleagues said earlier, we must use the triptych approach that was developed at a university in Austria, which puts responsibility on the provinces. Canada can obviously negotiate greenhouse gas reductions on the international scene, as Europe did with an 8% reduction as part of the Kyoto protocol. But let the provinces achieve their targets in their own way, in their own jurisdictions. We must remember that under the Constitution, natural resources are a provincial jurisdiction.

The government has been proposing this asymmetrical approach for so many years within the Canadian federation. Yes to a Canada-wide target for reducing greenhouse gases, but let us keep our provincial reduction targets.

The Liberal Party's second point is that the government should “stop putting Canada’s environmental and economic future at risk by insisting that Canada must wait for the United States to act first before showing our own leadership on this most vital issue.” Over the past few years we have seen the central federal government's complacency and lack of leadership when it comes to climate change. This is why the provinces decided to negotiate agreements with American states as part of climate groups.

This demonstrates that nations, that the Quebec nation, can negotiate with American states and move the climate issue forward more quickly than the federal government has been able to do over the past few years.

The best example is most likely that of automobile regulations. For years Ottawa refused to implement automobile manufacturing standards similar to those in California. Quebec decided to harmonize its standards with those in California. It was successful in pressuring central governments to adopt more acceptable federal environmental standards.

This shows that Quebec is better than the federal government at influencing the fight against climate change on a continental scale.

The third point of the motion talks about setting “a domestic legally-binding long-term greenhouse gas reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050”. This is probably the weakest aspect of the motion, which is unfortunate. We would have expected more from the Liberal Party.

We can set long term targets, but we also need to set short and medium term targets. Where are the greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020? For the past few years scientists have been saying that if we want to limit temperature increases to two degrees Celsius, industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below the 1990 level by 2020, and not by 2050.

With this motion and this government we will be putting off dealing with these problems. They refuse to tackle climate change in the short and medium term and are deferring efforts until 2050. We cannot accept this, especially at a time when industrialized countries are meeting in Canada for the G20. We must send a clear message: in eight months in Cancún, we will be ready to make short and medium term commitments.

Unfortunately, this motion gives no indication of any short and medium term efforts. It talks about long term efforts, which are commendable and which we do not oppose. However, this is an urgent problem that requires short and medium term targets.

The fourth point of the motion has to do with reporting “to Parliament annually on its policies and proposals to achieve the trajectory toward the 80 percent target and revise as necessary”. I think these aspects were taken from Bill C-288, at the time introduced by the Liberal Party. The purpose is probably to allow the environment commissioner to play a greater role. Parliament must focus on achieving these targets. We completely agree with this proposal.

The motion goes on to talk about establishing “a non-partisan expert group approved by Parliament to set a science-based emissions trajectory to reach that 80 percent reduction target”. Clearly, we must ensure that any targets we set are not subject to the vagaries of political change in Ottawa. Science has to resume a leading role in helping elected officials make good decisions.

The budget for the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences was cut. The government is trying to muzzle Environment Canada scientists by giving them a communications guide and telling them that their research, reports and documents have to be relevant to the government's goals and policies. That is nonsensical. A healthy government should ensure that scientists have complete independence to do their scientific work.

That is why we need an independent group of scientific experts to make recommendations to parliamentarians and government free from the influence of political vagaries in Ottawa.

The sixth point calls on the government to “reverse the decision to cut the ecoENERGY program”. The first thing this government did when it came to power was initiate a program review. It directed the Treasury Board to assess the ecoenergy programs and divide them into three categories: programs to cut, programs to maintain and programs to improve.

That was terrible for the economy itself, and especially for the desire and the vision to stimulate a greener economy. The ecoauto program was eliminated. The program was not perfect. It provided tax incentives to people who purchased vehicles that consumed around 9 litres of gas per 100 kilometres. The government wanted to change the tax paradigm to give people who bought energy-efficient vehicles a refund. I strongly believe that the measure was in line with what I would call strategic environmental assessment to achieve better governance and greener taxation.

Environmental companies told us that under the wind power production incentive or WPPI, they received tax assistance of 1¢ to 1.5¢ per kilowatt hour produced using wind energy. This program was very successful and promoted wind energy. Subsequent budgets have not provided any money for the WPPI or any tax assistance for the wind industry, and Canadian companies are now telling us that they are going to leave Canada for certain U.S. states, because the American taxation system is more beneficial.

The green shift is failing. Canada does not realize the impact of the decisions it is making, at a time when all the world economies that are going through financial, climate or food crises all agree that what is needed is a green new deal. The basis for our economic recovery must be such that we can build an economy that is not in the stone age, but really turned toward the future.

That is why, in October 2008, the UN sent a clear message to industrialized countries about a green new deal. We must reinvest in renewable energy, promote energy efficiency and make our buildings greener. Sadly, the government has missed this opportunity.

I could go on at length, but I will keep my remarks to just a few minutes. This official opposition motion is clearly commendable and worthwhile. We will support this motion, but we would have liked it to go further and be more in keeping with the principles in Bill C-311 in order to deal with the climate change crisis we are going through now, eight months before the major climate change conference in Cancún.

Bill C-471--Pay Equity Task Force Recommendation Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Bill C-471, the pay equity task force recommendations act, on the grounds that it requires a royal recommendation.

Normally, royal recommendation interventions are made before the first hour of debate, which occurred on this bill last night. However, after a request from the Liberal Party, who had an event of some importance last night, we delayed that so that we would not unduly delay the members opposite from attending their most important event.

Let me make my intervention now. Bill C-471 proposes to do two things. First, it imposes on the government a duty to implement the recommendations of the 2004 pay equity task force report that sets deadlines by which this must be done. It is noted in clause 2 of the bill that this includes establishing “all statutory oversight agencies”.

The second component of Bill C-471 is to immediately repeal the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, which was passed by Parliament nine months ago in March 2009. I have objections to both of these components and will address them in turn.

Turning to the first component, subclause 2(1) of the bill imposes an imperative duty on the government to “implement the recommendations of the Pay Equity Task Force set out in its final report”. I have considerable concerns with this provision. While a sponsoring member may attempt to argue that Bill C-471 is similar to the Kyoto protocol implementation act or the Kelowna accord implementation act, which you ruled in order in the last Parliament, there is significant distinction.

In your ruling on September 27, 2006, regarding Bill C-288, you stated:

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be.

In the case of Bill C-471, the measures are set out in detail in the 113 recommendations of the task force report, which is referenced in this bill. The recommendation is that “Parliament enact new stand alone proactive pay equity legislation”. The other 112 recommendations describe the measures that should be included in that legislation.

As a result, this bill raises grave concerns. It places an impossible duty on the Crown of implementing the recommendations, which can only be done by passage of legislation. It seeks to bind this or a subsequent Parliament to pass this new legislation, which I submit would unconstitutionally undermine the fundamental principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It would fundamentally alter the relationship between the Crown and Parliament, and that is the heart of the financial initiative.

In your February 24, 2005, ruling, you aptly quoted:

Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes”.

Bill C-471 clearly turns that relationship on its head by both proposing and disposing the measures in purposes for which public moneys should be spent. This is made even more apparent by subclause 2(2) of the bill. This provision sets the deadline by which the government must implement the task force recommendations. In particular, it states:

The Government of Canada shall ensure that all statutory oversight agencies are put in place no later than January 1, 2011.

This provision of the bill also distinguishes it from Bill C-288 and Bill C-292, considered in the last Parliament. Neither of those bills dictated the establishment of new institutions, much less as part of its expressed terms. Based on the task force report, the duty in subclause 2(2) entails the new creation of two new statutory agencies as well as a new system of adjudicators. Assuming Bill C-471 is constitutional and the government is bound by its terms, it has no choice but to establish these new bodies.

It is trite to say that such a measure would require the expenditure of new funds to a new purpose. For example, the Speaker's ruling of September 19, 2006, concluded that the creation of advisory committee requires a royal recommendation, since this clearly would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner not currently authorized. For this reason, Bill C-471 requires a royal recommendation to be in order.

The second component of Bill C-471 also clearly demonstrates that a royal recommendation is required. As mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Bill C-471 at clause 3 repeals, in its entirety, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act. This repeal would take immediate effect if this bill were to be given royal assent.

The nature of this provision is completely different from anything that was in Bill C-288 and Bill C-292 from the last Parliament.

To fully understand why it has an impact on the financial initiative of the Crown, it is first necessary to understand the purpose of the PSECA. The purpose of this act, put simply, was to remove jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Act and to create a new statutory scheme for dealing with public sector pay equity issues proactively.

By the same token, the PSECA removed jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity complaints from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Complaints that arise out of the PSECA process are instead dealt with by the Public Service Labour Relations Board. The grounds for those complaints are defined in the PSECA.

This is underscored in the PSECA's consequential amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states:

The Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with complaints made against an employer within the meaning of the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act [related to the pay equity provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act].

The effect then of clause 3 of Bill C-471 is to reverse all of that. This has two distinct impacts. First, it gives jurisdiction over public sector employers to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, whose jurisdiction was expressly removed in the PSECA. Second, it subjects public service employers, that is, the Crown as employer, to liability for new statutory grounds of complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Both of these impacts infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.

In the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O'Brien and Bosc state a fundamental principle of the royal recommendation at pages 833 to 834:

An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation...A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown's financial initiative.

Mr. Speaker, this principle is reflected in your ruling of February 11, 2008, in which you held that Bill C-474 required a royal recommendation because it proposed to substantially alter the mandate of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The same principle applies to the bill before you today.

The object of the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was to fundamentally change the structure, process and jurisdiction for dealing with public sector pay equity issues from what existed before the passage of the act. A royal recommendation accompanied the budget implementation bill, which included the PSECA.

Accordingly, repealing the PSECA and giving the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal jurisdiction over public sector pay equity complaints is essentially a fundamentally new and altered purpose for those organizations. No royal recommendation accompanies that change in Bill C-471.

The royal recommendation that accompanied the PSECA cannot be redirected to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal, and past appropriations for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal cannot be used for a purpose and jurisdiction that Parliament expressly removed from the PSECA. On that ground alone, Bill C-471 infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative.

In addition, the bill infringes upon the financial initiative on the basis that it exposes the Crown to a distinct liability that would be paid by public moneys. As stated in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, on page 714:

Any proposal whereby the Crown would incur a liability or a contingent liability payable out of money to be voted by Parliament [requires the Queen's recommendation].

In this vein, a June 12, 1973, Speaker's ruling held that a royal recommendation was required for Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

The Speaker noted:

It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public moneys.

Similarly, a May 5, 2009, ruling from the Speaker of the other place ruled Bill S-219 out of order because it would change the Crown's liability under the Canada Student Loans Act. As held in that ruling:

The passage of Bill S-219 would expand the range of conditions under which the government would have to make good its guarantee of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. This would change the existing scheme, since payments from the Consolidated Revenue Fund might increase due to the change in possible obligations. As such, the bill should have a Royal Recommendation, and would have to originate in the other place.

This is also consistent with a ruling on February 12, 1988 regarding Bill S-4, an Act to Amend the Canada Shipping Act. In that case, Mr. Speaker, you found that increases to the limits of civil liability of shipowners did not require a royal recommendation because the payment was covered by the authorization in section 30 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.

My correction, Mr. Speaker, if you were not here in 1988. You have been for so long, I think of you as being here forever. That is a compliment, and please take it as such.

That act essentially provides that the Crown could be civilly liable in court for breaches of what is known in the common law tradition as tort or property law. Crown liability for breaches of its law of civil salvage is also expressly provided under section 5. Section 30 provides judgments issued by a court against the Crown are authorized to be paid.

The case of Bill C-471 is clearly distinguishable from Bill S-4 in that it creates a new and distinct statutory liability for the Crown under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Crown Liability and Proceedings Act does not authorize payments for new statutory liabilities of the Crown. In fact, section 33 states:

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act affects any rule of evidence or any presumption relating to the extent to which the Crown is bound by an Act of Parliament.

Bill C-471 would create a new and distinct statutory charge of the Crown's liability. The more adversarial quasi-judicial setting of the human rights regime is fundamentally different from the proactive and integrated approach of the PSECA.

Under the PSECA, pay equity obligations are integrated in the bargaining process subject to complaint on certain grounds of the Public Service Labour Relations Board. In contrast, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, liability is initiated by individual complaints adjudicated before an administrative tribunal and potentially results in awards for damages. The authority for awarding those damages is the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, through the previous complaints based process under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government has paid out of public moneys multi-billion dollar judgments. The Crown's obligations are significantly different under the PSECA and a royal recommendation is required to change that.

Before concluding, and I know the wish is for me to conclude quickly, I would like to address a point that may arise during the study of this bill. As we know, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act has been passed by Parliament, but it has not been not been proclaimed into force. Like many other statutes, Parliament delegates to the Governor-in-Council the authority to determine the day on which the act comes into force.

This transitional period, as one of the terms under which Parliament has passed the law, allows the executive time to prepare for the effective implementation of provisions. For purposes of assessing the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-471, it does not matter whether or not the legislation has been proclaimed into force, it suffices that the law has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and that it has received royal assent.

What is and should be most critical and salient is Parliament's decision to make law. In the 21st edition of Erskine May, in formulating the test for whether a charge is new and distinct, it is stated at page 712:

The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, ie. a provision is in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.

In this case, the Public Service Equitable Compensation Act was passed by Parliament on March 12, 2009. It forms part of the Statutes of Canada, it reflects the will of Parliament and it will be implemented under the terms passed by Parliament because that is what the law directs.

As Erskine May puts it, it forms part of the existing law, this is the law against which the provisions of Bill C-471 must be compared. To look at it another way, there would be no purpose for clause 3 of Bill C-471 but to change the law. It follows that in this instance it also changes the purposes and conditions for which the House has authorized expenditures. For that reason it requires a royal recommendation.

While Bill C-471 is a short bill, it has significant consequences and there are multiple reasons for which it requires a royal recommendation to be in order. I should also add that the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the sponsor of Bill C-471, has said that he believes Bill C-471 would result in some additional unspecified costs for the government. In other words, the leader of the official opposition, who is the sponsor of this bill, agrees that his own bill requires a royal recommendation.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I would like to say that we will be supporting the NDP motion that deems Bill C-311 to have been considered clause by clause and reported back to the House without amendment.

Why will we be voting in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair? First, as far as I know, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party has tabled any amendments. So we must accept that, even if we were to make grand speeches in this parliamentary committee, and say that we had to have clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and that it has to be amended because it does not meet our needs, the fact is that no amendments have been tabled in committee. A few weeks or meetings ago, you very clearly indicated the prescribed timelines for such proposals. No amendments have been proposed. Those who wanted to see the bill amended did not come forward with any amendments; they therefore inevitably and indirectly subscribe to the motion as presented. We will see whether or not the speeches and votes reflect the speeches that we will hear today in committee.

Why vote in favour of this motion? Second, because it is urgent that we take action, Mr. Chair. We must make sure that we have a bill, a climate change act, before the minister arrives in Copenhagen. Mr. Chair, it is completely unacceptable to find ourselves with a government that has no strategy, no plan, no regulations, and that has postponed the implementation of its climate change regulations two or three times. In the meantime, south of our border, at least three pieces of legislation, in both chambers, deal with this issue.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearly stated that it considered CO₂ emissions to be dangerous. South of the border, they see the need to take urgent action. They are already working, studying amendments to bills, whereas we find ourselves in a situation where we have an opportunity for a bill... We can agree or not. It is, nevertheless, incumbent on us to amend what is on the table to ensure that we have regulations as quickly as possible. There seems to be some bad faith here.

In all honesty, I think that this bill is consistent with a motion presented by the Bloc Québécois and adopted on November 25, 2009. According to that motion, we must first ensure that any proposal accepts the importance of limiting the rise in temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial era. Second, in order to comply with that scientific opinion, we need a strong commitment to reach a reduction of between 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, which is directly stated in this bill.

Mr. Chair, we are therefore studying a bill aimed at respecting the spirit of a motion adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on November 26, and whose objective was to establish a 25% reduction target using 1990 as the reference year. Members of our government will be going to Copenhagen where they will say that we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. What they are not saying, however, is that the reference year being used is 2006.

I would remind you of all the efforts that have been made in Quebec since 1990. The manufacturing sector in Quebec reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% based on 1990 levels. I should also mention sectors such as pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters, which reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 15%, and all with no mention of intensity. In intensity, the aluminum sector's reductions in Quebec were 50%. In real reductions alone, the figure is 15%.

The Conservative government persists in its desire to use 2006 as the reference year. They want to start from zero. Why start from zero, Mr. Chair? For one reason only: to satisfy the demands of a single sector of Canada's economy, petroleum.

So this is not a fair proposal. In order for it to be fair, we would need to include paragraph 7(1)(b), which is aimed at limiting emissions on a provincial basis. My colleague, David McGuinty, is against it and does not understand why the Bloc is in favour of this provision. I must remind him why this paragraph is in Bill C-311; it was because of discussions with his Liberal Party colleague Pablo Rodriguez, when he introduced Bill C-288.

Surprisingly, at that time, the Liberals were very much in favour of paragraph 7(1)(b) because they felt that it provided greater flexibility. In their opinion, it made for a more asymmetrical federalism. We are proposing that Canada be able to negotiate an international commitment, setting greenhouse gas reduction targets for each province, exactly as is done in Europe. It is important to adopt a common, but differentiated approach, something that both Conservatives and Liberals have always promoted. It would have to apply here in Canada and we would have to use 1990 as the reference year. We would also have to participate in an international carbon market.

On one side, we have political parties suggesting a very weak 3% reduction target based on 1990 levels. On the other, we have a party whose targets are still not known. A great deal of time has been spent educating us about the three bills being debated in United States and we still do not know the target proposed by the official opposition. Is it 20%, 15%, 3%, 25%? Is it even higher? We have no idea.

But we do know—and this must be acknowledged—that the Liberals are adopting 1990 as the reference year, about which we are proud. We are pleased that the official opposition has understood that 1990 must be used as the reference year. So we find ourselves in a situation where the government is presenting us with an unfair, unambitious plan. We are hoping that the official opposition's position will reflect the votes that have already been held. What are these votes? There was the vote on Bill C-288, which sought to implement the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. There was also the vote on the Bloc motion, adopted by this Parliament on November 25, 2009, which called for an objective of no more than 2 degrees Celsius and a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. That is what we agreed to, in principle, by adopting Bill C-311 and this is was we repeated with the motion debated by the Bloc.

To conclude—I do not intend to filibuster—we will be voting in favour of this motion because it is urgent that we take action. The Copenhagen conference is taking place as we speak, and I think that it is important that the vote in this committee and in the House be unequivocally in favour of a bill that goes along with the recommendations made by scientists.

Thank you very much.

Environmental Enforcement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-16. The least that can be said is that this bill is a lengthy one. It amends a number of environmental statutes and it has been anticipated for a very long time. When it comes to environmental protection, be it the Migratory Birds Act, the Fisheries Act or the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, we have too often seen Canadian legislation that gives polluters a break.

Canada does have environmental legislation, but when we look more specifically at the regulatory regime associated with each act, in terms of fines and penalties, we realize that for some companies it may unfortunately be to their advantage to pollute. The penalties and fines are so low that it is worth it to break the laws enacted by Parliament. That is what was perverse in the regulatory regimes that we were presented with up to now.

The truth of this can be seen in the fact that in February 2009 a company like Syncrude in Alberta could discharge toxic substances into the tailings ponds used in oil sands production, with the result that nearly 500 ducks were killed. What was the consequence for Syncrude? It was sentenced to a maximum fine of $800,000 or a maximum of six months’ imprisonment.

We know these companies that make profits that might be described as colossal. An $800,000 fine is not much to pay to keep exploiting the oil sands. And so we saw companies polluting our environment with impunity, telling themselves it was better to keep going and pay the fines than to lose some of their profits. This is not acceptable in a regulatory regime when we want to send business a message. The polluter-pay principle must be applied, not the polluter-paid principle.

For that reason, we supported Bill C-16 in principle when it was introduced. We worked with all of the opposition parties and with the government to make some improvements, and we listened to the witnesses. When the bill was considered in committee, we realized that some witnesses had not been consulted by the government. We can agree or disagree with certain industries. I am thinking, for example, of people in the shipping industry, who told us they had not been consulted before Bill C-16 was introduced. That is totally unacceptable.

The government has a number of consultation mechanisms. It has advisory committees. This is a bill that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is asking for. This change in the regulatory regime has been called for by the environment committee since 1998. For over 11 years, parliamentarians, in committee, have been asking the government to amend the penalty and fine regimes because they were unacceptable. For 11 years, the government could have consulted industry, and it did not so. That is somewhat disappointing.

That is why the parliamentary committee decided to invite both the Shipping Federation of Canada and the workers affected by the legislative changes. As I said, these were essential changes requested by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development back in 1998 in a report called “Enforcing Canada’s Pollution Laws: the Public Interest Must Come First”. Back in 1998, as I remember, during the 36th Parliament, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development made 24 recommendations to the government, including four that I will repeat: first, that the minister should develop and publish a comprehensive enforcement and compliance policy with the act; second, that the minister should undertake a comprehensive review of the regulations—and revise them if necessary—to ensure that they are adequate, up-to-date and enforceable; third, that the minister should take the necessary steps to have certain offences designated for the purposes of the ticketing provisions under the Contraventions Act; and fourth, that more resources should be assigned to the proper enforcement of environmental legislation.

These four groups of recommendations were at the heart of the 24 recommendations of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding the enforcement of the law. That is the reality in Canada.

I was first elected in 1997 and have seen a number of pieces of legislation passed in this House, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Species at Risk Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, and all the rest of the environmental legislation. In actual fact, though, this legislation is not enforced. As a result, one of the committee’s recommendations in 1999 was that more resources be assigned to the proper enforcement of environmental legislation.

It is no use having the best environmental legislation, the best Canadian Environmental Protection Act, if there are no authorities with the power to enforce it, nor the resources to do so. Despite the existing legislation, the result is a complete mess on the environmental level.

That is why our regulatory regime had to be modernized. Penalties had to be increased considerably to avoid tragedies like the one I described with Syncrude, which had charges laid against it in February 2009. We should also remember the Exxon Valdez catastrophe that happened 20 years ago in the north. That kind of thing must never happen again because the people responsible got off very lightly, not only to the detriment of the ecosystem but also of the economic development of these regions. In order to avoid situations like that, we need to be very strict and increase the penalties. However, our environment cannot be protected with just a law and order approach.

We cannot simply increase our fines and prison terms. We also have to change our ways of doing things. We have to be able to say to companies like Syncrude that if they do not install nets to protect ducks, they will be subject to increased fines of something like $4 million, as provided under the new regime in Bill C-16.

We must make people realize that the decisions we make with respect to production and consumption have enormous consequences.

Let us look at the oil sands development. It is a good example. It is not only a contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, but also a contravention of the legislation we have passed here in this House.

The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has demonstrated this to us today. Bill C-288, which was introduced in this Parliament by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, was passed at first and second reading and amended in parliamentary committee. Then it received royal assent. It requires the government to report annually in compliance with its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. But the government has not honoured its commitments.

The example of oil sands development is not just a violation of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, which is being amended today, it is also a violation of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, for which we are still awaiting a regulatory framework from the government.

When this bill was introduced, we expected the government to announce something about Canada’s environmental compliance with respect to climate change. We expected the government to move from a regulatory framework on climate change to actual legislation on climate change, as Quebec has announced today.

Quebec has introduced a bill to comply with its climate change obligations by setting a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, and to fall in line with what U.S. President Obama is about to do by setting an environmental cap and trade, capping greenhouse gas emissions and creating the structure and framework for a carbon market that can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, today in this House, we are debating whether we are going to increase the fines from $800,000 to $4 million for those who decide not to install a net near a settling pond at the oil sands sites.

Eleven years after the report of the environment committee was submitted, we are still thinking about what we should do under existing environmental legislation, whereas in Quebec and the United States they are debating laws on climate change.

Quebec and other provinces like Manitoba, which produced one of the first plans for fighting climate change, the American states and the American administration have understood that when we fight climate change, we are tackling a number of environmental issues; we are tackling the importance of adopting renewable energy; we are making sure that we have greater energy efficiency in our homes and in industry; we are protecting ecosystems; and we are protecting our water resources.

If Canada adopted climate change legislation, our energy production would very probably no longer be the same. We would no longer have to count on oil sands production and exploitation as an energy source in Canada. If we did not have to do that, we would not be talking today about whether we should increase fines under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, to $4 million from $800,000.

We would not be asking how we can protect our water quality in Canada, because we would have decided to use renewable energy. We would be using that resource to produce energy rather than using it to extract oil in the west. We would be using wind to produce energy. We would be using our natural resources intelligently, not just to produce energy, but also to create an economic force in North America. That is what the American administration has understood and what the Conservative government has failed to understand.

Our energy policy and economic policy are still in the stone age. We still believe that fossil fuel is where the energy revolution in Canada lies, when it really lies somewhere else altogether. We have moved from a coal revolution to an oil revolution, and tomorrow it will be a renewable energy revolution. That is where we are going, but the government is instead deciding to invest in the oil industry and provide billions of dollars in tax incentives to an industry that is exploiting a resource that does nothing but create environmental externalities and that puts Canada in the stone age of economic development.

That is totally unacceptable. It is not the path that Quebec has decided to follow. Quebec has decided to invest in renewable energy and focus on energy efficiency. If we are not capable of connecting the east and west to fight climate change, Quebec will make the connection between north and south, if need be. If Canada does not understand that energy for the future means developing renewable energy, if Canada does not understand that this calls for a cap and trade system, if Canada is not prepared to understand that we need a carbon exchange, we will do business with the American states, because they will understand that in budgetary terms and in fiscal terms, that is the direction the future is taking us.

When we compare the Prime Minister’s budget to the budget presented by the Obama administration, we realize that Canada is investing only one sixth as much per capita in energy efficiency and renewable energy as our neighbours to the south. Is this acceptable, when we know that every dollar invested in fighting climate change creates jobs? This is so well known that the UN has invited United Nations member countries to adopt what is called a Green New Deal. If we are to have an economic recovery, we have to inject massive amounts of money into our economy to create green jobs. And all this time, the government is bringing in budgets that give the oil industry tax incentives and help to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Today, we are debating a bill that increases environmental penalties when we should be debating legislation and a bill on climate change. That is what we expect and we hope to have it before the climate change conference to be held in Copenhagen next December.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a point that I would like to take up with him. Bill C-16 deals with the enforcement of essentially many environmental laws in Canada, the government's ability to apply fines, what those fines will be and the nature of them. The government needs these tools to enforce and apply its own laws, which is what some laws are guided by and how they are presented.

On the environmental side of things, my colleague mentioned the bill we proposed on climate change. Today, the Auditor General dealt with Bill C-288, a bill out of the previous Parliament. We now have Bill C-311, and the two are meant to join together and take us through the Kyoto period into what is now being called the Copenhagen round of climate change.

However, around all of these laws and prescriptions that we are giving to the government and to the economy around climate change and, in this case, the pollution of greenhouse gases, if the government is unwilling to enforce its own laws and apply the penalties that are contained within those laws, acts and measures, is it not up to conscientious, thoughtful members in this place to find a way to force the government to abide by its own laws? Are there any clauses in Bill C-16 that we can encourage and augment? It is a principle of Canadian democracy that we pass laws in this place and then the government enforces them. Have we lost it all with the government? Does it have any credibility left when it comes to the environment or climate change?

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by summarizing the key elements of Bill C-311, then I will outline the reasons why the government opposes the bill.

Bill C-311 is clearly both bad law and bad policy. Its implementation would have significant negative implications on the Canadian economy, impose unrealistic and impractical timelines, and may in fact be unconstitutional.

Bill C-311 would create an obligation on the Government of Canada to ensure Canadian greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 25% below the 1990 level by 2020 and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.

The bill would also oblige the Minister of the Environment to establish an emissions target plan for every five year period from 2015 to 2045, and to put in place regulations and other actions to ensure that these targets are achieved.

The bill calls on the government to have regulations in place as early as December of this year designed to meet the 2015 target. Members of the House who are familiar with the regulatory process know the problems associated with that unrealistic timeframe.

Quite simply, this is completely unrealistic and shows that the NDP is more interested in political grandstanding than in finding real solutions to deal with the fight against climate change.

Unlike the party opposite, our government has been clear on the need to strike a balance between environmental and economic progress. Our approach to addressing climate change will achieve that balance.

We are committed to stopping the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and then dramatically reducing them. We established a national target of an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, relative to 2006 levels, by 2020. By 2050 Canada's emissions will be 60% to 70% below 2006 levels. The government has also established a target that by 2020, 90% of our electricity will come from non-emitting sources. These are the toughest targets in Canadian history and some of the toughest targets in the world.

At the same time we are helping Canadians reduce their greenhouse gas emissions through programs such as the ecoEnergy for renewable power program, the trust fund for clean air and climate change, and supporting investment into research, development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large scale projects like carbon capture and storage. In fact, we are one of the world leaders on that technology.

Bill C-311 on the other hand does not endeavour to strike such a balance. When an identical bill, Bill C-377, was introduced in the last Parliament by the leader of the NDP, he admitted that he had made no attempt to calculate how much economic damage his bill would do to the Canadian economy. In fact, he called his bill the impossible dream.

Further, the massive costs would also have to be borne at a time when Canada's economy is under severe pressure as a result of the global economic downturn. Bill C-311 would impose a massive new burden on industries that are already facing very difficult and serious times.

It is clear that the NDP do not believe it is necessary to consider changing course slightly, despite the economic realities that we face. The NDP has learned nothing from its power in Ontario under the leadership of the member for Toronto Centre where the NDP policies led to record high levels of debt and unemployment.

Our assessment of Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation act, an act with requirements that are quite similar to those in Bill C-311, suggest that an attempt to meet our Kyoto targets within the 2008 to 2012 period would result in a drop in GDP of 4%.

Given that the proposed 2020 target under Bill C-311 is significantly deeper than under the Kyoto protocol, of 25% below 1990 levels as opposed to the 6% below 1990 levels under the Kyoto protocol, the conclusion of massive, negative economic impacts reached under the KPIA analysis would also apply to Bill C-311.

Bill C-311 creates an economic uncertainty by suggesting that Canada should maintain a domestic policy and an international policy negotiating position based on the UNFCCC ultimate objectives immediately after royal assent of the bill.

There is uncertainty around the UNFCCC's ultimate objectives and the bill does not define what a responsible Canadian contribution is or indicate how it can be determined.

Bill C-311 compounds this uncertainty by asking Canada to take a radically different approach to climate change than our most important economic partner.

Do the sponsors of the bill really believe we can turn our back on the possibility of a coherent, co-operative North American climate change strategy in partnership with the President Obama administration? I think not.

The government must be able to fully represent Canada's economic interests and unique circumstances in international negotiations, including with the administration of President Obama.

I would now like to bring to the attention of the House the serious concerns we have over the constitutional aspects of the bill. Last year in discussion on Bill C-377, the predecessor of Bill C-311, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development heard testimony by respected lawyers as to their concern over the constitutionality of clauses that remain in Bill C-311. The primary concern remains whether the bill's authorities are soundly based on the peace, order and good government head of power.

Joseph Castrilli, counsel for Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

Peace, order, and good government would appear to be less likely to find favour with the Supreme Court as a basis for upholding the constitutionality of the regulatory limits authority of Bill C-377 under any circumstances because of the potential for major impact on provincial jurisdiction to act in a host of areas.

That remains in Bill C-311.

Mr. Castrilli went on to say that the bill was also unlikely to be upheld under the federal government's authority over criminal law because the law was not specific about the characteristics of the regimes contemplated or the actual substances to be addressed leaving this detail to the regulations.

Amendments of the bill were passed in the House of Commons to specify which substances the bill would consider, but there is much doubt as to whether these amendments were sufficient to address Mr. Castrilli's concerns, particularly against jurisdiction of the provinces.

Peter Hogg, professor emeritus and former dean of Osgoode Hall Law School of York University stated in his testimony that the bill would not be upheld under the federal government's peace order and good government authority or its jurisdiction under criminal law.

With respect to peace, order and government, Professor Hogg expressed concern over the lack of direction provided by the bill to the Governor-in-Council with respect to its regulation making power. Professor Hogg indicated the regulation making authority of the bill, as first introduced, was so broad as to potentially reach into every area of Canadian economic and social life.

I would like to reiterate the Government of Canada's opposition to Bill C-311.

We are working diligently to promote domestic, continental and international action to ensure lasting greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Our approach is a balanced approach, an approach that will see Canada's greenhouse gases decline, while protecting our economy and the standard of living of the Canadian people. Our plan includes billions of dollars for technology, technology like carbon capture and storage, working with the United States, and the world is counting on us to work together. We are doing that through the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and our Prime Minister.

Therefore, I encourage the member to remove the bill or vote against his own bill because the bill will take us in a direction that would be bad for Canada, it would be bad for Canadian jobs and it would be bad for the environment.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-377, which ensures that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing climate change. This bill is even more important because it does not put a partisan spin on this issue, an issue that is probably the greatest challenge of the 21st century. Canadians expect us to be above partisan games.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was very honoured that you asked me to replace you for a few minutes. I had the opportunity, while sitting in the green chair, to look at things from a different perspective. I spent a few minutes thinking about how important it would be for the government to show true leadership on this issue that is so important for the future.

I recently attended a conference in Victoria.

The conference, called “Gaining Ground”, was held in Victoria during the break week. There were people gathered from all over B.C. and indeed from all over Canada and even from the United States. There were students, scientists, economists, and business people.

The students, the young people, said, “Do not mortgage our future”. The economists were saying, “Do not treat environmental impacts as externalities, as we have been doing and as we continue to do”.

Business leaders are far ahead of where we are at the moment. There were builders there who talked about the incredible impact that we could have by simply having some leadership at the level of changing the rules around construction in Canada and beginning to build green buildings, green homes, the kinds of green economy jobs that we could be creating, but that has not happened yet.

This bill would allow us to work together to build consensus. This bill is really science-based and I would like to go back to that. However, I want to talk a little about the consensus that I think the New Democrats have tried to build on during this Parliament, given how strongly we feel about this issue and how important we believe it is.

There was the Liberal Bill C-288, the Kyoto bill, and we agreed to work with the Liberals to bring that bill through committee to the House and to pass it. It was the same thing with Bill C-30, the Conservatives' climate change bill, which in its initial stages would have done very little to mitigate climate changes, but we proposed that all parties bring their best ideas and work together in consensus at committee.

We did that and there were some great ideas that came from all parties and this bill remains at third reading. The government has refused to bring it to the House for a vote and that simply goes against what Canadians expect of us. They want real change.

As everyone tries to understand the shifts that are required to achieve a more sustainable future, they are discouraged by the lack of action by successive governments. We know that biophysical and social changes can reach a tipping point, beyond which there is potentially irreparable change.

My colleague from Western Arctic spoke about his visit recently to Greenland and observed with scientists the way glaciers are receding. I had the fortunate experience to do the same thing on the other coast. I had the opportunity to visit Prince William Sound and the glacier called Nellie Juan. The people who were with us, who had been living in that area for some 30 years, showed us the way the ice was receding. There were beginnings of growth of vegetation where the ice had stood for centuries.

That is our children's future and our grandchildren's future that we are looking at. This is why I take this issue so seriously, as I think do all Canadians. The reason this bill is so exciting is it sets firmly into law the responsibility Canada must assume to prevent the tipping point that I mentioned.

Setting targets into law is key. Before I ran for election I remember having a conversation with the former minister of the environment. He was discouraged by the lack of action and the lack of commitment of his own government to move forward on climate change after accepting the Kyoto agreement.

I got the impression that the reason he felt there was a lack of commitment was that the discussions always occurred behind closed does in cabinet and there was no formal legislation requiring government to take action. It was always discussions behind closed doors and power plays that prevented any real decisions to take action. This piece of legislation would change that process.

Scientists tell us there is a consensus that an increase of 2° in the world's surface temperature from pre-industrial levels would constitute dangerous climate change and trigger global scale impacts and feedback loops from which it is difficult to imagine coming back.

Dr. Andrew Weaver, a leading scientist, Nobel prize winner, a professor at the University of Victoria, and a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, spoke to the committee. Here is what he said:

What I can say is that any stabilization of greenhouse gases at any level requires global emissions to go to zero.

I had to reread that because it is difficult to imagine how we can get there. Dr. Weaver is one of the leading world experts and certainly is a well-respected Canadian scientist. He said:

There is no other option. To stabilize the level of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere at any concentration that is relevant to human existence on the planet, we must go to zero emissions.

Hence the importance of this bill, because it will set into law the targets and the timelines that science tells us we must meet if we want to stop irreversible damage: medium targets of 25% below 1990 levels and long term targets of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Conservatives have set a new starting date and we know from all the comments we have heard that their targets simply do not get the job done as they would like to tell us they do. Science tells us that if we follow the government's plan we are going to--

Price of Petroleum Products

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I hope I am wrong and that is not their policy, but that is not what the Liberal leader has been saying for the last two weeks in the media. That is not what he is saying as he is running across Canada trying to sell his carbon tax plan. He cannot sell his carbon tax plan in his own caucus. His own caucus members came out of their Wednesday meeting fuming, let alone selling it to all Canadians. Those are the facts.

Again, we all know that it would have a significant impact on the economy, including manufacturing jobs and forestry jobs. This carbon tax would only compound the problem.

Everyone in this House knows the reality is that the price of gasoline is set by market forces. Members across know that, but there are creative solutions that we can look at. I will get to a few of them.

In fact, the Bloc member who spoke talked about this: conserving energy, using public transit and becoming more energy efficient. I agree with all of those. As well, there can be more renewable energy put on the grid. Those are things that our government is doing. I will get into some of the specifics.

However, as far as the price of oil per barrel, it has doubled since I have been the minister in the last two years. Members are right when they say it has doubled, but that is not because of anything I have done. We all know there are a number of factors beyond the control of anyone in this House.

However, other things we are doing, I would submit, will actually have a significant impact in helping Canadians cope with these higher fuel prices.

We have lowered taxes on families, seniors, farmers and small businesses by over $60 billion.

We passed the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the history of Canada.

We have lowered the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%.

We have introduced the largest tax reduction in Canadian history at $200 billion, with $140 billion of that tax relief directed at individuals.

I went throughout my riding after Canadians had just filed their tax returns. For the first time in 10 years, I had Canadians coming up to me on the street and saying that they appreciated what our government is doing. They said they could actually see the tax reductions on their income tax forms.

I had seniors come up to me who were able to split their pension income with their spouse. Members opposite can laugh, but in some cases that provides as much as $3,000 or $4,000 in additional income tax returns to these members. That is significant. Those are the types of tangible things we can do.

We took 85,000 seniors right off the federal tax rolls.

These are things we are doing. Again, there is $2 billion in gas tax money going directly to municipalities so that they can support initiatives. In my riding, Frank Leonard is the mayor of Saanich. He and I went out and saw how that gas tax money was used. Saanich is putting in dedicated transit lanes. It is putting in dedicated transit facilities to help people get into transit.

There are things that our government is doing.

Let me respond to a few other areas that are specific to my department. Our government recognizes that we cannot sustain ourselves with regard to our current consumption of oil. On the planet, we consume 86 million barrels of oil every day. We should think about that. That is a thousand barrels of oil every second. It is not sustainable.

That is why our government is investing in such things as renewable energy. We have announced $1.5 billion for 4,000 megawatts of clean energy. As for wind, we have the first tidal turbines now being installed on both coasts, which are producing clean energy. We have a significant biofuels strategy in which our government invested over $2 billion, half a billion of which will be going into next generation biofuels. These are tangible things that can make a difference.

We are investing heavily in energy efficiency. I have said many times that the largest untapped source of energy in this country is the energy we waste. Through Sustainable Development Technology Canada, we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars on energy saving technologies to help them move from the research side to the development side. These are tangible things. Our government is investing in clean technologies to clean up conventional technology. These are all very important. They can make a difference, and they are.

As for the Liberal plan, the Liberals do not get it. They are laughing and chuckling across the way, but it is their leader who wants to impose a massive carbon tax. That is unprecedented. We have seen this in the press for the last two weeks. We know that is where the Liberals' minds are. We should look at Bill C-288, a Liberal private member's bill that wants to put a 60% tax on gasoline.

At 60% we can do the math pretty quickly at today's prices. That will get us up to $2.25 a litre. The Liberals go on. We know that is their approach.

We understand that high gas prices are a concern for Canadians. That is why we are investing in energy efficiency. That is why we are lowering taxes for everyday Canadians by an amount they can actually realize and feel. We know we can deliver on that.

However, the Liberals are not being honest. They want to impose a massive carbon tax. And now they are saying they do not?

I ask members to just look at the statements the Liberal leader is making. I admit they change from one day to the next, but let us make no mistake about this. Under its current leader, the Liberal Party will impose taxes on Canadians that would dramatically raise the price of energy and put us into a deficit situation.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They are hollering that no, they do not, but let me say this in a bit of fun. As I walked into the House tonight, the member for Mississauga—Erindale said, “Minister, are you going to raise gas prices or are you going to leave that to us?” In fairness, he is the natural resources critic and he was being kind of funny, but my father once said to me that in everything we say there is a little bit of truth. I would argue that it is not the member for Mississauga—Erindale who wants to raise the price of gasoline, but it definitely is his leader.

Bill C-288, the Liberals' own plan on the environment, wants to put a 60% tax on the price of gasoline. That would raise the price of gasoline today up to $2.25. Those are the facts.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your wise ruling today and ask you to accept our accolades.

The reason this is important for us as parliamentarians is that what took place at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development is something that all parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe or interest, should resist. The government's unwillingness to accept a private member's piece of legislation meant that it used a tactic that has never been known in the recorded history of this place: that of filibustering, in a sense, a private member's bill.

As was noted in a Speaker's ruling some weeks prior to this, the committees in this place must learn to function and govern themselves in an appropriate way. They must learn to conduct the will of Parliament and the will of Canadians who have sent us to this place to advocate on their behalf for good things to happen.

Bill C-377, with the four amendments that I will be addressing today, does exactly that. For the first time in Canadian law, the targets relating to climate change, the greenhouse gas emissions for this country, will be legislated into law, thereby prohibiting any government, this one or any future government, from resisting the will of Canadians, from resisting the inclination that we must do the right thing when it comes to climate change.

As for these amendments, the irony, I suppose, which my colleagues are well aware of although I am not sure that all government members are, is that when we ran into this impasse in committee, this filibuster presented by the Conservatives, it was around clause 10, which is a clause for accountability and transparency when dealing with greenhouse gases. That is all the clause said. This part of the bill said that the government must tell Canadians what it has done, what the record has been on climate change, where the successes and failures have been, and then also tell Canadians what the plans are and have that accountable to Canadians. That is where we hit the roadblock.

This is obviously ironic coming from the Conservatives, who spent a great deal of time and effort in the last Parliament and then in the lead-up to this one in their campaign, talking about transparency and accountability. When it came to facing a bill on the environment, on climate change, which is top of mind for Canadians, in the very section that says the government must be transparent and accountable the government chose to delay and deny the reality of what we are faced with.

The fact is that Canada as a nation, as an economy, is far off track with our own commitments, our international commitments, but also far off track with what the rest of the developed world is doing, which is to find a way to make our economy more efficient, to produce more green collar jobs, and to allow Canadians to feel assured about our environment's future and not have to continue to face the threat of irreversible climate change, which we are already seeing.

It is a moral question that the government has been unable to face. It is a question of ethics that the government is unwilling to consider. In its two and a half long years in the House, following up on the 13 long years in government of the previous regime--too many--the government has been unable to effectively address the issue of climate change.

New Democrats, under the leadership of the member for Toronto—Danforth, have finally presented a reasonable, considered piece of legislation that will allow the country to move forward on this critical issue.

The actual amendments dealing with this bill are I think quite instructive. This bill, like all bills by the time they reach their final stages and final processes, originated some two years ago. The final four amendments to this bill deal with lessons learned over two years. They are lessons learned at the special legislative committee on the clean air and climate change act. That act was a flawed government bill that the NDP rewrote and for which it presented the best thinking on issues related to the environment at the time.

This was learned from events with respect to Bill C-288, when the government found a way to again try to put the kibosh on what was happening. We learned again from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, please correct me if I am wrong procedurally, but I have just been handed a note about splitting my time with the member for Outremont.

[Warren Newman]

Any mandate must take into account the fact that we live in a federation made up of provinces and that municipalities fall under provincial jurisdiction. Even federal documents must sometimes refer to the country as a whole. Nevertheless, I do not think we can go beyond the scope of this act, because we do not have the authority to do that. The constitutionality of such a move could perhaps also be challenged, although I do not want to get into that. This issue is already being debated in the case of bills C-377 and C-288.

How far can the federal government go in terms of intervening in areas under provincial jurisdiction? I do not think this bill attempts to do that. Rather, it applies more to the workings of federal institutions. It is up to Parliament to enact legislation for the peace, order and good government of Canada and its federal institutions.

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

This refers back to clauses 5 and 6 about the direction and targets. This is another tool to allow the government of the day to make the regulatory requirements. It allows the government to use as many mechanisms as are legal and constitutional, considering all the amendments we've made to the bill, to go beyond just making regulatory amendments.

Again, this is language that is borrowed from Bill C-288, which has already passed through the House. This uses solid constitutional language that was raised by some of our expert witnesses.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I think he's attempting to be good-natured about it, so I'm not really bothered much at this time. I'll carry on.

When you look at Bill C-288, some things Bill C-377 should be doing are the kinds of things we see our government doing—the things it has projected ahead in Bill C-288 and the costing for them. The purpose of Bill C-288 is to examine the economic implications. We don't have any proper costing in Bill C-377 as it stands, and that's the difference. We have something of a costing document here in Bill C-288, looking at the economic implications of it. My colleague Mr. Warawa, right at the top of the meeting here, wants this to be properly costed. It's the big rub here; it's the big problem with the bill before us now. That was done in Bill C-288. We don't find that in Bill C-377. But if we could get something like that with its thoroughness, it is the kind of thing necessary as a prelude to moving or making any kind of progress on any bills before this committee.

The objective of the act requiring us to meet our Kyoto obligations over our commitment period from 2008-12 is real and creditable. In December 1997, Canada and 160 other countries that are members of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Kyoto to conclude a protocol on the convention to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, or GHGs. The resulting agreement, as regular members of this committee know.... Mr. Pearson doesn't sit here regularly, but I think he follows these issues or attempts to keep on top of them as well. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005. It was signed by Canada on April 29, 1998, and ratified in 2002.

Under the terms of that Kyoto Protocol, 38 industrialized countries, known as annex 1 countries, committed to cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases, between 2008-12, to levels that were at least 5% below 1990 levels.

In terms of individual country targets, Canada is required to reduce emissions to a level 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-12. As a group, the European Union has a target of 8% reduction from its 1990 levels. The United States, which did not ratify the protocol, had a target of 7% reduction from the 1990 levels, while several other countries, one of them being Australia, which also did not ratify, was permitted to let its emissions continue to grow above 1990 levels, but at a reduced rate of growth.

China and India—and we've made much of that in this committee—two of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, both ratified the Kyoto Protocol. They're not required to reduce their emissions under that current agreement.

So that's the global context.

The science underlying climate change tells us that there are human-caused emissions in GHGs. I think that's what members around this table like Mr. Cullen want to get at. I think the good intent of all the members is to get at this issue and do what we can about human-caused emissions of GHGs, resulting primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy. That's a significant driver or escalator of global warming.

Global energy use trends are therefore at the centre of the issue of climate change and are tied to global economic growth projections. In fact, according to world energy outlook 2006 of the International Energy Agency, world energy demand will increase by 53%—and this is important—from 2004 levels by 2030, with 70% of the increase coming from these developing countries. Similar energy and emissions growth projections are made in the IEO 2006 by the energy information administration.

There are charts of that kind of stuff that we can provide for the committee if they so wish.

According to the EIA, fossil fuels remain the dominant source of world energy, accounting for about 83%.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

That's fair. I don't want to offend members here. Far be it from me to do that on something so crucial as this issue.

I think it's true that Canadians want some practical solutions. To have something kind of vague, and again, as we said, we've repeated that, and that's for emphasis here, of course the ambiguity of Bill C-377....

I think we want the balanced kinds of solutions to environmental protection and economic growth. It means that those economic decisions are environmentally responsible. They absolutely have to be.

Back on February 14, 2007, the House of Commons passed Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Section 3 of that bill stated that the purpose of that act is to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and help address the problem of global climate change.

If Bill C-288 is approved by the Senate, subsection 7(1) requires that within 180 days of the act coming into force, the Governor in Council will ensure that Canada fully meets those obligations under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto Protocol, by making, amending, or repealing—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

It was getting a bit distracting, but I'll do my best to carry on here in the midst of that.

We need to take pretty seriously the air emissions in our province and our country and the effects of climate change. If we don't get ahead of that and deal with it in practical ways, it could be pretty serious for our province.

A warming climate is expected to increase both the number and the severity of thunder storms, heat waves, and drought that would cause damage to our crops and endanger life and property as well.

Going back to our plan, our regulatory framework, Bill C-288 I think would have been a much superior approach to be taking. We should have had some pretty good cooperation with that, instead of this Bill C-377, which wasn't properly costed and is constitutionally suspect. Others around the table are aware of that as well.

In our approach--as opposed to this Bill C-377, again--there were mandatory targets, real results. We don't see that here. And Mr. Hogg has pointed that out, the vagueness and the ambiguity of it.

In our approach, which would have been the better one to go with, reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, air pollution.... It's not a matter of choice for industry. You can't leave it up to them to decide if they want in or not. It is compulsory. It has to be. Our plan, our regulatory framework, would set that kind of compulsion, the mandatory targets for reduction of industrial greenhouse gases that cause climate change. Those targets were stringent and were going to be tightened every single year, so as a result we would start to see those absolute reductions. Again, with Bill C-377 we don't have that, we don't have the preciseness. It's vague, it's ambiguous, and it gives far too much power and too much reach in respect to its constitutional intrusion, as well, whereas these industrial emission targets, the ones from our plan, combined with other actions, practical actions announced to date to fight climate change, would put us on track for that 20% absolute reduction of Canada's greenhouse gases compared to 2006 levels by the year 2020.

I appeal to Mr. Cullen to look in terms of the seriousness and the practicality and pragmatism of those kinds of regulations. That would reduce the emissions of pollutants that cause smog and acid rain by up to 55% as soon as 2012--compared to 2006 levels. As well, I think when you're looking at a plan—and that's not at all anywhere here in Bill C-377—you need to have flexible tools for compliance. You don't get there overnight, but you need to make it mandatory, compulsory, and allow the kinds of creativity--I guess I would say--and the flexibility in terms of the tools of compliance to get the job done.

There's no doubt that in any of these measures, and in terms of our regulatory measures, as well, there would be a period of adjustment for industry, because this is pretty hard stuff, it's tough stuff, but it's required. You need then an achievable plan that does not sacrifice jobs in Saskatchewan.

The concern with this particular Bill C-377 is that in fact we will have significant economic hurt and impact. Counter-intuitively, if you will, we'll hurt the economy such that we won't be able to do the good things in terms of the environment, the clean up, and the good clean water, land, and air that we need.

By way of the regulatory regime that we were proposing, giving industry the flexible tools to meet their targets, companies being able to choose the most cost-effective way to comply--which includes making real reductions in their own facilities, taking advantage of emissions trading, and investing in new technologies--all of those things are within the basket of what they can do to get the job done and to meet their targets.

Companies will also be able to invest in a technology fund that will deliver greenhouse gas reductions, now and in the future. I think technology is pretty crucial to ensure that we make the progress against climate change, and the confirmed guiding principle of that fund is that it will not be used as a mechanism for the inter-regional transfer of wealth and resources. That's a big concern to us in our province.

Moreover, the provincial technology fund may be accredited as compliant as long as they meet the federal requirements. That fund will be used to finance further research on carbon capture and storage technologies that show a lot of promise in Saskatchewan.

I was very pleased about the progress we're going to be able to make as a result of the budget announcement yesterday of some $240 million for carbon sequestration. For my province, that was a major, significant step forward, not only for us but for our country. The benefits will accrue to elsewhere across this nation. Some critics might complain about the cost of these measures for Saskatchewan's industry, but they are more forward-looking measures. Some see the glass as half full and some as half empty, but we need to be looking for and recognizing those new opportunities in Saskatchewan. And it's come our way already in terms of the $240 million for carbon sequestration.

In some sectors, it's going to mean that industry will have to seize the opportunity to improve competitiveness by becoming more innovative. For Saskatchewan's oil and gas sector, that's the case. It will mean their developing and adopting cleaner technologies, and so be it. They do it, and the job gets done. The oil and gas industry--or as Mr. Layton likes to refer to it, big oil and big “ass”, I think that's what he calls it—in my province has thrived on competition. The entrepreneurial spirit along our border with Alberta, down in the south of the province in the Estevan and Weyburn area and across through Swift Current, as well, has driven its growth and has responded to challenges by finding those necessary innovative solutions.

In our regulatory regime, as opposed, again, to Bill C-377, Saskatchewan's electricity generating industry will also have to make changes, which we acknowledge, to achieve the required reductions by adopting cleaner technology to improve its competitiveness. And we'll probably be able to market that abroad, as well.

We've already seen those two sectors cooperate on an exciting and innovative project in Weyburn, where the carbon dioxide emissions from an electricity generating station that uses clean-coal technology are injected back into the ground. And as I said, with some $240 million in the budget yesterday, they can explore that and develop that even more. That's one of the largest climate change research projects in the world. It will help us understand how we can use underground storage of greenhouse gases to address climate change for our nation.

Some of the other measures that I think are significant and that, again, are omitted and not referenced in any way in Bill C-377, we're taking action on. Our approach is to reduce the emissions causing air pollution from cars, recreational vehicles, trucks, trains, and marine engines. We are taking action to use products, such as light bulbs, dishwashers, refrigerators, air conditioners, and commercial boilers, that use energy much more efficiently. We want to have efficient energy, because as a result, we'll have less wasted energy and less air pollution. I think we need to, without question, for any and all and for those that suffer allergies and those that have other air-related ailments.

We need to work to improve that, especially, as well, for indoor air. Saskatchewan is a cold enough province that a good many months of the year we spend inside. Consequently, for the air we breathe inside our homes, our places of work, our businesses, the malls, and so on, it's crucial that we also deal with that and have the regulations that will address that issue. In Saskatchewan we spend a lot more time indoors than they do, maybe, even in some other provinces. So actions to improve indoor air quality are very important for us. Again, this bill has nothing specific in respect of that.

I think the federal government needs to be doing that careful collaborative work with the provinces, recognizing the significant actions the provinces and territories are taking. They need to be acknowledged and credited or applauded for all they do to promote clean air and to address climate change. Those efforts and initiatives need to be encouraged.

Again, from the federal point of view, there is nothing referenced to this in Bill C-377; but we need to have that kind of partnership, that working together, with the provinces and territories to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure we get maximum environmental benefits with minimum administrative and cost burdens for the industry.

Mr. Chair, I think the noise level is getting up a little bit. I'm finding it a bit uncomfortable again.

[Professor Stewart Elgie, Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Associate Director, Institute of the Environment, As an Individual]

Thank you., I will be speaking in English today but I will try to answer questions in French if you speak slowly.

I am a professor at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. I specialize in environmental and constitutional law. I'm also a recovering litigator. In my previous life I was an environmental lawyer, and I ended up arguing three constitutional environmental cases at the Supreme Court of Canada, including Hydro-Québec, and was fortunate enough to come out on the winning side of each of them, which is perhaps why I no longer litigate. You want to get out while you're ahead.

In any event, we've been asked to speak about the constitutional aspects of this bill today.

Let me, like Peter Hogg, begin by jumping to my conclusion and then work backwards from that.

My conclusion is that I would agree with the others that in all likelihood this bill, as currently drafted, wouldn't pass muster under the criminal law power. My view is there is a better than average chance it would be upheld under the peace, order, and good government power, and I can come back and say a little bit about why I think that, but the most important point I want to speak to is what could be done to the bill to improve its chances of passing muster constitutionally. I think there are some fairly specific doable things that would increase its likelihood of success.

I say that because there are two things about lawyers. The chair has pointed out one, which is that we tend to talk too long. The other is we tend to disagree, and if that were not the case we wouldn't have a profession and there wouldn't be two sides to every case. You'll get different views as to which side of the constitutional line it will fall on, but the important point is what this committee can do to make this bill more likely to be upheld as constitutional, and that's what I'm going to spend a bit of time on.

Very quickly, on the criminal law power, the other witnesses have spoken to the need to flesh out what the regulation-making powers look like, to put more flesh onto them, and I think that would be a good idea and would improve its chances.

On the peace, order, and good government power, I agree with Professor Hogg that the Supreme Court of Canada requires that a law define subject matter in a way that is single, distinct, and indivisible, to use their terms. You have to reduce a subject to its basic elements. The federal government couldn't say it legislates over the environment, that it legislates over all pollution. You have to define it in terms that are relatively narrow.

My view would be that addressing the control of greenhouse gases is reducing it as far as it can be reduced. There are only six greenhouse gases. An international treaty defines those six and the international treaty requires us to address all six. They are a fairly finite list and not never-ending. The Supreme Court has said the fact that an international treaty defines subject matter as a distinct matter is strong evidence. It is not conclusive, but it is strong evidence that will be found to be a distinct and single subject matter for constitutional purposes. In my view, it probably would be found to meet the test of single and distinct.

The biggest test the court uses in measuring whether something is single is whether or not the failure of one province to address that subject effectively would impact other provinces or other countries. Certainly in the case of climate change, the failure of any province to address a subject effectively would have far-reaching effects on other provinces and other nations.

We could say a lot more, but let me jump to what is the more important point, which is what the things are that one might think of doing that would move this up the scale of constitutionality and make it likely to be upheld. Let me point out a bunch of them that I think are all quite doable.

One is that one needs to define the regulation-making power. There seems to be agreement on that point. You don't need to look far to do that. Look to what the court has already upheld. The court has upheld the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as valid criminal law legislation, so one could look to the kind of regulation-making powers that exist under CEPA and simply incorporate those. You don't need to reinvent the wheel.

An even simpler way of doing it would be to look at Bill C-288, which I'll call the KPIA as a short form for purposes of referring to the bill. It has a defined set of regulation-making powers that are drawn from CEPA already. They are a distillation. They are less extensive than CEPA's. There are about six, and CEPA has about 20, but you could simply graft those. They talk about setting targets, setting limits, emissions trading systems. You don't need to reinvent the wheel. You could simply graft the kinds of powers that have been used in other statutes that have been upheld or recently passed by this Parliament.

The second thing: I agree that defining greenhouse gases, to make it clear it's only those six, would go a long way to putting boundaries on the subject matter, and again, the language is there in Bill C-288. It defines them as those six gases. You can simply graft them. You don't need to reinvent the wheel.

Third, I agree again, people have said that we should make reference to and tie into the existing regulatory structure under CEPA, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada as valid. That could be done very easily in the regulation-making section simply by saying, “the Governor in Council may make regulations under this or any other act of Parliament”. Simply add the words “or under any other act”, and all of a sudden you enable them to use the CEPA regulatory machinery to enact regulations to achieve these goals. It's a much simpler way than having to write the whole CEPA statute out again.

The fourth one I would recommend is that in order to improve the chances of constitutionality under the peace, order, and good government power, the preamble should simply say that greenhouse gases cross national and provincial borders and are a matter of global concern. Again, that language is in the preamble to Bill C-288. Those are the key words the court looks at, and I can tell you, even in the Hydro-Québec case, where the court found that CEPA didn't fall within peace, order, and good government, they said that had it been delineated to deal only with subjects that had an extra-provincial impact, they might have reached a different conclusion. So defining greenhouse gases as a problem that has extra-provincial and extra-national impacts will greatly improve the chances of constitutional success.

By way of clarifying provincial powers, I would recommend that you take another section from Bill C-288, which makes it clear that nothing in the statute in any way restricts or reduces the ability of provinces to legislate to address greenhouse gases. You'll find that in subsection 6(2) of the KPIA. Again, this confirms that provinces have parallel power.

Lastly—I'm probably over my five minutes and the chairman will chastise me for that—one thing that hasn't come up, which I would comment on, is that this act obligates the Governor in Council to achieve all of the targets it has set out by way of regulations. The reality of it is that Canada will meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets not only through regulations but also through other instruments such as spending, taxes, and federal-provincial agreements. So again I would suggest borrowing a section from Bill C-288, subsection 7(3), which says that in making regulations to meet these targets, the Governor in Council may take into account reductions that are achieved by other measures the Government of Canada has taken—spending, taxes, federal-provincial agreements—provided it specifies what the expected reductions are under those other measures. In other words, don't obligate Canada to meet all of its 80% reduction targets simply through regulatory measures. Allow other measures to be there, too, as long as there is rigour to make sure we get to the target.

Last of all, I would simply point out that there was some comment about the fact that getting to minus 25% by 2020 will be a long way to go. It is indeed a long way to go, but since this bill was drafted, Canada has agreed with other developed nations at Bali that this is the target we have agreed to in principle. So Canada, at the Bali negotiations, has agreed with the conference of the parties action plan of negotiating towards reaching reductions in the range of 25% by 2020. So this is now in line with our internationally negotiated commitments, at least in principle.

Thank you. I would be happy to entertain questions.

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is increasingly apparent that the Liberals have been misleading Canadians regarding their stance on the tackling violent crime act.

Let us consider the facts. Although they voted for the bill, some Liberals have talked openly about repealing sections of it if they return to power.

At every opportunity, the unelected and unaccountable Liberal senators have obstructed initiatives to protect Canadian families, while waving politically motivated nonsense like Bill C-288 through in mere seconds.

And now it seems just a matter of time until the Liberal Party forces an election, leaving this important bill to die in the Senate.

There is a simple reason that getting tough on crime was prominent in both the Conservative election platform and in our Speech from the Throne: it matters to Canadian families.

In a couple of minutes, the Liberal leader will stand up, cheered on by his team of Liberal lemmings. I hope he will use this opportunity to tell the House that in his long-awaited first act of leadership he is demanding that his unelected Liberal senators stop playing political games with the safety of Canadians.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

On a point of order, in order to know if a bill is good or not you need something to compare it to. Comparing it to Bill C-30 or Bill C-288 is a proper line of questioning to determine whether the government has improved or not--to go forward or back. I think it's a fair question in this regard.

If you have a piece of legislation before you, what can you compare it to; what can you analyze it against? I think Mr. McGuinty's questions are in line with what's happening here today.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm trying to elucidate, as one witness has said, that it's fine to set targets, but what we've not seen in this bill, and in the whole plan that has cost millions and millions of dollars to communicate to Canadians, is a single shred of evidence that the analysis that needs to backstop this bill and the government's own plan is simply not there.

I want to ask the witnesses another question about analysis, which relates again to this bill on the table. Mr. Stern conducted a global analysis, an econometric analysis with distributive effects, and as you say in your brief, Mr. Ogilvie, he talks about a 1% GDP cost.

I think we all remember the shock and awe communications strategy that was put out by the government on Bill C-288, that the sky was going to fall if we actually implemented Bill C-288. Have any of you seen any analysis on the numbers put forward by the government on Bill C-288?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I was going to say that I recognize a lot of these overheads from Bill C-30 and was wondering how they in fact apply to the specificity of Bill C-377. Thank you for clarifying that.

Can I ask both of you to comment where Mr. Bramley left off?

Mr. Bramley, earlier the parliamentary secretary raised questions about you and about whether your fingerprints were all over this bill, as he implied they were all over Bill C-288. I think he's trying to draw a connection; I'm not sure whether he's trying to make a more pointed statement about it. But it's curious that it falls hard on the heels of the tongue-lashing that environmental NGOs received yesterday from the minister in a very public way about their being responsible for Canada's situation today.

I'd like to ask you both, though, about the comments Mr. Bramley made about science.

Mr. Bramley, you said your Case for Deep Reductions report and Bill C-377 were aligned with science, that this was a science-based approach.

Can you help us both, please, understand, in the wake of the comments made by Professor Weaver two weeks ago about the government not relying on the science—in fact, to quote him, he said he thought the government was drawing its scientific inspiration from an Ouija board.... The IPCC president said yesterday in Bali that the government is not following science, certainly not informing its negotiating position with science.

Can both of you help us understand, in the case of Bill C-377, and in the case of your overheads, Ms. Donnelly, and of your report, Mr. Bramley, is the government's climate change plan, which is the foundation we're standing upon in Bali today—the “Turning the Corner” plan—in fact informed with science, and is it based on the consensual science that now exists around the world?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

He was involved with Bill C-377 and Bill C-288, with no costing. Are you using the targets that were from this document?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Is that why there is a similar part in the bill? You address clause 13, which deals with requiring the environment commissioner to be involved. You suggest that, as in Bill C-288, you'll be looking at having it amended as it was in Bill C-288.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. Are you aware that Mr. Bramley was also involved with Bill C-288?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Bill C-377 looks quite familiar. It looks like a continuation of Bill C-288. In fact, some of the same phrases were used in Bill C-377 as we saw in Bill C-288.

Who drafted Bill C-377, because both bills are so similar? Did a common author draft these bills?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Layton, for being here. It's good to see you again, Jack.

When I first spoke to this bill in the House, I said I thought the member putting it forward was beyond reproach in terms of sincerity about the issue, so thank you for your efforts here.

I want to put a practical question to you. Are you not somewhat discouraged, given the conduct of the government in the wake of the adoption of Bill C-288 as binding law in Canada and the fact that the government has now missed two deadlines and is being pursued in the Federal Court by two NGOs to try to compel the government to do what the government is obliged to do? Aren't you a little discouraged that even if this bill were to see the light of day, the government would simply ignore it?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Well, we would be open to that proposition. We supported Bill C-288, as you know, worked on it, and also Bill C-30. I think this suite, if you will, of pieces of legislation should be able to fit together in a way that accomplishes the goal. I think it's quite likely that coming out of Bali and those negotiations an end point of 2020 would not be a surprise, so we put a fix on that one with our 25% reduction there.

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

Welcome, Mr. Layton. It's good to see you here.

Depending on how this goes, I may be sharing my time with one of my colleagues, Mr. Regan.

I would like to ask a couple of questions. To some extent, there is a relationship between a private member's bill we passed last year, Bill C-288, which referred to the monitoring of the Kyoto Protocol, and the kinds of monitoring devices that are contemplated here.

What's curious about your bill is a couple of things. First of all, it kicks into action in 2015. As we all know from watching the proceedings in Bali, the first Kyoto commitment period ends in 2012. What isn't particularly evident from the bill is how it builds on Kyoto. Why wouldn't you envisage, as people in Bali are now doing, that it would pick up in 2012 rather than 2015.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Okay.

You talked about push-back from public servants with respect to decisions by the former Liberal government to sign Kyoto. One could say that there has probably been push-back from public servants at Environment Canada to some of your statements or predictions. For example, in the National Post on August 22, Mike De Souza talked about a four-page briefing note to the minister that said nothing to support the minister's warnings that Bill C-288 could lead to massive job losses, rising energy prices, a recession, and so and so forth. That is just one example.

I am wondering what your officials tell you when all kinds of third parties, such as the Pembina Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Energy Board, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and UNDP, come out with statements like the C.D. Howe did, which is that government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatonnes, or when the Deutsche Bank says that the Canadian government has materially overstated the costs of Canada's compliance with Kyoto, etc. There must be a push-back inside the department then, isn't there?

[Ron Thompson]

Mr. Chairman and Mr. McGuinty, I have a couple of comments on that.

Bill C-288 requires that the commissioner's office, our office, do an audit--if I can put it that way--in May of 2009 of the take-up of the plan. We are making arrangements now to do that. We are in the early stages, but we will certainly be doing that and getting ready to do it early on.

As you probably know, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy had a look at the plan that was put forward on, I think, August 23. They issued a very interesting report on that plan--which the committee may want to have a look at--that offered some challenges, frankly, regarding the numbers that were associated with certain targets in the government's plan.

Hopefully, over the next two years those challenges will be met by the people who prepared the plan so that by the time we come around to auditing that in two years, we'll have something a little more solid to look at.

But we certainly are looking at Bill C-288. We're involved in it. I met with the national round table a couple of times to talk about their work, and we're going over to see Environment Canada to talk about the round table's report, probably before Christmas, to get a sense of what is going to change before we get into the audit game.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's interesting how, from a machinery of government perspective, the default drive from your colleague officials in PCO and PMO and elsewhere is again to punt this issue to the least-funded line department in the federal government, Environment Canada.

I want to switch gears for a second to another issue, which I'm hoping will be part of your February report. That is the question of former Bill C-288, now the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act for this country, a binding law on the government.

Will your office be reviewing the government's breach--or breaches, potentially--under that law, which is now of course being enforced in Federal Court by a number of environmental groups? Will you be reporting to Canadians very clearly on the extent to which this government has in fact broken its own laws?

Opposition Motion--The Economy

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, we have because you just do not understand how it works. You look at a straight line rate. I know that is simple, but it is just not that simple, as the member knows.

In any event, we have increased investment right across the board. It is sad that the hon. member thinks that increasing transfer payments to places like Nova Scotia is not fiscally conservative because we also reduced taxes broadly. We reduced the corporate surtax. We reduced the landing fee for immigrants coming to Canada.

These are all tax reductions that the former government did not have the courage to do. In Advantage Canada we signalled going to the lowest corporate taxes in the G-7. That is good for Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member specifically about Bill C-288. The Liberal Party thinks it is the champion of the economy. Unfortunately, Bill C-288 would drive this country into the deepest recession that it has probably ever seen. You supported that and that is too bad, Scott.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech and, quite honestly, I am somewhat dismayed by the hypocrisy that continues to flow from the Liberal benches when we talk about the environment and when we talk about the damaging effects of climate change.

This government has signaled quite clearly that it is moving to clean up Canada's act, to get the job done and to reverse the trend that occurred while that member was a member of the previous government and, in fact, a cabinet minister in the previous government. If he was so passionate about this issue, I would hesitate to guess that this country would be a long way ahead of where it is right now.

This government has stated clearly that it will clean up Canada's environmental act. We are moving forward with very aggressive targets, targets that have been saluted by the G-8, by APEC, the United Nations and others, to name a few.

We are moving in a positive direction. What I would like to know is when the Liberal Party will stop playing games on the environment and work with this government to get results.

We have been saying for a long time that we cannot deal with the environment in isolation. I am encouraged by one thing, which is that he actually spoke about the three Es because the Liberal Party has certainly not been speaking to that. Certainly Bill C-288 indicated that the Liberal Party has no concern whatsoever for either energy or the economy when it talks about the environment.

I am encouraged by that but I encourage the member to stop his partisan rhetoric and start working with this government to get real results on the environment, something his government never did.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts--Chapter 15;

Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)--Chapter 16;

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act--Chapter 17;

Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts--Chapter 18;

Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 19;

Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)--Chapter 20;

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter 21;

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification--Chapter 22;

Bill C-60, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008--Chapter 23;

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)--Chapter 24;

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 25;

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 26;

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act--Chapter 27;

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)--Chapter 28;

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007--Chapter 29;

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol--Chapter 30.

It being 12:23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2007, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

The first session of the 39th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 14, 2007.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption).

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie).

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

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

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Drexhage, for your comments.

There are a couple of areas I'd like to question on, carrying on the carbon price issue. You indicated the carbon price had to be high enough and broad enough in the future. Dr. Jaccard's comments on Bill C-288 were about the extremely high GHG tax and what the impact of that would be in the short term. So what I'm wondering is, from your perspective, what does “high enough” mean? It doesn't seem reasonable to do it between now and 2012, as Mr. Jaccard has said, without bringing the economy down. What is the right “high enough” from 2012 and beyond?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

It was interesting that Mr. McGuinty said in the House on April 20 that the report on Bill C-288 was full of misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, ridiculous assumptions, and glaring omissions.

The leader of the Bloc said on April 23 that the basic premise behind the report on the cost of Bill C-288 was biased. The leader of the NDP called your analysis of Bill C-288 bogus, irresponsible, and incomplete. That was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen , and it said that it deliberately deceives the Canadian people about the impact of Kyoto obligations.

I just bring that to your attention. There has been a lot of rhetoric recently, and I appreciate your encouragement that we move forward. If we're all pulling in different directions, it makes it difficult to move forward on the environment. Canada's new government is committed to moving forward.

I appreciate your work on the National Round Table on the Environment and your comments today. Thank you so much.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, it was quite unfortunate. There was a non-confidence motion from the Liberals on the chair, which was very disappointing.

I want to bring this to your attention, just to make sure we're quoting this right. On April 13 of this year you wrote a letter to Minister Baird based on your analysis of Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto plan, and you wrote: “The general conclusion of this…document is that Canadian compliance with its obligations under 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.” You also wrote that in order to meet the targets contained in Bill C-288 an extremely high greenhouse tax or regulated greenhouse cap would be required and this would shock the economy. You also wrote: “The modelling method of estimating the cost of Kyoto compliance appears sound to me.”

Is that correct? Am I quoting that correctly?

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest I noted that the leader of the fourth party suggested that we take advice from that individual. He is the same academic who reviewed the opposition Bill C-288 and said it would have terrible economic consequences for Canada.

If the hon. member is going to accept all the advice from Mark Jaccard, maybe he should begin by accepting the advice of the foolhardy Bill C-288, something that he and his party have hung their own hats on.

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.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming.

I'm just wondering, in the last moment before we leave.... I think most members would agree that we probably had more questions asked than answers provided in the last couple of meetings, which were good, productive meetings, and I think we've scratched the surface. I think it would be very beneficial for all of us to hear from the outside economists who were, for example, called to deal with the famous Bill C-288 that we've put aside, to have them come and help us understand and put in context the numbers—especially given that we've heard from Finance Canada that they completely warrant all the numbers put forward by the government, and so does Health, and so does Environment, and so does NRCan, apparently. I think it would be very beneficial for Canadians to hear from those five economists, for example, and have them appear before us.

I wonder whether, before the break week, we can ask the clerk to approach those five economists and find some time in the very near future, after we return, for a meeting or two, an opportunity to follow up on the analysis and ask them for their good guidance and their good observations.

We're in the hands of expert economists and expert modellers such as Mr. Blagden and others. It would be very helpful to get a perspective now.... The government used the five outside experts for one plan, and we think it would be very useful to apply it to its own plan. We're wondering why it hasn't happened on Bill C-30, but that's another issue.

So I would put to the committee, Mr. Chair, and to you that it would be very useful, very beneficial for Canadians to see what outside experts are saying. I'm wondering whether we can ask the clerk to do that now.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Now we're even.

The point I wanted to make, Chair, is that unfortunately the members across disregarded all the signs and forged ahead with Bill C-288 regardless of what they heard. But from what we've heard yesterday and today, and actually the day before, on Tuesday, when we had an excellent presentation on carbon sequestration and capture, we see very clearly that we have a plan that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with absolute reductions of 20% by 2020, and that we reduce pollution levels by 50% within the next eight years. Those are targets, and my hope is that we can go even beyond them. Those are targets that are achievable, and the plan is done within a realistic timeframe.

My hope is that we will work together, all parties, to clean up the mess. I'm not going to try to place blame for what's happened in the past, but we need to look forward and work together to provide a cleaner environment for the health of all Canadians and for the health of the globe.

I have a couple of minutes left, and I'd like to provide them to Mr. Harvey, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Everyone's had a turn at Bill C-288, so now we're even.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Of course, I have my heckling section working well over there.

Chair, there were comments made about Bill C-288, so I have to make a comment on it too. During the hearing of witnesses on Bill C-288, every one of those I asked whether we can meet the Kyoto targets domestically within the eight months said no, we cannot meet them; Bill C-288 is not achievable. That was every one, except for one person who represented an environmental group.

So, Chair, obviously the members of the opposition—

[Benoit Robidoux]

It's a fact that in the case of Bill C-288, if I could speak about that—

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

Therefore, did you note that between the two, as I heard in your previous testimony, there was a bit of a discrepancy in the methodology behind the two documents? That is to say, in the case of this document, Bill C-288, which is a plan that doesn't exist, versus this document, which is a plan that does exist, there is—

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

During the study of Bill C-288, the projected cost was calculated at 8 billion dollars, not 100 billion dollars, which would amount to a 7.5% drop in GDP. Eight billion dollars amounts to about 0.5% of GDP, while 100 billion is thirteen times that much, or 7.5% of GDP.

What would a 7.5% drop in GDP represent?

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

Not proposed. As the bill stands right now, a series of changes have been presented back to the House. Has Finance Canada been consulted as to the cost, economic or otherwise, of introducing that bill into law? Have you done a similar analysis on Bill C-30, as was done on Bill C-288?

[Paul Rochon]

I'm sorry; I'm thinking of Bill C-288.

[Benoit Robidoux]

I think this would be a mistake on your side to understand, or on his side to conduct the right number. These numbers are way too high, because in Bill C-288 the price was in fact nearly $200. If I remember well, it was $190, or something like that, and this was reasonable given the effort requested in the timeframe requested. For the plan, the price would be quite a bit lower than that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

He wasn't talking about Bill C-288; he was talking about his own plan.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Were you involved in any of the modelling or number crunching that went on with respect to Bill C-288?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That was a very short opening statement. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks for joining us. I'm hoping that Finance Canada officials, Mr. Chair, can stay with us throughout the two-hour session this morning as their Environment counterparts were kind enough to do yesterday. Health Canada officials are to come and join us here quite shortly.

So we're hoping you can stay on over the two-hour period. Maybe you can give us some reflection before I get into some questions, if that's possible.

Mr. Gauthier, yesterday I put several questions to Environment Canada officials with respect to whether or not an economic analysis had been undertaken before the plan was officially made public and was announced by the Minister of the Environment.

Maybe you can help us understand, again. At the end of April, the Minister of the Environment said the cost of implementing his emission reductions plan for industry will cost the Canadian public, he said, about $8 billion annually. We have had some information fed to us that in fact, before this plan was even announced, Finance Canada officials did not want to be involved in the Bill C-288 economic analysis that was presented by the minister at the Senate committee. The Finance Canada officials declined to be involved in the calculations and they did not agree to warrant the numbers, to substantiate the numbers put forward by the minister at that particular meeting.

That was the meeting when he announced that the cost of Kyoto compliance would be $4,000 per family, you will recall. If you don't recall, that was the number. Curiously, it was exactly the same as the number used by Preston Manning almost 10 years to the day, when Mr. Manning stood up in the House of Commons and said it would cost $4,000 per family to achieve Kyoto compliance, which led us to wonder whether or not the minister had even adjusted for inflation.

Can you tell us how Finance Canada was involved in the economic analysis that was conducted? We were told that a robust model was performed. We couldn't get any details. We don't know what the capacity of Environment Canada is to even conduct such models. Can you help us understand what role Finance Canada played with these numbers, particularly the $8 billion annual cost? Were you involved in crafting these numbers? Did you provide the econometric modelling or any kind of other modelling capacity within the department?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought it interesting, Mr. Chair, that here the committee is hearing a critique on advertising that encourages Canadians to protect the environment and use energy more efficiently, and it's coming from a previous government that was involved in the sponsorship scandal. It's quite shocking, Mr. Chair.

I found yesterday's meeting.... I believe it was yesterday when we had a presentation on carbon sequestration and we were looking at solutions. The purpose of today's meeting, from what we've heard from the opposition, was to find out about the plan. But what we've seen instead are attacks on a genuine attempt to find out details of the plan and to find out how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How can we, as Canadians, as a Canadian government, and as parliamentarians, work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide a clean environment for Canadians?

Unfortunately, we've heard some rhetoric here and very few questions for Natural Resources Canada. We heard that they wanted to have Natural Resources here, but they've had very few questions for them.

We've heard comments about meeting the targets, and I appreciate the questions on that. When we were dealing with Bill C-288 there was a comment made by Professor Claude Villeneuve, from the Université du Québec. He said he wanted to comment on the bill, and he was referring to Bill C-288, the Liberal Kyoto bill. He said, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998. Today the bill can't be valid if the tools to achieve the desired ends aren't available”.

What we've heard on Bill C-288, what we've heard on Bill C-30.... I asked every witness at Bill C-288 whether we can meet the Kyoto targets, and every one of them, except for one, said no, it's too late. And we know that, Mr. Chair. But the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and clean up the environment.

This is what we heard yesterday from Grant Thomson. He's the senior vice-president of NOVA Chemicals. He said that he thought what the government has done is set very tough-to-achieve targets. He said if we were to sit back and look at this, and where we would like to have seen it, “They're probably tougher than what we were hoping to see three or four months ago.” He was referring to our targets. He goes on:

I think they've also set an aggressive timeline in terms of this policy. At the same time, they're trying to walk a tightrope, perhaps, balancing between improving the environment and at the same time trying to make sure the economic growth in this country continues.

My question for the department would be this. I have a minute or two left.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, excuse me for a minute. That has been answered. Basically, our answer was that Bill C-288 has been analyzed, but Bill C-30 has not.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'd like to switch now to Bill C-30 and ask whether there has been any economic analysis done on the effects of Bill C-30. We know that the government commissioned a report on a private member's bill, Bill C-288.

[Cécile Cléroux]

We have done the economic analysis for Bill C-288. We have done the economic analysis for the regulatory framework. We have not done the economic analysis for the revised Bill C-30.

The Environment

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, this agreement will immediately reduce atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gases. By the end of this agreement, in 2010, energy efficiency will be improved by 44% compared to 1990.

However, our constructive approach is in contrast to the Liberal approach. Yesterday, as we have heard, they passed Bill C-288 in 43 seconds, and they did that without calling a single witness. Our approach saves thousands of jobs compared to theirs.

The Senate

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it rammed through its environmental plan in 43 seconds flat.

Canada's leading economist said this bill would cause a massive recession, including dramatic increases in the cost of gasoline, yet the Liberals passed it through the committee without one second of debate. Once again the Liberal Party has shown itself to be anti-democratic and dictatorial in its pursuit of power.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell this House how ramming through Bill C-288 in 43 seconds is undemocratic--

Senate Tenure Legislation

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4, an important government bill on Senate term limits, has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year as the Liberals play procedural games to delay true Senate reform.

Compare that to what happened in the Senate last night. The Liberals rammed their environmental plan, Bill C-288, through a Senate committee in, and wait for it, 43 seconds. This is the same bill that independent analysts Don Drummond, Mark Jaccard and Carl Sonnen said would cause a massive recession with little or no benefit to the environment. This is the same bill that the Liberal leader in the Senate promised Canadians would not be fast-tracked.

That is the Liberal Party for you, Mr. Speaker. It says one thing and does exactly the opposite. In its pursuit of power, the Liberal Party will stoop to the lowest anti-democratic methods it can get away with. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Gasoline Prices

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House knows that the opposition parties would allow the price of gas to increase by 60% under Bill C-288. Canadians would have to pay almost $2 a litre if it were up to the Bloc Québécois.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau is an independent agency and if the Bloc Québécois wants to bring this matter before the Competition Bureau I invite it to go there and file a complaint.

That said, it is important for Quebeckers to realize that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party are in favour of Bill C-288, which will increase the price of gas for Canadians and Quebeckers. That is the position of the Bloc Québécois. It is a position that does not respect market forces and goes against the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, if my friend wants to give the Competition Bureau more power, I invite him to vote for Bill C-41, which gives the Competition Bureau greater power to conduct investigations. The Bloc Québécois has been blocking Bill C-41 for some time.

That said, the Bloc Québécois should also know that gas prices are due to a shortage of inventory in the United States, a breakdown in the production chain. Oil inventories are being built up, and you will see that market forces will soon drive down gas prices again, if Bill C-288 is not adopted.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my opposition colleague, because he is being a bit inconsistent in this House today. He is calling for lower gas prices for Canadians and Quebeckers, yet the Bloc Québécois is supporting Bill C-288, which will drive up gas prices in Quebec by $1.50 to $2.00 a litre. That is the Bloc Québécois for you: inconsistent and incompetent.

Opposition motion--Gas Prices

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from the Bloc and there are so many inaccuracies that I had to rise and speak.

Just like the Liberal members and the NDP members who did not read the budget before they voted against it, obviously the Bloc did not read the Competition Act because in the amendment it is proposing, it is trying to give the Competition Bureau a power that it already has.

I want to clarify this. The members repeatedly have said that the Competition Bureau cannot initiate price fixing inquiries. As a matter of fact it can and it does, and it does so regularly. The bureau has secured numerous convictions for price fixing under the act. Over the last 15 years it has secured over $400 million in fines for price fixing.

The real issue here is about consumers and the Bloc cannot run from its record. Let us talk about the price of gasoline. Again, I would like to read from its own platform. It wants to increase corporate income taxes paid by oil companies to over $500 million. That is half a billion dollars. Who is going to pay for that? I say it is the consumers.

In the Bloc's own platform for the environment, it is supporting Bill C-288. We know that if the Bloc's plan were implemented today, the price of gasoline would be $1.60 to $2.00 per litre.

I think this is the ninth time I have asked this question. Will the Bloc come clean and let the people of Quebec and the people of Canada know that it is in favour of higher prices for gasoline, yes or no?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the Bloc in fact did vote for Bill C-288, the Liberal environment plan, and the record will show that.

In fact, it is the international community that started this task 10 years ago and started reducing greenhouse gases. When the Liberals were in power, all we saw was hot air. They did nothing. The member would acknowledge that. Those are the facts.

As far as clean energy goes, I thank the member for that comment. That is exactly what we are doing. We have invested $1.5 billion in our ecoenergy renewable initiative for small hydro, biomass, tidal, wind and solar power. This is something that has never been done before by Parliament: bringing all of this renewable energy under one initiative to create incentives to put more on the grid. We are going to put 4,000 megawatts of electricity on the grid, 4,000 megawatts of absolutely clean renewable energy. That is the equivalent of eight coal-fired electricity generation units. That is something that has been done by this government since we have taken office, so it is exactly one of our priorities.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on this subject. It is something that is obviously on the minds of Canadians.

We all recognize that with the recent spike in gasoline prices at the pumps Canadians are feeling the pinch. Naturally, when prices rise, Canadians are concerned. There is no question that it impacts people's daily lives and affects their cost of living, and we are concerned with that as well.

That is why we brought in a number of initiatives where we think we can make a difference, such as providing rebates of up to $2,000 for the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles and tax rebates on transit passes to encourage more public transit use.

However, at the end of the day our actions have to be balanced and that is exactly what we have done. We have balanced our actions to ensure that the economy remains strong and that there is growth in the job creation sector to ensure Canadians can enjoy our standard of living, as well as protecting the environment.

I have heard the concerns of many opposition members. I know members across will acknowledge that when the Liberals were in power the Competition Bureau in the last six years conducted an investigation six times. Each and every time it found there was no collusion. If in fact there is information that should be brought forward for a seventh investigation, so be it. That is what the Competition Bureau is for.

If the Bloc is proposing under its original motion in fact to investigate this, the Competition Act and the Commissioner of Competition have all of the powers. Therefore, the hon. member across would also agree that in fact this can be investigated.

It is also important, though, that we do not just focus the whole discussion on the price of gasoline. It is also important that we look at other sources of energy as well, especially in the transportation sector.

We are investing heavily in the fuel cell industry. In fact, we have hydrogen buses running on Parliament Hill. That has happened under this government, something we are very proud of. These are opportunities that not only help the environment but obviously decrease our dependency on oil.

I would like to change the focus of this discussion now to Bill C-288. For those who may not be aware, it is a private member's bill by a Liberal member of Parliament on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to impose the Kyoto targets on the Canadian people and economy over the next five years after it was in office for 10 years and did absolutely nothing on this file.

Maybe that is not accurate. I should not say the Liberals did nothing. In fact, they actually made it worse. If they had done nothing, that might have been helpful or at least put us in a position where we would have a fighting chance. Greenhouse gases have risen dramatically under the Liberal government for 10 years to 35%. The Liberals acknowledge that, they know that is a fact and that is the number.

When the Liberals were in government, they did absolutely nothing. That is a fact and they cannot dispute that greenhouse gases skyrocketed. Now they propose a reckless plan. There is no other description for this plan. It is reckless. If they were being truthful with themselves, the constituents and this country, they would acknowledge it. They know it is reckless. There is no other word to describe it. This plan has been looked at by various economists and I will get into more specifics about that in a minute.

Even worse, because members from all of the opposition parties are thinking of purely crass politics and unfortunately it is not working for them, it is not going to work. They are all supporting this Liberal plan and, without question, the price of gasoline will skyrocket.

There is an independent analysis that has been done on this which shows that the price of gasoline will rise by 60%. We can do the math. That is somewhere between $1.60, depending upon which part of the country, up to as high as $2.00.

I am going to read specifically from this report where this analysis was done. I will read from page 21 of “The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business”. This is an independent economic analysis. I think it is very important that this debate stays factual, that we do not try to torque it, and we just put the facts on the table and let the Canadian people judge it. It states:

Prices for transportation fuels would also rise by a large margin--roughly 60% higher relative to BAU. At today's gasoline prices of approximately 90 cents a litre, this would translate into an average price of over $1.40 per litre as a result of the policy.

Those are the facts and the Liberals do not like to hear it. Whether it is in question period or whether it is in the foyer of the House of Commons, they do not like those facts.

We can argue that maybe it is $1.55, $1.65 or $2.05, but there is no question that there would be drastic economic costs to the current direction taken by the Liberal Party of Canada. It is not a balanced approach. It is a reckless approach. Even worse, the NDP and the Bloc are supporting this reckless approach and it must be said.

Let me quote from other parts of this analysis on the Liberal environment plan, Bill C-288. It states on page 18:

The analysis indicates that GDP would decline by more than 6.5% relative to current projections in 2008 as a result of the policy, falling to a level about 4.2% below that of 2007. This would imply a deep recession in 2008, with a one-year net loss of national economic activity in the range of $51 billion relative to 2007 levels. By way of comparison, the most severe recession in the post World War II period for Canada, as measured by the fall in real GDP, was in 1981-1982.

There is a lot more. We have economists such as Don Drummond who is the senior vice-president and chief economist at the Toronto-Dominion Bank Financial Group. We have people like Jean-Thomas Bernard, professor, department of economics, Laval University; Christopher Green, professor, department of economics, McGill University; Mark Jaccard, professor, school of resource and environment management at Simon Fraser University; and Carl Sonnen, president of Informetrica Limited.

I stress that this is not the Conservative analysis. This analysis was done by some of the most respected economists in the country. They are saying what would happen. Don Drummond stated:

I believe the economic cost would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s and indeed that is the result your department's analysis shows. Relative to the base case, the level of output declines around 7 per cent.

Christopher Green, professor, department of economics at McGill, said:

I have read the draft on the potential economic costs of meeting the provisions of Bill C-288. I agree with the draft’s main finding, that attempting to meet the provisions of Bill C-288 would be economically costly. Indeed, if anything, that the GDP reductions (costs) would be larger than are estimated by the modeling framework you employed.

These are some of the facts. They cannot be disputed.

I am sure members are fully away that some of the costs that drive up the price of gasoline are market forces. The Liberals had many investigations when they were in power on everything up to the price on the world markets. These are obviously links. We know there are municipal and federal taxes and refinery costs.

It is important to note that what we are really hearing from the opposition members is that they want to regulate the price of gasoline. Where that has been done in the past--

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

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to say how amazed I am by the Bloc putting up a member who is saying that the Bloc supports consumers. If I could read for members from the Bloc's platform, in the Bloc's own words, what the Bloc Québécois would like to do is levy a surtax on oil company profits and increase the corporate income tax paid by oil companies by $500 million. In other words, the Bloc wants to add half a billion dollars to this. Who do those members think is going to pay for this?

It is the same with the Bloc's environmental program. It is supporting the Liberals, or what Buzz Hargrove would call a radical environmental program, on Bill C-288. We have leading economists in Canada who have said that if the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP got their way gas prices today would be at $1.60 to $2 per litre. That is what the Bloc would do for the Québécois and for Canadians if those members had their way.

Here we have the member standing up and saying that he is supportive of Canadian consumers, but he will not come clean on whether those members agree with higher prices for gas or not. I am going to ask the question again, for what I think is the eighth time.

Once again, the Liberal Party supports an increase in the price of gas. The leader of the official opposition said that an increase in the price of gas would benefit Canada in the medium and long terms. Does the Bloc support an increase in the price of gas? The Bloc must answer today: yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get a straight position from the Liberals all day.

I think this will be the sixth or seventh time that the following question has been asked. The leader of the Liberal Party is on the record as numerous times as saying that “high gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term”. We have been trying to get a straight answer from the Liberals all day.

Now that member is standing up, a member who comes from a party that brought in Kyoto with no plan. The Liberals are favouring Bill C-288. Economists are saying that if the Liberals had their way today Canadians would be paying $1.60 to $2 per litre for gas.

Does the member support his leader with higher gas prices? Does he believe that is the right thing? Could I have a straight answer, please?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I want to take this opportunity to say hello to the people of New Brunswick and tell them that, fortunately, with a Conservative government, gas prices are twice as low as they would be if our Liberal friends opposite were in power, because with Bill C-288 and its draconian reductions of greenhouse gases, and after 13 years of their inaction, our gas prices would be twice as high. This is a major concern.

I was in Lévis Monday morning before coming here and the price of gas was $1.17. I think about all the workers from Bellechasse who go to work and sometimes have to make wage concessions. This is a worrisome situation and that is why our government is concerned about this situation and is putting more money back into the taxpayers' pockets, by reducing the GST, for example, to help workers better cope with these price increases.

There is one thing the previous government did not do. Why did it do absolutely nothing in 13 years to reduce greenhouse gases, while our government has invested several billion dollars in the past 15 months to encourage people to buy fuel efficient vehicles? We are even putting surcharges on vehicles that consume a lot of energy. We have implemented tax credits for public transit and we want to ensure that our economy is no longer dependent on hydrocarbons with the ecoenergy and ecotrust programs.

My question for the hon. opposition member is the following. Why is his leader, who is in support of gas prices being twice as high with Bill C-288, pleased—it was in the Calgary Herald on August 24, 2005—that the price of gas in Canada is high for the short, medium and long terms when that is detrimental to the country's workers?

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.

[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.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Last night, just before debate on private members’ business began, the hon. government House leader raised a point of order relating to Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

The House will recall that on Friday, February 9, 2007, debate on Bill C-288 was completed and divisions on the report stage of the bill deferred to February 14, 2007. Because of this, I felt obliged to point out to the hon. government House leader that his intervention came very late although I proceeded to listen to his argument in case he had new light to shed on the bill.

After his intervention, the hon. members for Wascana, Scarborough—Rouge River and Honoré-Mercier offered their views.

I have now carefully reviewed the comments made by the hon. government House leader and I confess that I find them somewhat troubling, for the hon. minister presents no new arguments, but instead comes perilously close to an appeal of the Chair's decisions, an appeal specifically prohibited by Standing Order 10.

Despite two rulings from the Chair to the contrary, the crux of the argument presented by the hon. government House leader is that Bill C-288 does require a royal recommendation because the course of action it puts forward would require the expenditure of government funds.

This is substantially the same argument so ably presented by the minister's predecessor on June 16, 2006. It was not persuasive then and is no more persuasive now.

With respect, I would refer the hon. government House leader to Debates for September 27, 2006, at pages 3314 and 3315 where I ruled on the original point of order raised on June 16. Since this latest intervention provided no new insights, let me simply quote from that decision. Referring back to an earlier decision on a similar case, I said:

the Chair--in the case of Bill C-292, an act to implement the Kelowna Accord--made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us--[Bill C-288]--the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be. If spending is required, as the government House leader contends, then a specific request for public moneys would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill or through another legislative initiative containing an authorization for the spending of public money for a specific purpose.

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

As Bill C-288 stands however, the Chair must conclude that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

This first ruling on the bill seems quite clear. The House will also recall that on February 2, 2007, a point of order was raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to the effect that amendments to this bill reported by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 8, 2006 required a royal recommendation and some hon. members commented on his intervention. That exchange is captured at pages 6341 and 6342 of the Debates. It too concludes that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and I would commend it to the attention of all hon. members. In short, the Chair has not been presented with any precedents that would reverse the views it expressed earlier.

I can appreciate that the hon. government House leader is frustrated by the prospect of what he calls a bad law being enacted and by the constitutional difficulties that he foresees, but these are not matters within the Speaker's purview. The Chair's powers are limited to interpreting matters of parliamentary procedure, not matters of law, nor matters of public policy.

Bill C-288 seeks to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol ratified by Canada on December 17, 2002, but the bill contains no provisions authorizing spending to that end. Therefore, there is simply no procedural impediment to the bill proceeding further or to the House pronouncing itself on report stage and third reading.

Let me just say in conclusion that, as your Speaker, I take very seriously indeed the responsibility to interpret the procedures and practices of this House in specific cases, particularly where the prerogatives of the Crown may be at issue and particularly in controversial cases such as this one where parties are deeply divided as to the right course of action.

The House's new rules on private members' business bring out in full relief the Chair's role and responsibility in these matters. I believe that a careful reading of my rulings on such cases, including the two rulings already rendered on Bill C-288, reveals them to lie squarely within the traditions of this place. I thank hon. members for their attention.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there may well be a number of members on this side, including the member for Honoré-Mercier, the sponsor of Bill C-288, who may wish to add to the discussion, but I will make one or two brief points.

The first one is fairly obvious, Mr. Speaker, and you referred to it yourself a few moments ago. You have already had the occasion to consider this matter with great care, at least twice, and you have made your ruling on this matter already. You have clearly said that there is nothing in Bill C-288 that impinges on the prerogative or the initiatives that have just been referred to by the government House leader. In fact, the bill falls within the rules because it does not impose the obligation to spend.

In meeting the objectives laid out in the legislation and providing for the measures for which the legislation calls, spending is one alternative that the government may at some future date decide to avail itself of and, in those circumstances, it would no doubt provide the royal recommendation at that time. However, as has been made clear in the committee and in the debate previously in the House, spending is not the only way by which the objectives of this legislation can be met.

The other day in the House, in debate on this point, the member for Honoré-Mercier pointed out that there were regulatory measures, reduction incentive measures, domestic trading measures, international trading measures and measures provided under the protocol itself having to do with the clean development mechanism and joint implementation initiatives. There are a wide range of means by which the objectives of this legislation can be met, including but not limited to and not necessarily requiring new spending. I think that is the essence of some of your previous rulings, Mr. Speaker, on this matter.

With the greatest of respect, I would submit that the argument presented by the House leader for the government just now does not amplify, either in terms of factual information or legal argumentation, the point that he and his parliamentary secretary have attempted to make in the House on at least three prior occasions and upon which you have already ruled in the clearest of terms, the latest being just a day or two ago. There is nothing in the legislation that necessarily requires a royal recommendation and, therefore, it is fully within the rules and fully in order and the vote can be taken at the appointed time tomorrow.

It is instructive though, while cloaked in an argument of parliamentary procedure, what the government has revealed is its absolute determination to try to scuttle anything that bears any relationship to Kyoto. That is the clear message. It is a political message; it is not a parliamentary message or a financial message. You have already ruled on that, Mr. Speaker. What it is seeking to do now is amplify a political message and it will find out in due course from Canadians that this message is rejected as well.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed further with the argument perhaps I will address that one short issue. I would refer you to pages 711-2 of Marleau and Montpetit where it states:

If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order.

At this point in time, we have not reached that stage. Therefore, I would argue that this is in order; however, I will continue with the argument as you, Mr. Speaker, instructed.

The main point I would like to make with the bill is that as it purports to create standards or targets that the government must then try to meet through whatever means it has, then this is, in effect, an attempt to do indirectly what the House cannot do directly, and that is, force the government to spend money as the measures in the bill are trying to achieve and cannot be implemented without the expenditure of funds. As a result, this matter goes to the heart of the principles of responsible government and the financial initiative of the Crown.

Let me turn to some specific aspects of the bill that underscore these points.

First, on this general rubric of attempting to do indirectly what cannot be done directly and the general obligations, subclause 7.(1) of the bill states that:

--the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol--

This would create an obligation to implement Article 3 of the Kyoto protocol which would require us to reduce our emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.

The government's view is that if Bill C-288 were to create a legal obligation for Canada to meet the emission targets set out in the Kyoto protocol, as the sponsor of the bill has publicly stated, the bill would effectively require the expenditure of funds. Common sense dictates that the expenditure of funds would be necessary to achieve the Kyoto targets without devastating the Canadian economy.

Members of the official opposition have stated as much before the legislative committee studying Bill C-30. In addition, the leader of the official opposition has stated that major spending measures were being contemplated in the last Parliament, although specific legislative measures to fully meet the Kyoto targets were never brought before Parliament for consideration.

We therefore have with Bill C-288 an unprecedented attempt to legislate indirectly what the previous government did not legislate directly, and on a matter which the official opposition itself recognizes would involve spending in the many billions of dollars.

By creating a legislative target, if that is what Bill C-288 seeks to do, it puts the government in the untenable position to spend resources if it is to try to meet what has been set in legislation. It is not the Crown that is initiating all public expenditure. It suffices that targets be set in legislation for the government to have to come to Parliament to appropriate the funds needed.

With the greatest of respect to the Chair, it is not sufficient to say that the government can come forward at a later point in time with its specific measures to comply with Bill C-288 with that royal recommendation attached at a later time, which is what I take to understand as one of the Speaker's previous rulings.

The House would in effect be compelling a royal recommendation as there would be no alternative left to it. The only question is, what exact form of that royal recommendation would it be, not the requirement for that royal recommendation.

In effect, the House would have indirectly required expenditure of funds, which it cannot directly require through the provision of a private member's bill. I think that is a very significant bridge that we would be crossing here and it would have profound consequences for the operation of Parliament for generations to come and would be inconsistent with the history of how these matters have been dealt with in Parliament.

Clause 6 of the bill is one issue that I do not believe has been fully addressed. It authorizes the governor in council to enact a broad range of regulations to implement the Kyoto protocol. A new bureaucracy would be necessary to implement and enforce such regulations. The government is therefore of the view that clause 6 entails the expenditure of funds and requires a royal recommendation.

In addition, clause 6 authorizes regulations “respecting trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions, removals, permits, credits, or other units”. However, the Minister of the Environment informed the legislative committee last week that an emissions trading market would cost the government billions of dollars.

Therefore, the bill clearly contemplates not only direct government spending, for example, due to regulations providing for trading in greenhouse gas emission credits, but also considerable indirect government spending on the bureaucratic and administrative support necessary for implementing the regulations.

As you noted in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if spending is required then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill.

Given this, Bill C-288 creates a legal obligation for the expenditure of funds. That is the only way in which the government would be able to comply with the requirements of Bill C-288 regardless of whether that was in the provisions of the bill specifically as laid out now.

This would be an example of the House doing indirectly what the House cannot do directly forcing the government to spend money that has not been authorized.

I think that the parliamentary traditions of this place are very important and the question of the royal recommendation does indeed go back to the very beginnings of our Parliament. Since the bill purports to indirectly force the government to spend money, allowing this bill to proceed to a third reading vote would be inconsistent with the principles of responsible government and the Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. As Marleau and Montpetit note at page 709:

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown” is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

This principle makes perfect sense in a parliamentary democracy, as the government is responsible and accountable to the House for its budgetary priorities.

Bill C-288 appears to seek to force, and more than appears to, in fact it does, force the government to change those priorities. It takes the initiative away from the Crown.

Through Bill C-288 the opposition is attempting to reverse the principle on its head by attempting to legislate obligations that everyone recognizes will require the expenditure of funds. Passage of this bill would create a dangerous precedent whereby the opposition can direct the future expenditure priorities of the government. The precedent could forever change the nature of our parliamentary system.

Similar analogous arguments can be seen bringing forward legislation requiring that everybody in the country achieve a minimum standard of compensation and guaranteed minimum income without specifying what that would be or how the government would go about achieving it. However, if those goals were there and were seen as enforceable, obviously they could only be achieved with government spending. Again, that is an example of the kind of loophole that would be opened, the kind of path that would be tread should Bill C-288 be regarded as being acceptable and not offending the royal recommendation.

Given the significance of such a precedent I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these issues carefully.

The government also has significant constitutional concerns with the bill. The regulatory provisions of the bill appear to be ultra vires as they cannot be said to be within the federal government's criminal law powers or the general powers of the federal government for peace, order and good government.

While I recognize that the Speaker cannot rule on matters of law, I wanted to take this opportunity to advise the House of the government's significant legal concerns with the bill.

In conclusion, ultimately, Bill C-288 is an example of a bad law. As the current Standing Orders governing private members' business are relatively new, I believe all parliamentarians should wish to avoid creating a precedent that puts this process into disrepute.

The government believes that the credibility and authority of Parliament to legislate in a clear and open manner is at stake on this matter.

If a royal recommendation is required for Bill C-288, that bill will not proceed further. However, the government will continue to move forward with its legislation on the environment, such as Canada's clean air act and the additional legislation to implement the government's February 12 announcement of a $1.5 billion ecotrust fund.

If a royal recommendation is not required for Bill C-288, the only conclusion that Canadians can draw is that this bill is a political attempt to do indirectly what the previous government was not willing to do directly.

As we look forward to what would be opened, the precedent, if we could simply establish targets, goals and objectives, and say that by so doing we are not creating an obligation for spending, yet a government would be obliged to meet those targets and objectives, we are creating indirectly a requirement for a royal recommendation.

I repeat, as I said before, it is not sufficient, with the greatest of respect, to say that the government can worry later about how it meets those objectives and targets, that the government can worry later about how it achieves the specific details and that the government can later craft a royal recommendation to do so.

The fact is the obligation will have been created now at this stage of the process. That is what the principle of the royal recommendation was always intended to prevent.

If we were to allow this to proceed at this point in time, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, you would be making a ruling that would be turning on its head over a century of parliamentary practice. With the greatest of respect, I think there is great risk in going down that path.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have already made two rulings on the issue of the royal recommendation in Bill C-288. Given the possible magnitude of what is proposed in Bill C-288, I would like you to consider the matter further and to consider additional issues with respect to the bill. The main point that I would like to make is that as it purports to create--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you to the witnesses for being here.

The two questions I have focus on the technologies we need to clean the environment and more questions on intensity-based targets. I'm going to primarily focus on Mr. Jaccard and Mr. Wood.

Mr. Jaccard, you gave testimony at the committee on Bill C-288. In fact, I asked every witness if we could meet the targets. Every witness, except for one, said we couldn't meet the Kyoto targets.

With respect to meeting the Kyoto targets, you were quoted in the National Post on February 9 as saying:

You would have to destroy one-third of the buildings and equipment in your economy in the next four years to meet the Kyoto target.

And then further on in the article, you are quoted as saying:

Buying international credits in a four-year time frame is virtually impossible because you have to buy it from someone. Someone somewhere has to have done some greenhouse gas reductions and we have to be able to verify that they did that. That is really difficult.

First of all, is that a correct quote?

The first question concerns the Kyoto target. There is a lot of rhetoric on that. My understanding from your previous testimony is that we've passed that opportunity to be able to achieve it so we then have to find realistic targets based on policy. What technologies do you see us using to achieve targets of actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have said, and as I have told the hon. member many times, we are open to domestic carbon trading, to looking at it, but let us look at what the media is saying about that plan.

Tom Oleson of Winnipeg Free Press says regarding Bill C-288, “The cynicism and hypocrisy of this is staggering...”. He says the record of the Leader of the Opposition “as environment minister was abysmally bad, earning him a reputation as the Dr. Dolittle on climate change”. He says, “They complacently presided over a massive increase in Canadian greenhouse emissions even as they preached the virtues of Kyoto”. He asks, “How do they get away with it?”

They do not. We are taking action on the environment.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, Valentine's Day, the members of this House will be called on to vote one last time on my Bill C-288.

This bill seeks to force the government to meet Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

It is a bill that talks about the future, a bill that seeks to ensure that Canada takes tangible measures today for tomorrow, measures that the government does not want to take. Why worry about the future?

The government is totally isolated on this issue. The three opposition parties stand together on this important bill. In fact, all the parties except the Conservative Party want immediate action on climate change. That is why this bill is so necessary.

When a government respects neither international law nor the will of its own people, when it does not shoulder its responsibilities in response to one of the most serious challenges facing our planet, Parliament has the ability and the moral duty to force the government to do so. That is why this bill is so important.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill and go on the record on some fairly important aspects on the issue of climate change.

Canadians told us loudly and clearly that they are concerned about the environment. During the last election, they told us that they were not satisfied with the action that the Liberals had taken, or had not taken, on a number of things, no less in this area as well, some subterfuge, some fakes they intended on this file.

In contrast, our government will be taking action, and is taking action, on both air pollution and climate change. We are committed to protecting the health of Canadians and also of our environment.

Unfortunately, Bill C-288, put forward by the member across the way, has no mechanisms for enforcement. It renders it toothless. Despite the political games of the opposition, we will not call an election over a private member's bill that has no substance and no plan. It is basically an empty motion.

The Speaker has ruled that the bill is not a money bill and, therefore, is not a matter of confidence. The bill does not require the expenditure of money and so, it accomplishes nothing.

The stated purpose in Bill C-288 is to ensure Canada takes action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. This very single focus on short term greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets is really not enough.

The clean air act, on the other hand, would provide a strong basis for taking integrated action on emissions of smog, acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases as well, many of which come from the same industrial and transportation sources.

By tabling the clean air act, the government has clearly demonstrated that it is taking short, medium and long term action to protect the environment and human health.

Our approach is more than just a long term approach. With respect to industrial air emissions, the government has committed to determining its regulatory framework, including setting short term targets as well. Our notice of intent states that our targets will be consistent with leading environmental standards and at least as rigorous as those in the United States.

Targets for air pollutants will measurably reduce the impact on the health of Canadians. For greenhouse gases, the targets will yield a better outcome for the Canadian environment than under the plan proposed by the previous Liberal government.

Bill C-288 has a focus on the achievement of Canada's short term Kyoto target that is limited. Both its economic and environmental aspects need to be carefully examined.

Our approach needs to focus on the economic transformation needed for the Canadian economy that will lead to more significant and sustained reductions in pollutants. For example, we must, and we will, as a government encourage investment in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure.

The government wants to regulate greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions for major industrial sectors in place as soon as possible. That being said, however, the reality is it will not be possible, in practical terms, to develop requirements for both greenhouse gases and air pollutants for all industrial sectors by 2008.

Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation, as per Bill C-288, would almost certainly open the Crown and all stakeholders to very serious difficulties.

The bill's timeline strictly limits the ability of the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. The way of doing things, as in Bill C-288, is not reasonable and shows disregard for a meaningful public consultation process, which results then require careful consideration by the government.

Yesterday, in front of the legislative committee for Bill C-30, the Minister of the Environment made a strong statement on this government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. He said:

In the coming months, we will announce ambitious...targets...coming into force starting in 2010. For the first time ever, the Federal Government will regulate air pollution for major industry sectors. For the first time ever, we will regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, beginning with the 2011 model year. We will regulate energy efficiency standards and labeling requirements for a broad range of consumer and commercial products. Together, these will address about 80 percent of the energy used in homes and almost 90 percent of the energy used in commercial settings.

The challenge of meeting our Kyoto target is illustrated by the simple fact that by 2004 domestic greenhouse gas emissions had increased 27% under the Liberal government, which is the exact opposite of what should have happened.

We will not spend billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to buy credits. Instead, we will spend Canadian tax dollars here at home to make real reductions in greenhouse emissions and air pollution.

Our government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change at the same time in order to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gases come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources and, to be most effective, action needs to be integrated.

Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that only address greenhouse gases while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants. For that reason, our government will establish short, medium and long term reduction targets, both for air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

By taking action on greenhouse gases and air pollutants, our government will allow industry to find ways to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness while maximizing the benefits to Canadians. Our plan will achieve concrete, tangible results through mandatory, enforceable regulations with short, medium and long term targets.

To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is threefold. First, this bill has a short term focus. Second, it has a single issue focus on greenhouses gases. Third, massive costs would come with this short term focus.

In our view, it is important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions both of air pollutants and greenhouse gases in the short term, but that also sets the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term. It is even more important that these funds be spent on improving the Canadian economy here.

Countries with targets now under the Kyoto protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions. For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all major emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions.

By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of total greenhouse gas emissions, and China and India together will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined.

Effective action cannot be taken, in fact, by a relatively small group of countries alone. Proponents of the Kyoto protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate

. Kyoto is only a first step toward a serious approach to the problem. We have been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance a more transformative long term approach to tackling climate change. Our actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address the matter of climate change.

In conclusion, Canada's clean air act goes far beyond Bill C-288 to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We encourage the Liberals to get on board and help us get it through for the sake of Canadians and our environment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on what I think is one of the most important bills that has been presented to the House. It has to do with whether or not Canada should respect its international obligations, particularly as they relate to the future. Let me quote the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier who said in his opening speech when he first presented the bill to the House:

This bill speaks primarily about the future. It is designed to make possible concrete acts today that will improve living conditions for generations of tomorrow. I have always believed that political action should be motivated by a strong desire to make a positive difference in the world around us, a strong desire to prepare a better future for the generations to come.

That is precisely what Bill C-288 is all about. It is a bill which basically calls on Canada to meet its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol. That is the bill.

Members are well familiar with that. They will know some aspects of it but maybe not all of the aspects, or maybe they will remember selectively the things that they would like to remember. It is important to put on the record some of the facts related to Kyoto.

It was a very long process. Back in 1997 the Kyoto protocol was first negotiated. The process went on because once the protocol was developed, countries then had a chance to sign on to the deal, to make a commitment that if and when it came into force that they would be there for the future of the planet. Canada put its name on that as a commitment in 2002, but it was not until 2005 that the final signatories were obtained and the Kyoto protocol as ratified was in fact in force. That was 2005, just a couple of years ago. It was not until then that the Kyoto protocol was in force. One hundred and sixty-eight countries around the world decided that global warming and climate change issues were real, that the science was right and that we, this generation, had to take the first steps to ensure the safety, the security and the well-being of the planet for generations to come.

We have all seen the evidence, even today, the slow evidence of warming, the aberrant weather and other indications that something is different. It can be seen up in the Arctic when big portions of icebergs fall into the ocean. We see the changes in wildlife migration patterns. We see the impact on the polar bear population. We see the impact on so many different aspects of life. This is the genesis of something terrible.

This is what the science says. It is the genesis. We, today's Canadians and today's people of the globe, are the ones who are making the most significant contribution to the warming of our world, the creation of greenhouse gases. We are the ones.

We must be successful in delivering, in terms of meeting the targets under the Kyoto protocol. There is a combination of measures under that protocol. Some we will be able to do domestically and some we will not, but there are measures in there which countries can use so that they can respect and in fact satisfy the terms and conditions of membership, of being a party to the Kyoto protocol.

The current Minister of the Environment and the former minister of the environment said that we cannot make them. Are they talking about meeting the obligations under Kyoto, or are they talking about meeting everything by doing one part of it?

We could just say, here are our domestic solutions and let us just solve things. The Prime Minister himself told the media just within the past week that we cannot reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by some 30% in just two years. It takes time. How much time does it take? Maybe the Prime Minister should tell Canadians how much time it would take.

Maybe we do not even have to ask him. Why do we not just look at clean air act? The so-called clean air act was dead on arrival. It was so bad and so panned by virtually anybody who has any basic knowledge that people said that that bill was not worth the paper it was written on, and in fact it was trashed by the House.

Usually when we refer a bill to committee, it is after second reading, after approval in principle. That bill was so bad that there was no way it was going to get past second reading. It was going to die in the House. The government admitted it and it agreed to have this bill go to a special legislative committee before second reading.

In other words, a bill that goes to committee after second reading has approval in principle. A committee can look at it and massage it a little bit, but it cannot change the substantive provisions of the bill. However, when a bill is sent to committee before second reading, it is totally different. I have seen it before. Bills can go to committee and the committee can delete everything after the title, and then change the title. In other words, it can trash the bill.

I have a feeling that once the responsible parliamentarians and the expert witnesses are finished with that clean air act, we will clean out the act, and find out that we better change the name because it is going to be the act to implement and meet our Kyoto commitments and to make our contribution as a signatory to Kyoto and for the future generations of Canadians. Maybe it should be called the Pablo bill.

We have had a lot of discussion, but what concerns Canadians is that the Prime Minister wants to say that the Liberals did nothing in 13 years, but knowing that in fact Kyoto did not come into force until 2005. There was no agreement in force prior to that; however, once the Kyoto protocol came into force, programs were immediately developed and in fact had been developed and were put into place.

There was the Canada 2005 climate change plan, phase one of project green. We followed that with the climate fund, the partnership fund, the one tonne challenge, the wind power incentive and renewable power production incentive, and the sustainable energy science and technology strategy. I look at the cap and trade system, which we could have had domestically, where businesses could work together to ensure that we meet our obligations.

When we think about it, where is the reality check in the rhetoric that comes from the Prime Minister that the former government did nothing? These are facts. They actually happened, and as a matter of fact, they are real. I know they are real because the Conservatives cancelled them all. Then what did they do? They took some of them and they reintroduced them in a watered down form to make absolutely sure that they were not going to be effective at all.

Canadians have made it very clear that climate change, global warming, the science supporting them and Kyoto are priorities, not only just for Canada but for the globe. We are just a small part of the globe, but we are party to an international agreement. We respect our international agreements and the Liberals will do everything they possibly can to ensure that we meet our obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canadians are very concerned about their environment and about climate change.

Accepting the science of climate change and the growing need for action after a decade of Liberal inaction, Canada's new Conservative government is taking real, effective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to address these concerns.

Unlike the Liberal sponsor, we have carefully considered Bill C-288. Our conclusion is that Bill C-288 is seriously flawed and must be opposed. We need to draw some important distinctions between this flawed Bill C-288 and this government's clean air act.

First, Bill C-288 is far too little, far too late. It is a desperate Liberal attempt to unwisely force us to make their targets and timeline. What did the former environment commissioner say about these Kyoto timelines? She said that even if the Liberals were still in power they would not have made the Kyoto targets and timeline.

Opinion leaders across Canada agree that we cannot make the Kyoto targets and timeline. Even the new leader of the official opposition admits that he cannot make the Kyoto targets and timeline.

I know the sponsor of the bill supported the deputy leader of the Liberal Party and not the current leader at their recent convention. The Liberal deputy leader said that the Liberals did not get it done. Bill C-288 still does not get it done. Bill C-288 is also a recognition of the Liberals' 13 years of inaction on the environment.

Claude Villeneuve, from the University of Quebec, said this about Bill C-288, “This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998”.

When Mark Jaccard testified before the environment committee he said, “I would say, no, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe”. It is too little, too late.

If the Liberals were serious about climate change and the Kyoto targets they signed us on to, why did they not act when they had a chance? They had 8 years, 10 budgets, 7 surplus budgets, 7 years of solid majority government, 5 years with the current tools under CEPA and they took no action. There is not excuse for Liberal inaction on climate change. The leader of the Liberal Party knows no shame on this issue.

Not only is Bill C-288 too little, too late, it is incomplete. Where is the medium term plan? What about the long term? Where are the costs?

The sponsor of the bill, the Liberal member for Honoré-Mercier, said at committee that he did not even care about a plan or the costs to implement Bill C-288. The Liberals do not care about having plans. They do not care about those things. We care about them.

How can they be taken seriously on climate change? How can Bill C-288 be seriously taken as a plan on climate change? Its focus is short term. In fact, there is only one short term timeline on the Liberal horizon now and that is the next election. It seems to be the only thing they care about any more. By contrast, we have one approach, reductions in GHGs and pollution in the short, medium and long term.

Kyoto was only a first step toward a serious approach to the problem. We have always been clear that Canada will work with other countries, including the major nations that are polluting but are not in Kyoto. The Liberals would not work with them. They left them out when they negotiated the agreement to advance a more transformative and long term approach to tackling climate change.

Our action at home is laying a foundation for cooperative international efforts to conquer climate change. Our commitment in the short term is GHG targets that will yield a better outcome than what was proposed by the Liberals in 2005. On air pollutants, we have proposed fixed emission caps at minimum as rigorous as jurisdictions that are leaders in environmental performance. This is a major step that no previous federal Liberal government has taken.

We are looking at the best way for industry to comply with these targets. We will ensure that we have a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost effective way to meet its emissions targets while meeting our environmental and health objectives.

We are also supporting the development of transformative technologies, especially for GHGs, technologies that will be needed to achieve the deep reductions required if we are to prevent irreversible climate change.

Not only is Bill C-288 too little, too late, not only is Bill C-288 not a real plan for climate change, but Bill C-288 has no penalties. How about that? Where is the enforcement? Clearly the Liberals do not believe that the polluter pays for damaging our health and our environment. Without enforcement, Bill C-288 is not much of a bill. It might as well have been a motion, or how about a preamble to a real bill on climate change.

Bill C-288 is therefore useless. I think the Liberals know a lot about being useless, but that is fine. I guess that makes Liberals feel better when they put their heads down on their pillows at night.

In order to protect Canadians' health and our environment, legislation must be strictly enforced or it will not be effective. We know the Liberals were not effective. Stiff enforcement acts as a deterrence to future damage to human health and the environment.

Enforcement means that parties subject to the requirements under environmental laws or regulations will comply with those requirements or pay real consequences.

Enforcement is a pivotal part of achieving this government's goals to clean up our environment and protect the health of Canadians. Enforcement of an act must be fair, predictable and consistent for government, industry, organized labour and individuals.

This government's clean air act, Bill C-30, builds on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, among other things, by strengthening enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with all requirements of our bill; not so with Bill C-288 before us today. This is a neutered bill.

Our clean air act by contrast is a strong bill. Enforcement officers will carry out inspections to verify compliance with the law and direct corrective measures to be taken. Where there is danger to the environment, human life or health, the government would be able to act; not so with Bill C-288.

Under our clean air act, enforcement officers will be able to conduct investigations of suspected transportation violations by controlling the movement of cars, trucks, trains or other modes of transport. Officers can stop them or move them to locations suitable for inspection.

Enforcement officers have the power of peace officers as well. Maximum penalties can include fines of up to $1 million for each day an offence continues, imprisonment of up to three years, or both. That is a bill with real teeth, not like Bill C-288.

How about this? Where an offence continues for more than one day, the person may be convicted for a separate offence for each day the illegal activity lasts.

Canada's clean air act has real muscle. Bill C-288 sadly gets sand kicked in its face. Our Bill C-30 will strengthen this government's ability to establish tradable unit programs for air pollutants and GHGs by proposing amendments to CEPA's current penalty provisions to make them work better with emissions trading systems. There is no such improvement in Bill C-288.

Canada's clean air act also provides all fines for violations be paid into an environmental damages fund, a special account created to assist in managing financial compensation granted to Environment Canada for restoration of damages sustained by the environment. There is no such improvement in Bill C-288.

Where there is danger to the environment, human life or health, we will take action and we will have the tools to act. Bill C-288, sad to say, cannot be enforced and the Liberals know it and they do not care about that. That is a danger where the environment, human life or health is in jeopardy. Bill C-288 is not a plan for climate change; it is a recipe for the type of inaction the Liberals became infamous for.

Bill C-288 is too little, too late, no plan, no muscle, not worth supporting. Canadians deserve better. Canadians are demanding better than Bill C-288. I ask all colleagues in the House to vote against Bill C-288 and put their efforts instead into passing Canada's clean air act.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, It is my pleasure to rise in this House this afternoon and speak on Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

For Canadians who are watching, let me read that again: “an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol”.

I would like to commend my colleague, the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, who introduced the bill and it was passionately driven through the House of Commons.

The bill has captured the attention of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, even the National Post has half of its front page today dedicated to the merits of the bill.

Canadians are concerned about the Conservative government's disregard for climate change. If there is one thing that has become clear to me hearing the debate on the bill thus far it is this: On the most important issue of the early 21st century, the Conservatives have decided to surrender without even trying to fight.

Last week in this chamber the three opposition parties united behind a Liberal motion calling upon the government to use the existing means provided in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to take necessary steps to meet our obligations under the Kyoto protocol. The vast majority of Canadians are with us but the government is lagging far behind.

The Conservative decision not to try is incredibly unfortunate. I hardly need to remind the House that, according to the best experts today, if the average temperature of the Earth's surface increases by 2° above what it was during the pre-industrial era, by the year 2080, hundreds of millions of people, our children's families, are likely to be confronted with flooding along coasts and widespread famines. Hundreds of millions of people risk coming down with malaria and billions of others may run short of fresh water.

It is necessary to recognize that the effects of climate change have already been felt, especially in the north, and that the situation will worsen if we do not take concrete action in Canada, as well as elsewhere in the world. This is, therefore, at its heart, a collective and global effort.

Climate change deniers and Kyoto resisters are fond of painting scenes of economic ruin to keep us from working together to improve our environment. The Prime Minister has called Kyoto “a socialist scheme”. I am only led to conclude, as a result of those comments, that he was not able to distinguish between Japan and China.

The Minister of the Environment, the former minister of energy in the province of Ontario, for three years led the province-wide campaign against the global response to climate change. In fact, he fundraised, along with the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition, to lead the anti-Kyoto movement across Canada.

On his watch, the Minister of the Environment, while in Ontario, oversaw a 127% increase in the use of coal fired plants. On his watch, the Minister of the Environment oversaw a 124% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the province of Ontario, 114% increase in emissions of sulphur dioxide and a 22% increase in the emissions of nitric oxide.

Canadians know the record. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment are not prepared to admit their roles when it comes to the undermining of a climate change response in one province, the province of Ontario, just as they are very anxious to run away from their record in their contributions, as Justice O'Connor reminded us, their direct contributions to the Walkerton crisis where seven Canadians died and 2,300 Canadians were seriously sickened. They do not want to tell this to Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know that they now form part of the new government led by the leader of climate change denying in Canada.

Whatever the case, for over one year, I and my colleagues and many other Canadians have been asking a simple question of the Prime Minister: “Tell us what your plan is. Please deliver a plan to us. Where are we going on climate change”. A plan is necessary to take meaningful action.

There is no evidence of any plan, only ad hoc announcements, a big green tie and photo ops in Paris. However, we do have evidence of where this government is going.

The only Conservative track record on the environment is one of drastic cuts. The list is a long one: cuts totalling close to $900 million affecting the EnerGuide program for house renovations and the initiative for low income households; cuts of close to $600 million in the wind power production incentive program and the renewable energy production incentive program; cuts of $2 billion to the climate change programs; cuts of $1 billion for the climate change fund and the list keeps getting longer all the time.

This government is putting an end to the funding of a program promoting the design and construction of new energy efficient buildings. This is a program with over 500 design and construction projects for buildings that are, on average, 35% more energy efficient than other new buildings. The financial support provided under this program has helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 182 tonnes annually for each multiple unit residential building, and, in the case of commercial buildings, by almost 300 tonnes annually.

This government did not evaluate the effectiveness of these programs at all. It abolished them because they were Liberal initiatives and because it is a far-right government that is influenced by the Republican Party in the United States.

Yesterday in committee, the Minister of the Environment was asked repeatedly to give the Canadian people a single, solitary number. When he was ask how much the government spent on climate change in its first 12 months, he was unable to answer. He was asked the question six times, until we suggested that perhaps the Minister of Finance should come and do his job at committee.

It is flabbergasting that we have had to table legislation to call on the government to come up with a plan to fight climate change. Should we be surprised, given the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment , the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health and even the Minister of Public Safety who described climate change as a joke on his website until he was caught in what has become known as a Flintstone's moment? The moment this was discovered, the Minister of Public Safety removed all reference to it from his website.

The Kyoto protocol is more than numbers and targets. It is not just a step in the right direction, it is the right direction that will lead to the right results. To go it alone with a so-called made in Canada plan, which, apparently, is somewhere in France, is to misunderstand the very basis of the challenges we face.

I am sorry that we had to legislate this but the government was unprepared to move with Canadians, unprepared to continue our fine work under the Liberal green plan to work with industry in the provinces and the territories. It cut funding to Ontario by $557 million to shut down coal plants. It cut funding to Quebec by $328 million for the Kyoto projects.

As a nation and as a people, we committed to lead the world in a global response to a global problem. The government refuses to accept that although there are over 180 nation states, there is only one atmosphere, and there must be a global response, which is why 168 countries joined Canada in signing the treaty. The government would like us to leave the treaty but will not tell Canadians the truth about it.

It is time for the government to hear Canadians, to act to implement the Kyoto protocol and to work toward saving our solitary atmosphere.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-288. The summary of the bill reads:

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.

I took the time to read out the summary for the House so as to be clear for the members present and the public viewing today about just what we have before us for debate. I want Canadians to understand this bill, because in essence it highlights very clearly the failure of the Liberals when they were in government and in particular of their current leader when he had control of the environment file and did not himself proceed with just the actions that are listed in this bill today.

When the Kyoto protocol was signed, I can recall very vividly my personal sense that finally there would be action on this most critical issue. One can imagine that as time wore on it became clear that the Liberal government of the day was only engaging in smoke and mirrors on the issue or, worse, did not grasp the significance to the peoples of Canada and the world that a failure to act--yes, a failure--would have and what would result.

In every sense of the word, the Liberals in control of the environment file failed Canadians by not ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were brought under control and lowered. Now we know the degree of that failure. Greenhouse gas emissions soared by 26% by 2004.

Other countries such as Germany, which was required to lower its emissions by 8%, actually got them down to 17.2% by 2004. As for the United Kingdom, we all have seen the movies about the smokestacks of England and the horrendous record it is supposed to have. It was required to reduce by 8% and got it down by 14%. Russia, which had a zero requirement, came down by 32% by 2004. In contrast, the United States rose by 15.8% by 2004. The worst of the pack was Canada, which was up by 26.6% by 2004.

Day in and day out, while the Liberals went about their self-absorbed lives of entitlement, not only our environment but ordinary Canadians paid a heavy price. Our air and our water got dirtier. Smog days grew more frequent and worse.

Throughout the years since signing on to Kyoto, Canada has lost its opportunity to assume a leadership role on this file. Somewhat like Nero, as the Liberals fiddled our air quality worsened, our rivers were dirtied, and our weather began to change, with clear patterns of increasingly worse storms, with deluges and with winds of unprecedented violence.

The Liberal deathbed conversion symbolized in this bill may well be heartfelt, I will give them that, but the Liberal record on greenhouse gas emissions is what it is. This bill will not change those facts. As late as it is, Bill C-288, also known as the Kyoto protocol implementation act, is worthy of support and will have it from our party when it comes time for a vote in the House.

However, it is deeply troubling that it is the Liberals in opposition putting forward such strong Kyoto language when they could have done it all while they were in government.

Because of the lack of action to date, we now have the forests of western Canada being decimated by the pine beetle because it is now able to survive in our climate whereas it previously could not withstand the cold here. Our winter service ice roads are now unstable and melting much faster than usual, making it difficult to get food and supplies to our isolated communities in the north.

Let us look at the damage being done to our winter resorts, which have faced green grass far into the normal tourist season. The winter sports economy is but one example of the beginning of very serious economic problems that ordinary people are beginning to face today.

I can tell this House emphatically that the NDP has always been on record as demanding that our federal government do more to ensure that it meets and exceeds Kyoto targets.

Notwithstanding this bill, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-377, entitled “a climate change accountability act”, which would serve as an effective framework to achieve science-based greenhouse gas emission controls and reduce targets beyond Kyoto.

This member is proud of the fact that it was our party and our leader who broke the logjam to get something done on climate change and on pollution.

The climate change accountability act means that Canada will start to meet the challenges of climate change today, not in decades.

The core of the NDP's Bill C-377 is based on science-based benchmarks, not arbitrary ones as found in the clean air act.

Bill C-377 has short, medium and long term targets.

Bill C-377 will get the government moving immediately, because within six months of its passage the government must develop and publish a target for 2015, and regulations to meet the bill's targets must be in place no later than December 31, 2007.

Sometimes in this House it feels like we have to drag other parties to the altar, so to speak, with the Liberals' inaction over the many years of their mandate and now the Conservative clean air act, which is euphemistically called the hot air act in environmental circles.

Today, thanks to our Bill C-30, there is an opportunity for real action on climate change. I call upon all parties to stop the posturing, stop the obstruction and get to work with the NDP to get the job done.

People often ask why I ran to represent Hamilton East--Stoney Creek in this auspicious place. I ran for two reasons: the vision and the passion of the leader of the NDP and my anger over the abject failure of the Liberal Party over the last 13-plus years. Five surplus budgets and three majority governments and still too many Canadians go hungry, still too many Canadians sleep in the streets, and Canadians face an uncertain future because of the Dion gap of runaway greenhouse gas emissions.

I could have decided to stand outside of this place and rail against the government. Instead, I came in to work with the NDP caucus to ensure we all get the job done for ordinary Canadians. I call upon this House to work with the Bill C-30 committee, using Bill C-377, Bill C-288 and the best science available to change the clean air act to effective environmental legislation.

I am getting a little too emotional here and I have to pause. This is so critical and so important to our country. We must come together as parliamentarians and get this job done.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister quoted Professor Boyd from UBC. It is unfortunate that the member was in a bad mood yesterday. He attacked the minister. He attacked the Auditor General at the committee. He must have got up on the wrong side of the bed.

The government is committed to working with all parties, including the opposition. We need to have a real plan. The plan is Bill C-30, not Bill C-288. I encourage the member to start working and stop obstructing.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Villeneuve also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sheila Fraser]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is another quote from the letter:

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

And yet another quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, allow me to say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to join in the debate on this important bill. Allow me also to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, and all those who worked directly or indirectly on this important bill.

I have said from the start that this bill is about the future. Its purpose is to take concrete action immediately, action to improve the living conditions of future generations.

This bill is necessary for one simple reason: because the Conservatives refuse to take such action.

First they renounced Kyoto and then they introduced a bill on clean air, which clearly reflected their unspoken intentions to give up on combating climate change without even having the courage to try.

The government's bill, criticized by all the opposition parties, scientists, environmental groups and even by the media, did not contain and still does not contain a short-term schedule. There are no reduction targets for the short term. There is nothing in the bill. It includes no measure that would allow us to achieve our Kyoto objectives.

Seeing that Canadians are furious with the way the government has managed the environment and with government incompetence, especially with regard to climate change, the Prime Minister decided to fire his environment minister and tried to shine up his image on the environment. Canadians are no fools. They know that the government does not believe in what it is doing.

Canadians are not going to believe the Conservatives just because the Prime Minister appointed a new Minister of the Environment, or because the Minister of the Environment came in wearing a green tie the day Parliament resumed sitting or because they have decided to recycle old Liberal programs. Canadians will not believe them.

The Conservatives make a show of taking an interest in the environment, but they actually could not care less about it. They continue to reject Kyoto, and they do not comply with international law. They could not care less about what Canadians want.

When a government flouts international law and what its own citizens want, and when it does not shoulder its responsibilities in the face of one of the biggest challenges to our planet, Parliament has the ability and the moral duty to force the government to do so.

Over the last few weeks we have heard a lot of rhetoric in the House about climate change and the environment. I would like to take this opportunity to remind members and Canadians of what is really at stake here.

Earlier today—and my colleagues are no doubt aware of this—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its latest report on the science of climate change. I would remind this House that this panel's mandate is to advise governments around the world on the scientific and economic aspects of climate change, as well as its impacts.

This report states unequivocally what we already know, at least on this side of the House: climate change is one of the main challenges, if not the main challenge, facing humanity, not only because of how it affects the environment, but also because of how it affects health, public health, food safety, quality of life and economic prosperity. This report clearly shows that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in 650,000 years. This is bad news for the Conservative government, but it is true. The government will have to face facts.

By the way, if ever there was a plane ticket worth buying, it was the one that took the Minister of the Environment to Paris so that he could finally grasp that climate change is caused by human activity. The money that went for his plane ticket yesterday was money well spent.

The report also indicates that average Arctic temperatures are increasing at almost twice the global average rate. Scientists have also discovered that Arctic sea ice is melting faster than their models—which were already quite alarming—predicted. This indicates something we already knew: greenhouse gas concentrations are rising rapidly. Without a considerable reduction in the pollution caused by these gases, the world is headed for a climate-related catastrophe.

If we do not act together on a global scale, if countries fail to agree on ways to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions, the planet's average temperature could rise by at least two degrees centigrade, which would be catastrophic.

Let us look at what we can do. We could try to be more positive, more optimistic; we could try to work together to make a difference. For example, we could heat our homes with renewable energy, sell our state-of-the-art green technology around the world and protect the natural heritage Canadians hold so dear. The purpose of this bill is to get us working together, to get us doing something tangible and positive for the future.

We must ensure that Canada chooses the right path for the good of our children and grandchildren, but also for our own good. We know, we are perfectly aware—and Canadians are too—that climate change is real. We can already see its effects. The Kyoto protocol is the tool the international community is using to begin fighting climate change. It may not be perfect, but at least it is getting over 160 countries involved and calling on their ingenuity and good intentions to fight climate change.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol after a majority vote in the House. It came into effect in 2005 and now it is international law. However, one of the Conservative government's first acts in office was to walk away from Kyoto. The Prime Minister said that Canada's Kyoto target was too tough, so he decided to abandon the target without even trying to meet it. That is a fact. A few green photo ops with his brand new environment minister will not change that.

The truth is that the Conservative government has embarrassed Canada at every international Kyoto meeting since taking office. That is the truth.

Why is the Kyoto protocol important? It is because no country can fight climate change alone. The pollution that is causing global warming is a worldwide phenomenon that affects each and every country. From a climate perspective, it matters little whether that pollution comes from Toronto or Nairobi.

Canada will not be able to avoid the consequences that I mentioned earlier, unless it agrees to cooperate with the rest of the planet, which it refuses to do. The only way to work together is through the Kyoto protocol.

My bill, namely Bill C-288, will ensure that Canada fulfills its Kyoto commitments. The protocol requires the government to achieve its objectives and to implement this plan through real environmental regulations.

The government can choose the means that it wants, and it can spend money or not. It can do it without spending any money, and it is very aware of that. That is the government's prerogative. Its bill provides options, and it is up to the government alone to choose which ones it wants to implement. The government alone will decide whether or not to spend money.

I will conclude with a message of hope, because we, on this side of the House, are optimistic. We believe in the future, and we want to work together. Bill C-288 reflects our hope that Canada will choose the right path, while listening to climate experts, playing a leadership role with the international community and transforming its economy to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

In fact, this is what all the polls are saying. Canadians across the country want to work together to act and do something about climate change. It is still time to follow that path, but we must act quickly, because the Kyoto target date is very close. Scientists are saying that we only have about 10 years left before all the damage caused to climate by humans' actions becomes irreversible.

I am urging all members of all parties to show courage and boldness so that, together, we can meet this challenge. Let us stand in solidarity with the rest of the world in the fight against climate change, through the Kyoto protocol. Let us work together for our future. More importantly, let us work together for the future of our children and grandchildren.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-288. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 through 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Bill C-288—Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two different issues.

Bill C-288 does not propose spending. It proposes monitoring. That is the whole purpose of it. What the government does outside the bill to meet climate change is the government's business. The bill does not do more than simply say the government must have a plan for Kyoto and must tell how that plan works.

The second point is that the two amendments do not propose specific programming spending. Both amendments could be dealt with by reallocating funds within the relevant agencies, whether it is the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which could reallocate within its spending package what it chose to do and drop something else. So could the worker adjustment funds. There is no specific spending proposal that cannot be met by reallocating funds within those two categories.

Therefore, I request that this be taken into consideration in making your decision, Sir.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have a legitimate point of order with regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto implementation bill.

In your ruling of September 27, 2006, you concluded that Bill C-288 did not require a royal recommendation. I would appreciate your consideration of two developments that have occurred since that ruling.

First, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development amended Bill C-288. In particular, I would like to draw two of these amendments to your attention.

One amendment was to include the require in clause 5(1)(a)(iii.1) that the government report:

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

The second amendment added a new requirement in clause 10 for the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to undertake research, gather information and advise the minister on the new climate change plan required by the bill.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is funded through government appropriations and reports to Parliament through the Minister of the Environment. While the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy does currently undertake research on the environment, the specific research this amendment requires is a new and distinct responsibility and as such would involve expenditures for a new and distinct purpose.

On May, 2005, the Acting Speaker ruled that expenditures for a new purpose require a royal recommendation:

—a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where more money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is being significantly altered.

The second development that I wish to draw to your attention is recent public comments made by the member for Honoré-Mercier that Bill C-288 would necessitate the spending of public funds.

In a CBC radio program on December 9, 2006, the member stated, “The bill forces the government to meet its Kyoto commitments”. When the member was asked to elaborate on the cost to meet the emission reduction targets in the Kyoto protocol, the member stated:

Even the worst case scenario, which would be to buy almost all the credits on the international level, is within the range of the cuts of the GST they made.

The 2006 federal budget estimates that the cost of reducing the GST from 7% to 6% will be in the $8.69 billion range over the next two years.

It seems to me that Bill C-288 has been written in a way that appears to avoid specifying a requirement for direct new government spending.

However, the member's recent media statement indicates his belief that the bill would result in a very large requirement for new government spending. To use the member's own example, this could involve costs of over $4 billion a year.

Since this new information has become available after your ruling on Bill C-288, I would request that you clarify your ruling on whether Bill C-288 obliges the government to spend additional public funds.

If the House agrees, I am prepared to table a copy of both the transcript of member's remarks in both official languages.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, we will find out one day the Bloc's position on liquefied natural gas imports into its region, but perhaps not today.

It is today that we are addressing the debate that has been put forward by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the leader of the official opposition. It is a topic and a debate that I engage in with great interest and passion.

This chamber can be seized with many different topics. Members from all sides can get quite excited and brought into the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place. Perhaps no other issue and no other topic facing the country, facing all of our individual communities and, indeed, facing the international community, than the topic of climate change and the pollution that we allow into our atmosphere and our environment has seized us more.

Certainly, this past week for me and other members in this place who work on the issue of the environment has been quite a busy week. There have been many suggestions and proposals put forward, and a constant challenge for members of Parliament to rise above partisan interests, and to rise above the rhetoric of daily question period that plays to specific partisan interests. Our challenge is to grasp the ideas, the concepts and the actions that are required for our country to once again be proud of our standing in the international community, for our economy to change course, and for our communities to develop in such a way that we work within the context of this environment and this planet.

I think it may have been Mr. Suzuki himself who said we must understand that conventional economics, as it is understood, is a form of brain damage. The reason he said this is because of the concept that we can continually grow exponentially within a finite structure is not sane; it is counterintuitive and makes no sense.

The motion that has been brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a motion and a topic which I believe sincerely the future generations will judge us. They will judge all of us as leaders in this country, not in the strict definition of the word politician or act thereof but as leaders in this country, to make decisions, make pronouncements, and to take action at long last that Canadians so desperately want to see.

It is important to take a small walk through history.

There were some discrepancies between the member for Ottawa South and the Minister of the Environment, so we will clarify the numbers, just to ensure we are all on the same page.

The Earth Summit at Rio in 1992, and some members in this place were there, brought together the world leaders. With great conviction, they produced much rhetoric and pronouncements, and announcements and press conferences. However, one of the substantive things that came from that debate, that crisis that the world was seeing with respect to our environment, was the decision to go on and negotiate an international pact, a treaty that would be binding, that would connect the countries of the world into a common cause, and that cause was to reduce the effects of climate change.

At that time, some of the more progressive climatologists and scientists in the world were saying that this is a serious matter, but the skeptics and the naysayers were far and wide. Yet over time, the debate has gained momentum and with the exception of some backward-looking members in this place and a few narrow pockets of self-interest in this country, the debate has been settled that human-caused anthropogenic climate change is a fact and a reality, and is having an effect on our world.

I know the minister will be going to Europe later this week and will hear directly from the more than 2,000 leading scientists on this issue. They will claim the debate is over as to whether the effects are happening; the only question now is how much hotter is the world getting, and how much of a great change is facing us in our environment?

Kyoto was negotiated by a former Liberal government in December 1997. Parliament ratified that decision, under a Liberal government, in 2002. One would think with all that history behind it that when it was ratified in February 2005, after Russia ratified it in 2004, the government would have had plans in place. One would think that the government would have taken action, would have been making the systemic changes that are required in the way that we produce and use energy primarily in this country to allow us to fall into compliance to the agreements that we made, but there was more cynicism at play than that.

We have heard from Conservative members that protestations were made to executives in Calgary by the former leader of the Liberal Party to not worry, that Kyoto was more of a protocol and an exercise in public relations, but that it was not serious. The oil and gas sector in Alberta would face no hard times or no encumbering of its business.

Lo and behold, the surprise came upon us and the protocol was ratified. Now we look to the record. The record is important to establish including the numbers and the comments that I am using here, none of which are under dispute.

For eight of the nine years since this protocol was ratified the Liberals were in power. They negotiated the targets. The Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister for 18 months of those eight of nine years. Plans were delayed and it was the Commissioner of the Environment herself, Johanne Gélinas, who said that “--the measures are not up to the task of meeting our Kyoto obligations”. That is a direct quote. She also said:

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

This again was stated by Johanne Gélinas, someone who members of the Liberal benches, the Bloc, and the NDP, all opposition parties praised her work as a true fighter for the environment and auditor of this country.

Under the Liberals and Conservatives, the most recent numbers we have, and these are not disputed, say that we are almost 35% above the targets that we set for ourselves. For Canadians watching this that is a staggering number. It is a staggering condemnation of inaction and dithering that has gone on too long.

The time for action is now. That action has been decided through agreement by all four parties in this place to take place in a legislative committee set up to redo, rewrite, and redraft Bill C-30, a bill that was misnamed as the clean air act. When the details were looked at by members of the opposition, environment groups and Canadians, it was found seriously lacking.

Lo and behold, the New Democrats made a suggestion. I remember the day we made the suggestion. The NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, stood in this place and asked whether the Prime Minister would give this bill to a special legislative committee and allow it to be redrafted from top to bottom. Some of my Conservative colleagues guffawed, laughed, chuckled, and said things I could not repeat on the record which were directed toward the NDP leader. It is true. It was incredible. The guffaws were loud.

Yet the Prime Minister, in a state of desperation, reminded us of similar times when the Liberals were in power and needed to have a budget rewritten because there was a massive corporate tax cut included that was not campaigned upon and the budget was redrafted. The NDP, pushing to redraft a flawed piece of legislation, got agreement from all the parties to do this. How quickly the parties have forgotten.

We need to go through the record because it is important. The Liberal leader voted with the Conservatives against mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars in February 2005. This is not distant history. This is recent. He voted against an NDP proposal for mandatory fuel efficiency standards. He was absent from the vote in fact on Bill C-288, the bill we will be debating tomorrow to implement the Kyoto accord. He was busy with other things.

He voted against the NDP proposal to include the precautionary principle in CEPA in November 1999, a strange thing to do, the precautionary principle being something that is known and understood. I know the member for Ottawa South is a great champion of such a cause and concept. His own leader voted against it recently. He voted in favour of allowing oil and gas companies to deduct an even greater portion of their royalties. He did that in October 2003.

We are going in the wrong direction. Science warns us that a rise in the average global temperature of 2° by 2050 or sooner will have catastrophic impacts. That is the record from the one who cast a green scarf around his neck and claimed to be champion of the environment. He may wish to rename his dog at some point in this debate.

The riding experience is something that is important to me. I come from the northwest of British Columbia and we all need to take this experience back to our homes and understand what it means for our constituents. We in the northwest of British Columbia have seen the devastating impacts of climate change.

The forestry councils of British Columbia and Canada have said direct causal links between the change in climate created by human activity has caused the pine beetle infestation to spread right across B.C. It is now headed over the Rockies. The foresters, and no tree huggers by their own admission, have said this is what is going on.

We have seen a change in the temperature of our rivers and our waters. The salmon migration has changed and the quality of life enjoyed by first nations people from time immemorial in our region and by the people who have since moved there like myself has changed.

There was a suggestion by one of my staff some months ago that we may wish to screen An Inconvenient Truth, a film by the defeated former presidential candidate in the United States. I said it has been out for months, no one will come, but let us try it anyway. We showed it in five different small communities in my riding and there was standing room only in every single community. The most interesting thing was not that more than 500 people came out to watch it, but they stayed afterward because they wanted to talk about these issues. They wanted to talk about what was happening not only in our communities but at the federal level.

When I would explain the process that the NDP had negotiated for Bill C-30, they were encouraged and told me to go back there and get it done and make the proposals. For months the NDP has had front and centre on our website, ndp.ca for those viewing at home with access to the Internet, those proposals out in the public domain so that the other parties can critique them or add to them. What have the other parties done? They brought forward nothing except an extensive witness list, more than 100 witnesses for something we have been studying for more than two and a half years. Let us bring more witnesses to discuss climate change. Let us talk about the nuance of the debate.

Every party in this place, every platform will claim to have the answers to climate change, and yet when we ask for those answers to be brought forward in amendments and suggestions, in concrete ideas, they are found wanting. Not a single party has brought forward an amendment other than the New Democrats. Not a single party has made a constructive suggestion of how to make this bill better. They have just said it is no good and that is not good enough.

I remember when Bill C-30 was being tabled, the ministers of the Crown, one by one, it seemed there was a roll call, approached me and said this bill is going to knock our socks off, this clean air thing is going to be so good the NDP will have to support it. It was so disappointing to see the eventual reality for that bill was dead on arrival.

The Liberals and Conservatives have decided to stall on this. The sincerity of their action on this is found seriously wanting. The Conservatives delayed debating it in Parliament in December. The Liberals did not even name the members to sit on the committee until the 11th hour, the last possible moment. Only then did they slip in their member list. They were confused. They were not sure anyone wanted to be there and then they all wanted to be there. They got themselves in a snit.

Both parties refused to meet during the winter break as the NDP suggested. They were busy. At committee the Liberals refused to agree to a quick process. As the member from the Bloc has pointed out, members of the Conservatives and Liberals are interested in extensive debate. To their credit there is one thing the Liberals have been very good at throughout the entire environment debate and that is the ability to seek consultation and more consultation, and more meetings and further consultations.

When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the environment, I would sit with him and say we need to get such-and-such done. He would shake his head and say, “I have a real struggle at cabinet with this, I cannot get that done. I cannot get mandatory fuel efficiencies. I cannot get any connection between research and development connected to the environment. I cannot get it done. The cabinet is resisting.”

Yet, the Liberals will stand in this place and I am sure members will say it again, that we have the ability to do it right now, we could make these changes right now. That is incorrect. We have had that ability for more than five years, four of those years under the Liberals. They had that ability if they claim it to be true for all of those years and they could not get it done. The reason is they needed to return to the cabinet table. They needed to enter back into the political fray behind those closed doors to make the types of progressive changes for the environment that were needed and they could not get it done.

They could not do it, whether it was the minister of the environment, now the Leader of the Opposition, or other ministers of the environment. I know Mr. Anderson from Victoria has made public statements about his inability to get it through cabinet. We have said join with us, have the courage of the convictions to put this into legislation, to draft this in such a way that it can no longer be done behind the closed doors of cabinet. It must be done in this place.

Parliament and the public must see what parliamentarians are up to when it comes to climate change and the environment. If there is no other issue that must be in the public discourse, it is this one, but instead we have had delay and dithering.

I will read an important letter, which was sent on January 22 and signed by seven of the largest and most important environmental groups in the country. It is an important quote and it states:

We believe that all parties understand the need for urgent action on climate change and clean air, so the committee should have no need for lengthy debates. A time period on the order of four weeks should be enough to debate the wording of any amendments and to consider C-30 clause by clause.

This was the very motion the NDP brought forward at committee and members of the House from the other three parties voted 11 to 1 against us for such a suggestion. They said that we should take our time. We do not have the luxury of time. Of all the things at our disposal right now, time is not one of them.

The letter also said:

As you know, we are interested in the most efficient possible Committee process with respect to C-30. The issues involved with this piece of legislation have already been studied extensively, and it is our view that the Committee needs to hear from a minimum of witnesses in order to gather the necessary information for its report.

Canada needs aggressive action on these issues.

More than 100 witnesses were proposed.

I am not sure Liberal members would know aggressive action on the environment if it came up and smacked them on the head.

The rush is on. Every day we ponder, consider, navel-gaze and have speculative conversations about the impact of climate change, but greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the case becomes impossible. In fact, the Liberal Party might even be in collusion with the Conservative Party to ensure that nothing happens. Maybe they want to roll it all in to the debate around the budget. Maybe the Liberals want to roll it into confidence debates and perhaps at some point in some future imagined and wishful thinking, they will regain power, get it to cabinet and delay more.

The record is absolutely solid in this respect. The very member who was elected a short time ago to lead the Liberal Party claims a new conviction to the environment. I remember the green scarves fondly. My goodness, look at what he named his dog. It seems the solutions are found wanting. When his members show up at committee, they have absolutely no solutions as to how to reach the Kyoto targets or how to reset Canada back on the track. They come wanting. They come lacking.

We must understand that we will be judged by future generations about our actions now. We have proposed a course of action to which all parties in this place agreed. All parties recognized it as a way forward and chose to involve themselves in the committee process. We must act beyond narrow partisan interests. We must act in a responsible way, in a way of leadership. We must take command and have the courage to seize the opportunity in front of us.

At committee, Liberal members said that they needed to hear more plans from the government. They needed to understand the greater context of the plan. That is incredible. Waiting for a Conservative plan on the environment might even take longer than the time we waited for the Liberal plan on the environment. They need to put those partisan interests aside. They need to come forward with serious and honourable recommendations, solutions they all claim to have.

We are all intelligent members in the place. We have studied this issue for quite a number of years. We need to get tough. We need to make the hard decisions. We can make those decisions. The people in northwest British Columbia demand that we start to make changes. As Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist from the World Bank and who we have all quoted in this place, has said that the cost of inaction is significant, perhaps as much as 20% of the world's GDP. Perhaps worse in terms of economic catastrophes in the first world war and the Great Depression combined, he has called what has happened with pollution perhaps the world's greatest market failure.

It is important that we take a progressive stance. It is important that we move to a place where this issue no longer gains interest for one party or another.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word “action”: (f) understanding the importance and urgency of this matter, this House calls on the legislative committee currently dealing with Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) to complete its work and report back to this House on or before March 2, 2007, in line with the recommendation of leading environmental organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise on this opposition day to discuss the Kyoto protocol.

The motion introduced by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

I would like to emphasize the words “is available immediately to launch the necessary action”.

Tomorrow—Friday, February 2—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was created in 1988, will release the first part of its fourth assessment report, which states that the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases has increased dramatically since the pre-industrial era, that is, since the 1750s. This increase is due primarily to human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use in agriculture and forestry.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provided the scientific basis leading to the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and, a few years later in December 1997, the Kyoto protocol.

It is clear to the Bloc Québécois that human activity produces greenhouse gases and is responsible for emissions and climate change. The Bloc Québécois also recognizes how urgent it is to take action and has never stopped pressuring the federal government—whether Liberal or Conservative—to take significant steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting the Kyoto protocol targets.

The Bloc Québécois has denounced the Conservative government's push to focus the debate more on air quality than on reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to meet Canada's Kyoto targets. We therefore support the Liberal Party motion, insofar as the required, realistic plan includes the Bloc Québécois' demands, namely, full respect for the Kyoto targets, the possibility for Quebec to choose a regional approach—since Quebec already has its own plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the creation of a carbon credit exchange in Montreal and the $328 million that Quebec needs to meet its target of a 6% reduction compared to 1990.

Indeed, the motion moved by the leader of the Liberal Party is little more than a copy of the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois and adopted on May 16, 2006, which called for an efficient and fair plan to adhere to the Kyoto protocol. That motion was adopted by the majority of the members of this House. With the motion, the Bloc Québécois was sending a clear message to the Conservative government on the eve of the climate change conference in Bonn. The government was asked to commit to respecting the Kyoto protocol, an international agreement to which Canada is legally bound and which a vast majority of Quebeckers support. In fact, 76% of Quebeckers still believe that the government must make the necessary effort to reach our Kyoto targets; otherwise, it risks jeopardizing Canada's credibility on the international stage.

Yet the Conservative government stubbornly rejected the Kyoto protocol and lost face in front of all the countries that ratified it. This position is no surprise, coming as it does from people who deny the environmental impact of global warming and scoff at the Kyoto protocol.

In 2002, when he was leader of the Canadian Alliance, the current Prime Minister wrote, in a letter he himself signed:

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations. Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

The Prime Minister went even further:

Workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. There are no Canadian winners under the Kyoto accord.

Not to be outdone, the Minister of Natural Resources stated on December 3, 2002:

—I will start off with a very bold statement, that Kyoto should not be ratified. It is based on uncertain science with new doubts coming to light almost daily. It is based on poor economic models which hide the serious damage that will occur to Canada's economy.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government must comply with certain basic principles: honouring international commitments, making an equal effort and fully respecting Quebec's jurisdictions. On the issue of climate change, these three principles have been repeatedly undermined by Ottawa, both by the Conservative party and by the Liberal Party.

Even though the federal government ratified the Kyoto protocol on December 17, 2002 after a majority vote in the House of Commons, thereby promising to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 6% compared to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, Ottawa has a dismal record.

In 2004, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were 26.5% higher than in 1990. Consequently, to reach the target of a 6% reduction compared to 1990 levels, Canada must now reduce its emissions by 200 megatonnes annually. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are to blame for this sad state of affairs.

Quebec made different choices. Between 1990 and 2004, its greenhouse gases increased by just 6.1%, which is four times less than the Canadian average. Furthermore, Quebec is already showing leadership with its plan to combat climate change and is proposing a plan to remedy the situation.

We have fundamental principles and these principles have been undermined by a Liberal government in the past and by the current Conservative government. When they were in power—it is all well and good for them to table a motion today—the Liberals dragged their feet instead of taking action to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. They increased the number of voluntary-based programs, which were not very successful, instead of opting for real solutions such as a territorial approach and the implementation of a carbon exchange.

Not only did they not help Canada achieve the objectives—under their government, greenhouse gas emissions increased by nearly 30%—but they hindered Quebec's ability to fully achieve the targets by refusing to give it the $328 million needed for Quebec's green plan. In her last report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development described the government's efforts to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives as too few and too slow.

The commissioner was also very critical of the intensity approach, saying that it will not help achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives and could even increase Canadian emissions.

The Bloc Québécois is asking Ottawa for a plan to implement the Kyoto protocol that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels and a series of measures that come under federal government jurisdiction: strict vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards; incentives for buying environmental vehicles; significant support for the development of renewable energies, such as wind energy; the elimination of tax benefits for oil companies; and subsidies for agencies that contribute to achieving the Kyoto protocol objectives.

The Bloc Québécois wants to emphasize that the plan should include the creation of a carbon exchange that will compensate provinces, companies and agencies that show leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bloc Québécois is also asking that the federal plan include—and I cannot emphasize this enough—a mechanism to allow the signing of a bilateral agreement with Quebec based on a territorial approach. This agreement should give Quebec the financial tools it needs to implement more effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its territory.

We believe this is the most efficient, effective 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. In short, the Bloc Québécois concurs with the Liberals on the objective of the motion, even though the means envisaged by the Bloc Québécois to meet Kyoto targets are different.

I would like to speak more about the territorial approach that we favour for the Kyoto protocol . The Bloc Québécois has always called for this territorial approach. Given the major differences between the economies of Quebec and the other provinces, as well as efforts already made, it is the only effective and equitable approach that will not require years of negotiations. The principle is quite simple: Quebec and the provinces may opt out of the federal plan and adopt their own measures to achieve mandatory reductions of emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.

In order to allow Quebec and the other provinces to opt out, the territorial approach would include a system for the exchange of emission permits. The Liberals were adamant about developing a sectoral approach requiring several years of work and pegging 2010 as the reference year. We spoke out against this approach several times because it is inefficient and not fair to Quebec.

Now that the deadline is looming, the federal government must opt for the territorial approach in order to accelerate, as much as possible, efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada. Yet, on two occasions, the Conservatives rejected this promising approach and, at this time, do not seem any more receptive.

We need only refer to the debates of the parliamentary committee on Bill C-288 when the Conservative Party, the government party, rejected a Bloc Québécois proposal and amendment that simply would have opened up the possibility of proceeding on a territorial basis by coming to an agreement with Quebec based on the principles of equity.

But obviously the Conservative government, like the Liberal government before it, refuses to adopt this fairer approach for Quebec, which would also enable Canada, let it be said, to reduce and to respect the Kyoto objectives.

We are in favour of this motion, of course, but we think some major changes are required in measures to reduce climate change. Fundamentally we believe that we should definitely ensure that the Kyoto objectives are respected; we agree. A change of approach is required, however, so that provinces, like Quebec, where a formal commitment has been made by its National Assembly and its government, to meet the Kyoto objectives, can be fully responsible for implementation of their own policies.

This is the approach actually that has enabled Europe to work towards the Kyoto protocol objectives and to comply with them. Europe made a commitment to Kyoto in 1997—and I was there—to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%.

I was in Kyoto and I saw how organized the Europeans were. I saw them ready to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and even to present to the international community a new strategy based on a territorial approach, whereas the federal government appeared in Kyoto without having talked with the provinces and without having established formal agreements. That is unacceptable.

The government should understand that, if this approach worked in Europe, it might well work here too. Europe, as I said, undertook to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, but it distributed its reductions among the members of its community and among the sovereign member countries of the European Community—at the time, there were 15—based on certain parameters.

The climate differs according to one's location, particularly in Canada. The economic structure is not the same. In Quebec, the manufacturing industry forms the base of the economy. The industrial sectors have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 7%, while those in the rest of Canada have increased theirs considerably.

We are not opposed to the motion. I repeat, the Bloc Québécois concurs with the Liberals on the objective of the motion and will support the motion, even though the Bloc Québécois is in favour of different ways to comply with Kyoto.

However, I would like to introduce an amendment.

I move, seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska:

That the motion be amended by replacing “regulations for industry” in paragraph (d) with “, within the limits of federal constitutional jurisdictions, establish regulations for industry and allow the signing of federal-provincial agreements for the territorial application of the Kyoto protocol”.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming today. I know it's a difficult set of circumstances.

As I listened to some of the questioning that has taken place earlier today, I have had some concerns about the great reputation that the Office of the Auditor General has right now. I'm going to try to point these out, and this is probably going to take me a few minutes. I might only get one question in here.

I heard Mr. Cullen, when he was speaking earlier about Ms. Gélinas leaving in her role as commissioner, say, “We lost an advocate.”

The brief you gave here says:

Comments by some environmentalists and more recently the introduction of Bill C-288 showed that there may be a gap between what is expected from the Commissioner and what the legislation states.

It goes on: “...would have required us”—that is, the Auditor General's Office—“to act as a policy advisor to the government of the day and to evaluate programs”.

I'm very concerned about that. As a parliamentarian, it's my job to advocate policy. It sounds as though, through Bill C-288 and everybody who's agreed with it, they would like to abdicate that responsibility as parliamentarians and place it squarely on the shoulders of either the Office of the Auditor General or an independent officer of some other branch of the Auditor General.

To me, that's quite alarming, because I can see that what's going to happen is that as soon as the policy doesn't work, they can shift the blame. The blame can be shifted away from bad policy squarely onto the shoulders of somebody else. It's always nice to have a scapegoat when your ideas don't work. I'm really concerned, because, quite frankly, I like the idea of somebody monitoring what government does. It's just a good idea to have an independent party clearly look at and assess how the government is doing in implementing policy—period.

It's the implementation of the policy that the Auditor General's Office should be responsible for—and this is my opinion—strictly. I wonder, are you not concerned about the risk of exposing the Office of the Auditor to the subjectivity of a conflict of interest between assessing policy and assessing the outcomes of how government implements programs?

Bill C-327—Broadcasting Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is now obvious that the government raises the issue of royal recommendation each and every time members of the opposition parties introduce a private member's bill.

I well recall how the government used the same tactic when Bill C-288 was introduced by my colleague from Honoré-Mercier.

If my bill were to be implemented, there would be no fundamental change in the role the CRTC plays. All we ask is that new regulations be adopted under the Broadcasting Act. We really do not need new public monies to have the CRTC apply the legislative changes I propose in Bill C-327.

Under that bill, we could very well go ahead and evaluate the situation without necessarily requiring supplementary funds.

In fact, the CRTC has already made a study of violence on television and published reports on the issue. Consequently, it would be very possible to fulfill the complete mandate of the CRTC and to adopt the changes I propose without new public funds.

[Sheila Fraser]

I know there is great reluctance to get into the substance of all of this in an in camera meeting. I would just say that I have absolutely no concerns, no problems at all, with the work that has been reported by the commissioner, because it has been reported on behalf of the Auditor General. I saw all the reports that came out; I am very comfortable with the work we did, and I think it was absolutely excellent work.

But there are people who would like the commissioner to go much further than that in certain environmental groups, I would suggest. Even the initial proposal of Bill C-288 would have had us play a role much different from the role we can actually play, and so we are putting it to the committee: do you perceive a gap? If so, I will not change the role that is actually played by the commissioner, but it might be something that parliamentarians would wish to consider going forward as we are doing this review on how we conduct our practices internally, which will continue very much as they have been in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

This one talks about Bill C-288, not the natural resources part.

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

Chair, if I may, there are three main pieces: one is from the natural resources committee that specifically looked at climate change in Canada; the second is testimony on Bill C-288, which we most recently looked at over approximately a five-week period; and the third and most substantial set is what the committee in the 38th Parliament looked at for some number of months, six months or more--it's the witnesses' testimony and some of the information they submitted to the committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's a very good idea and I thank Mr. Cullen for suggesting it. I just want clarification. Are we talking about Bill C-288 or are we just talking about the last Parliament?

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

Just on Ms. Redman's point, I'm not suggesting increased formality, just prep work, as it were, to put into this.

I'd also really encourage committee members who weren't involved in the seven- or eight-month study that we did last year on Kyoto to read the report, because we heard from just about everybody in this country who cares about climate change. Many of the witnesses have already talked to us. They've seen us again this year already on CEPA and Bill C-288. If they're willing to constrict their areas by not having 15 suggested people all from one theme, one topic.... Transportation has said they're ready. The environment groups have said they'll come, as they did on Bill C-288. I'd have to check over the notes, but I think we had six meetings for Bill C-288 in total, and part of the reason we were able to do so was that we had five witnesses a day and didn't have six people speaking to the same topic.

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, the committee has considered Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and has agreed, on Thursday, December 7 2006, to report it, with amendments. It is a great moment for those who want to deal immediately with climate change.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some of the comments that were made, particularly those regarding the minister going to Nairobi. I thank the members from the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP for accepting her invitation to go to Nairobi with her. I'm glad you found it informative.

The minister has said all along that we are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. As has been said, she was honest and shared with the Kyoto countries that we will not meet the targets. When she was in Kenya she did provide some clarification, that because of the inaction of the previous Liberal government, we find ourselves in the situation of being 35% above those targets. Of course, some didn't like her sharing the facts on why we are 35% above those targets, that it was the inaction of the previous Liberal government.

Mr. Chair, we are very committed to Kyoto and we always have been. The Kenyan government asked the minister to stay, so she stayed another couple of days and with our government signed a memorandum of understanding to help them with conservation projects in Kenya. That's how well respected she is. She also had a number of other countries share with her how happy they are with her commitment to Kyoto. They also shared the difficulties that they're experiencing as well in meeting the targets.

We've heard from witnesses that Canada now cannot meet the targets. That's what the experts have said. So the minister has been honest.

But we remain committed. We are one of 165 countries that have signed to continue our commitment to Kyoto, to be part of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. We are actually one of the few countries that are right up to date with reports and funding to the Kyoto Protocol.

A progress report--it should have been released by the previous Liberal government in January 2006--shows that the projections were 47% above the Kyoto Protocol target. Of course, some would suggest that the previous Liberal government wouldn't want to release that bad news just before an election. But we did; we've met all of our Kyoto obligations, which the previous government did not, in reporting and funding, and we will do the very best we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've been honest: because of the inaction of the previous government, we are finding ourselves in the situation as a country that we are far above Kyoto targets. We cannot meet those targets. We've been honest with Canadians about that.

We will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We do not support Bill C-288, because it will not reduce greenhouse emissions. It will not take us in a way that will reduce pollutants, and Canadians do want us to clean up the environment. After 13 years of inaction, I think Canadians, and particularly the Conservatives, have lost trust in the Liberal plan.

People might ask, Mr. Chair, how many years of inaction and failure it will take for people to realize that the Liberal plan doesn't work. I'm quite surprised that the Bloc and the NDP would be supporting a plan from the Liberal Party, which has proven that it was not able to do anything within 13 years of government. So I'm surprised at that.

Moving to the preamble, the part I do have difficulty with is the bullet that says the legislation is intended to meet Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chair, all the witnesses, except for one, agreed this is a bad bill, it's not achievable. Therefore we will not be supporting it. The rest of the preamble we agree with, but being honest....

As I said, the witnesses support that this is not achievable. Bill C-288 is not a good bill, so we won't be supporting it.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As we now approach the preamble, I sincerely wish I could commend the honourable member for his concerns about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but Bill C-288 doesn't take us in that direction. That being said, the essence of his private member's bill is seriously flawed. We heard that from all the witnesses, except one.

I'd like to take the opportunity to speak on three specific points of the preamble that illustrate the concerns the government has on Bill C-288.

First, the focus of Bill C-288, which is the achievement of Canada's short-term Kyoto target, needs to be examined. Our government has initiated a discussion about what it would mean for Canada to achieve its first commitment period of the Kyoto target. This target can only be achieved within the short period of time remaining by spending over $20 billion of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

As we heard from a diverse group of witnesses at this committee, it may not even be feasible to buy all the needed credits to reach the short-term target set by the Liberals under the Kyoto Protocol and copied again into Bill C-288.

In the opinion of the government, it would be more appropriate to focus on the economic transformation needed to transform our economy in a way that would lead to more significant and sustained reductions in emissions by investing in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure. That's what we need to do.

As Bill C-288 states, Canada's target under Kyoto was 6% below 1990 emission levels. When we took office in early 2006, not that many months ago, domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were nearly 35% above the Kyoto target for Canada set by the Liberals, according to the latest available figure provided by the officials of Environment Canada.

Our government was forthright that the 2008 to 2012 Kyoto short-term targets cannot be met without spending over $20 billion of Canadian tax dollars to purchase international credits.

One of the witnesses, Jayson Myers, chief economist for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, calculated that the technological process in reducing emission intensity would have to accelerate by 700% during the next five years to meet Canada's Kyoto target by 2012. Mr. Myers based his estimate on the international price of $20 per tonne, an assumption that he noted may even be low. The actual cost of meeting our short-term target under the Kyoto Protocol would cost considerably more than the $20 billion.

We also heard from Professor Mark Jaccard, head of the Energy and Materials Research Group in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. In a recent C.D. Howe report, he wrote that the previous climate change plan, project green, the Liberal answer to meeting the Kyoto short-term target, would have cost Canadians $12 billion by 2012, with much of that money being spent outside Canada. Professor Jaccard concluded that if Canada were to implement and continue with the previous Liberal plan, Canada would spend at least $80 billion over the next 35 years without reducing greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.

Obviously, Bill C-288 is not a good plan.

This is the crux of the issue. Do we spend billions of Canadian tax dollars internationally to buy international credits, or do we spend Canadian taxpayers' money on improving Canadian energy and Canadian urban infrastructure to reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions right here in Canada?

Canada's new government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change to protect the health of Canadians and the global environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources. To be more effective, action needs to be integrated. Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that address greenhouse gases, while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants that endanger the health of Canadians--not the best government environmental and economic policy, obviously, Mr. Chairman. This is what Bill C-288 suggests that we do.

For that reason, Canada's new government will establish short-, medium-, and long-term reduction targets for both air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulations with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets will be announced by spring 2007. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that failed in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved.

An integrated and coordinated approach for air pollutants and greenhouse gases makes sense because most sources of air pollutants are also the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. By taking action on both, our government will maximize the benefits to Canadians and allow industry to find ways to reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness.

To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is related to its unrealistic short-term focus and the massive, ineffective costs that will come with that focus. In our view, it's important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions in the short term, but that will also set the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term.

It's even more important that these funds be spent here at home. Our second fundamental concern with Bill C-288 is that countries with targets now under the Kyoto Protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions—72% of global emissions are not included under the Kyoto Protocol. That's 72%.

For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions. The emissions target of the Kyoto Protocol, as noted above, cover only 23 countries, plus the 15 members of the European Union taken together. By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of global greenhouse emissions, and China and India, together, will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined. China alone, in 1996, accounted for over 13% of carbon emissions, second to the United States, and on plausible projections for the two economies, China is expected to reach U.S. emissions levels by 2013. That's not that far away. Effective action cannot be taken by a relatively small group of countries alone.

Finally, the lack of a comprehensive coverage creates only potential problems within the Kyoto Protocol. Economic activities might relocate from countries with greenhouse gas emission ceilings to countries without those ceilings. Through such leakage, even the impact of greenhouse gas concentrations of effective action by the Annex B countries would be reduced. Apart from weakening the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, such leakage would also involve costly adjustments by workers, firms, and towns that were brought about not by changes in economic efficiency but by a regulatory system with incomplete coverage.

Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate. They would argue, however, that someone must start the process, and it is natural that the world's richest and most heavily emitting countries do so.

Kyoto is only a first step toward solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. We must anticipate what the next step must be. We need to anticipate that. For those covered in Annex B, the natural next step is to lower the emission ceilings now set for 2012, to achieve, for example, 80% of 1990 emissions by 2022. If the Kyoto targets are reached, developing countries, as a group, will have CO₂ emissions equal to those of the Annex B countries by 2013--and growing.

How are these companies to be brought into the Kyoto framework, as they must be, if further impact on a global climate change is to be mitigated? That is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations-led climate change negotiations for longer-term reductions well after the end of the first Kyoto Protocol reporting period of 2012. We've also been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance the long-term approach to tackling climate change. Our government's actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address climate change.

Mr. Chair, as I've said before, we've heard from the witnesses that Bill C-288 is not the bill that will adequately address the issue of climate change. We've heard time and time again that it's the government's plan with Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chair, we need to listen to what the witnesses said. We dare not forge ahead with a bill that has as its sole purpose trying to sabotage what the government is trying to do to clean up the air.

Mr. Chair, we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-288 will not do that. The experts have told us it won't work. Bill C-288 will not work, yet we see the Liberals forging ahead and planning on the fly.

Mr. Chair, I think I've made it very clear--I think each of us has--and I think the witnesses have made it very clear that we dare not forge ahead with Bill C-288. I'd ask the members of the Liberal Party, the members of the Bloc Party, and the NDP, please, do not play games. Work together with the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stop the games, and let's vote against Bill C-288.

Thank you.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Well, clause 1 is the short title, as I just said. I will be speaking on the preamble after we deal with this.

On the short title, it says:

This Act may be cited as the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

That's what we're talking about.

The only point I would make is that it's unfortunate the previous government didn't do what it should have done when it had the opportunity. So this Bill C-288 is mischief. It's trying to make the Liberals appear to care now about the environment, with the support of Bloc members and, unfortunately, the NDP.

Mr. Chair, it's all about optics; it has nothing to do with reality. We heard from the witnesses. Every one of the witnesses, except for one, said this bill is unachievable. We had a scathing report by the commissioner on the previous government for lacking leadership and lacking a plan. We had a scathing report from the witnesses. Yet we're forging ahead with a bill that is not enforceable. Their plan is to spend billions of dollars to buy targets, and there are not enough targets out there—credits they can buy—as we heard as recently as two days ago. So the plan, which has been amended on the fly, is a bad bill.

The Government of Canada has a good bill and will definitely will not be supporting their plan to disrupt and sabotage the plans of the government.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

As I said, I've had the pleasure of enforcing laws and I've been the guy wearing the uniform out on the front line. I've been the guy doing this. If you take a look at the act I have in my hand right now, the Canadian Environmental Protect Act, part 10 is enforcement.

Contrary to the way in which Mr. Godfrey has already misled this committee, clearly here is a part 10 enforcement dealing with the definitions that apply in this part, and they include designation of enforcement officers and analysts: “The Minister may designate as enforcement officers or analysts for the purposes of this Act, or any provision of this Act”.

We have nothing like that. While the wording on the enforcement section might be similar in Bill C-288 to other acts that he is comparing it with, what's missing in Bill C-288 is a designation of enforcement. It's completely missing. It's completely void from this bill, which makes this bill, Mr. Chairman, impotent and completely useless.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

So we're talking less than 24 hours ago. This substantial clause, a new clause added to Bill C-288, was introduced less than 24 hours ago, and Mr. Godfrey is trying to convince this committee that it was well thought out, wasn't on the fly, and was presented here with great thought in great time.

Mr. Chair, I think the facts show quite the contrary. This is very much on the fly and very inappropriate.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the two comments made, first from Mr. Bigras, absolutely, I do agree that Bill C-30 is far superior. Bill C-288 does not meet the targets that Canadians want in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants. That's why I'm so excited about Bill C-30, and hopefully there will be good healthy discussion on that, and your support on that—or his support, speaking through you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Rodriguez did make a comment that he's consulted with the commissioner. As I said, she was here as a witness two days ago and those questions were not asked of her regarding this motion. He said he has consulted her. I would ask, through you, for him to table her letter. He said she supports this. I would ask for her written response that she supports this, because I don't believe she does. I believe this is a policy on the fly, which the Liberals are famous for, and it gets the government into big trouble; it got them into trouble. We will not do that, Mr. Chair. We will do things properly.

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

I want to come back to the question I asked earlier about the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. The report on the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, was released 18 months late, in relation to the five-year objective. That means it took six and a half years for that report to be released, and yet people are saying it's not a problem and the Commissioner will be able to issue a report every two years.

One has reason to wonder whether that is really realistic because we know that the last time, it took six and a half years.

The other problem has to do with the method for counting CO₂ emissions. At this time, a number of industries do not have access to the technology.

I agree on the need to protect widows and orphans, as well as the environment, but I do have some very serious questions about this, particularly in terms of what there is an attempt to include in Bill C-288 to make it nice. I have the feeling that, as usual, it's going to be just smoke and mirrors — the kind of thing where there is movement, but not necessarily progress.

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

I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying. It's quite true that it could widened to include the pollution. Indeed, I invite him to table an amendment, when we review Bill C-30, to make that part of the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and we can debate it then. I'm not saying I'm opposed, but I think the government's strategy since this morning has been to try and refocus the debate on Bill C-30, when in actual fact, we are examining Bill C-288.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

In response to Mr. Bigras' comment, you don't do things like this on the fly; you do them properly.

As I said in my comments, should this reporting for proper accountability on the environment include pollution and air quality? Should we be looking at water quality and the pollution of the lands in Canada?

I said this should invoke good healthy discussion, but to have it inserted on the fly into Bill C-288 I don't think is good procedure.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Two days ago we had the commissioner here. She was one of the witnesses. This was not brought up; she was not questioned on this. So here we are with this on-the-fly type of legislation, which of course the Liberals are known for. One of the reasons the witnesses shared with us is that the Kyoto targets are not achievable.

I would not support this. It's not in the mandate of the commissioner. She was not questioned about this even as recently as two days ago.

Yes, we need more accountability on the environment, but this is, again, on the fly. This deals just with the climate change. If we want to discuss--not through Bill C-288--the accountability on the environment through the commissioner, that needs to be discussed thoroughly. On air pollution, we know that's a big, important issue for the health of Canadians. The quality of water and the land--there are a lot of issues that would invoke a healthy discussion.

To create a new clause in Bill C-288 on the fly, as the Liberals are famous for, I think is inappropriate, and I will not be supporting this.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I really like the contrast, the other, better plan that was referenced here before--the government plan--because what we are finding in this Bill C-288 is that it doesn't do the job in terms of cleaning up in the country.

As one well-known person in our Parliament, Mr. Ignatieff, has said, “We'll clean up Kazakhstan, but we won't clean up downtown Toronto,” and that's the nature of Bill C-288. We need to have a more thorough plan. The government plan does exactly that in contrast to this very weak and failed kind of bill that's before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, if you could try to keep it to Bill C-288, I think that's a reasonable request, and of course, one that we started out with. So try to relate it to clause 10, if possible.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect to Mr. Calkins, a reading of what is planned to be developed in Bill C-30, since we're talking about Bill C-288.... I know the government wants committee members to work together. Reading out a list of what the government has proposed in a completely different bill seems to me out of order when we're talking about Bill C-288.

We've been through this a number of times. If we're looking to waste time, then this is a way to proceed. I'd encourage all the committee members to raise valid arguments in debate, but not to delve into other bills. Let's talk about what's at hand.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Chair, it's important to realize that we on the government side support the recommendations of the commissioner concerning accountability and transparency. As my colleague Mr. Godfrey has said, that is our hallmark, and I appreciate he recognizes that.

The aspects of Bill C-288, though, such as accountability and transparency that would accompany the filing of regular climate change plans before Parliament, are positive proposals we support, including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the process of developing climate change targets and timelines. In fact, the national round table is engaged in this activity currently in support of the government plan.

Therefore, the idea of using the national round table to provide advice to the minister for accountability and transparency is already in place in the government's proposed plan. The government has an integrated plan to deal with both greenhouse gases and air pollution. On air pollutants, the government plan is to establish national objectives for ambient air, particulate matter, and ozone for the periods of 2025 and 2050.

The government's plan is also to establish national emission reduction targets that reach to 2050 for total emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, gaseous ammonia, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and for the following sectors: the oil and gas sector; the electricity sector; base metals; iron and steel; aluminum; cement; chemicals; forest products; transportation; consumer products; and commercial, institutional, residential, and agricultural sectors.

On greenhouse gases, the government's plan will—

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I'm looking over this particular clause about regulations. The first line states that the government “may” make regulations. That's problematic for me and my colleagues. They “may” make regulations related to measures, to standards, to enforcement. On the use of the word “may”, obviously a good grammarian would know it suggests that the government may or may not, or may use other policy instruments to achieve these aforementioned measures and standards and enforcements.

Our government has put out a plan that would in fact make it mandatory, required, to strengthen the ability to reduce air emissions nationwide, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The intent of this particular clause is to give the government the authority to implement regulations and other measures to control greenhouse gas emissions by building on the extensive authorities that already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The new government legislation on clean air would in fact provide a much stronger basis than what we have before us here today when it says “may”. Among other things, for example, the government legislation, contra what we have here, would require ministers of the environment and health to establish national air quality objectives, to monitor them, and to report on their attainment. It would authorize the development of regulations to reduce outdoor and indoor air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. It would authorize the development of emissions trading schemes, which have proven very effective in the United States of America and also in Europe. And it would give the government extensive information-gathering and reporting powers expressly tailored to greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I would think my NDP colleague Mr. Cullen would probably be agreeable to the fact that we need to make it more forceful, by way of not just simply a “may”.

Our government's proposed legislation as well, contra this particular piece here, would enable the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements that recognize provincial or territorial licensing or permitting regimes as equivalent, so long as those regimes are as stringent in terms of environment and health protection as national regulations are. That's our government's approach, which is something members from the Bloc Québécois should support, as it would enable the Province of Quebec to regulate its own polluters. But for that, the Quebec government would need to put in place legislation and appropriate regulations. I would be hopeful that Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier would support that at the time, because it's much stronger and it respects provincial jurisdiction as well.

The government plan, also contra this bill, would enhance the Energy Efficiency Act. It would give the federal government the authority to provide stronger energy efficiency standards for a wide range of consumer and commercial products, such as household appliances and electrical goods. That actually would directly impact on the health and the environment of all Canadians, which is something I believe and others around this room would agree that Canadians do want to see. We're waiting to see that implemented.

Finally, contra this particular proposed legislation, the government's proposed legislation, Bill C-30, would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize government's ability. Bill C-288 doesn't do that. Bill C-30 would allow the government authority to regulate new motor vehicle fuel consumption. It is important to set that fuel consumption standard to help to ensure greenhouse gases from the vehicles that we buy.

The time for alternatives really has passed. The previous administration tried some voluntary approaches, and that's what we have here again in the word “may”. Unfortunately, they failed. We need a much stronger mandate than that, and the government plans to have regulations that do in fact put the onus, the liability, on the regulated community. To make those emission reductions that contribute to clean air, the air quality objectives must be set by ministers under the act, in a mandate fashion. In addition, under the notice of intent, the government is committing to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the short and mid-term, 2020 to 2025, and also for the long term, up until 2050.

Mr. Chair, in view of the obvious weakness in comparison to Bill C-288, we cannot support clause 6 of Bill C-288 because it misses the mark clearly. It is clearly an inferior piece of proposed legislation when compared to Bill C-30, the Conservative government's bill. We would very much prefer to have this entire clause 6 deleted from the bill, in view of its obviously lesser ability to do the kinds of things that need to be done for the protection of the environment and the health of all Canadians. We would definitely see that in the government's Bill C-30, as opposed to what we have before us now.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try asking the question through you to Mr. Rodriguez again.

We are on clause 5. The title of clause 5 is “Climate Change Plan”, and there are a number of parts to clause 5. They have laid out their plan, and my question is again about this plan. What is the intent?

Now, we heard very clearly from him and the people...Mr. Ignatieff was quoted, who he was supporting. He very clearly said that they support a carbon tax, higher taxes for Canadians. It's a very clear, direct question. Is part of his climate change plan, part of Bill C-288, to increase the taxes of Canadians?

, he didn't answer that question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godfrey answered for him and, in a vague way, shared with this committee.... It sounded as though, yes, it is part of their plan. He's trying to justify increased taxes for Canadians for a carbon tax or an environmental tax or whatever they want to call it. And I just want to make it very clear to Canadians that this is part of the Bill C-288 plan: to increase taxes substantially for Canadians.

Now, would he be willing to do a yes or no, or is he going to ask Mr. Godfrey to answer for him again?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I want to follow up on the question from Mr. Vellacott. It's relevant that we're back to the main motion, which is dealing with clause 5.

The committee needs very clear clarification of the intent of this bill. Throughout the Liberal leadership race, a number of things were said, and Mr. Rodriguez at that time was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. He said taxes would have to increase dramatically. He said taxes would rise to protect the environment, and Mr. Vellacott was asking about the carbon tax position.

We are now dealing with Bill C-288, and the question is relevant. Is it going to include increased taxation to Canadians? That was the position of Mr. Rodriguez when he was supporting Mr. Ignatieff. Is that the same position of Mr. Dion, the new leader? We need to know where Bill C-288 is going to take Canadians.

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

Yes, and a friendly amendment to look at workers. If that's more poignant and more directed at the people affected, then that's fine with us.

The only thing I would suggest is that we're not comparing the oil and gas sector to the textile industry, but keeping in mind that under Bill C-288 it's certainly more than just the oil and gas sector that's affected. I'm thinking of certain mining operations or anyone who produces any greenhouse gases.

So if it's workers, and if that's acceptable to Monsieur Bigras or others, we'd be willing to accept that amendment.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We find ourselves at the issue of what it would mean for Canada to meet the Kyoto target. Earlier, during the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Jayson Myers stated the two opinions on how legislators can meet the Kyoto target: either reduce the economic output by 30%--roughly $300 billion in lost productivity--or purchase an equivalent amount of reduction internationally, at a cost of $5 billion a year for the period 2008 to 2012.

I quote Mr. Myers: “You would have to have widespread replacement of energy sources, widespread improvement in vehicles currently on the road, and widespread replacement of industrial machinery. It's not going to happen in five years.”

Our strong opposition to Bill C-288 rests on its link to the short-term reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol based on the negative impact this would have on the Canadian economy and on the environmental process. Our government's proposed legislation is simply a much better approach to Canada's making its contribution to addressing climate change in the short, medium, and long terms. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulations with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets will be announced by spring 2007. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed--by the Liberals--in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and that their objectives are achieved.

Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I will not be supporting this. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be to delete this entire clause, but I don't believe we can do that, so I will be voting against clause 3.

I do have a question for Mr. Rodriguez, through the chair. His new leader, Mr. Dion, has said that Canada is unable to meet its Kyoto targets. In fact, he said, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. Everyone is saying target, target.”

From this quote, my guess is that Bill C-288 has put you offside with your party leader. What is the Liberal position on meeting the original Kyoto target under the new leadership of Mr. Dion?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is going to be whether the author of the bill, Mr. Rodriguez, is still intending to proceed to clause-by-clause. That will be fine, but it will be quite surprising to me in light of the testimony that we've received. Even as recently as the beginning of this week, on Tuesday, we heard damning witness testimony against Bill C-288. And to look at the expressions on the face of the Liberal members, I assumed they would have been removing this bill as being irrelevant and not achievable.

So just for clarification, is it the intent of Mr. Rodriguez to proceed to clause-by-clause?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, in light of the witnesses' testimony, I think if you went by percentage, 95% to 99% of the witnesses said that what this bill, Bill C-288, is attempting to achieve is not achievable. We have heard comments to the effect that this would have been relevant in 1998 but is not now. The last witness we heard from in the group of witnesses concerning—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Could we get started, please.

Just for the record, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol is the item for debate today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 will be postponed to the end of the proceedings, and we will begin with clause 2.

Does everyone have copies of the amendments that have been proposed? I think the clerk has handed those out, and everyone should have copies.

So we're all set? Yes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

One of our Liberal committee members, Mr. John Godfrey, has spoken about having to recalibrate--I guess that maybe means something different from Bill C-288--the Kyoto targets. Would you say the need for a major recalibration is a fair comment?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

The reason I just corrected myself is that it depends on how you interpret Bill C-288. If Bill C-288 legally binds government to Kyoto compliance, the Liberal plan doesn't get you there. Again, you're not there. If it's a best efforts deal, it's irrelevant. If it binds government, the Liberal plan doesn't work either.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Right. And with Bill C-288, do you see any significant difference between the previous Liberal plan and Bill C-288?

[Aldyen Donnelly]

Bill C-288 doesn't add or subtract anything.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Am I correct in saying you don't see a significant difference, then, between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? I mean, it's an extension, an emphasis.

[Aldyen Donnelly]

There is, absolutely. If you're in industry and you're trying to figure out where government thinks it wants to go--which is quite an exercise--what you would be doing today is comparing the July 2005 Liberal notice to regulate to the Conservative notice to regulate. You're probably not paying any attention whatsoever to either Bill C-288 or Bill C-30.

I'm an exception to the rule. For ten years, every time we've done a project, I have been compiling a recommended package of government regulations and measures.

It happens that the package I would be a proponent of right now needs Bill C-288 to be passed...I'm sorry, I mean that it needs Bill C-30 to be passed. Bill C-288 is irrelevant, except that every time government debates Kyoto, government is not sitting down and saying what our target is going to be. So if you're seeing a continuation of the Kyoto debate, as opposed to moving on to what we are going to do, industry takes that as a delay.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

My next question, then, I'll direct to Ms. Donnelly.

In your perspective, is there any difference between Bill C-288 and the previous Liberal plan? Could you give me some summary?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey.

Just to provide clarity, Bill C-288 is a private member's bill from Mr. Rodriguez, supported by his party, the Liberal Party, which was the former government for the last 13 years, when they had an opportunity to do something on the environment. The title of Bill C-288 is An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. As we go into the bill, what is that Kyoto Protocol? It's again clarified: “the Kyoto Protocol requires that Canada reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period 2008-2012 to 6% below their level in 1990”.

We now know we're at 35% above that target. As part of the Kyoto Protocol, the previous government was supposed to report annually. The report that was due January 1, 2006, showed that Canada was on target to hit 47% above, and that it would cost billions of dollars to try to meet those targets. Clearly we were not able to meet those targets. Yet we have Bill C-288 suggesting that we continue to try to meet those targets when the previous government did not.

We now have a new government. We have a report from the environment commissioner, and I appreciate her being here today. She was here earlier when she introduced this report.

I really do appreciate, Commissioner, your challenge to this government and all members of Parliament to work together. That was my last question of you: do you believe we should be working together, particularly in a minority Parliament, because of the issue of the environment? And you did encourage us to work together.

In your report, you said:

At a government-wide level, our audits revealed inadequate leadership, planning, and performance. To date, the approach has lacked foresight and direction and has created confusion and uncertainty for those trying to deal with it. Many of the weaknesses identified in our audits are of the government's own making. It has not been effective in leading and deciding on many of the key areas under its control. Change is needed.

Mr. Chair, the government has made very clear to this Parliament that it was working very hard on a change--a change that would address climate change, a change in government focus that would address pollution levels--and thus we have Bill C-30, the proposed Canada's Clean Air Act. There were five hours of debate yesterday, and it will be debated and dealt with in the legislative committee. But at this committee now we are in the last meeting dealing with Bill C-288. So we have two opposing agendas. We have the government dealing with the environment, getting on with it and providing leadership. On the other hand, we have an opposition member providing a bill that would contradict what the government wants to do.

The question I've asked every witness to this point at the committee is this: do we believe we can meet these targets? Are they random targets, arbitrarily set, or are they scientifically set? Can we meet those targets in Canada? To this point, all but one witness has said no, we cannot domestically meet those targets. The only way we can meet those targets is to send billions of dollars out of Canada.

This government supports keeping that money here, developing technologies right here in Canada in order to be world leaders. That's my position and that's the position of the government, that we need to be clear leaders internationally.

Mr. Chair, I can see right now that I'm going to use my full ten minutes, so my apologies to Mr. Harvey.

We had a quote from Professor Villeneuve from the University of Quebec. He said: “In closing, I'd like to comment on the bill. This bill would have been excellent if it had been introduced in 1998”—indicating that it was not a relevant bill. If the government had acted on the bill when it had a chance, then we may have had a completely different situation from what we're dealing with right now.

Professor Mark Jaccard somewhat agreed, but somewhat disagreed. He said, “When someone said, 'This is a good bill for 1999', I would say, 'No, it still doesn't give you enough timeframe.'”

We have professionals, scientists, saying yes, we all agree that we need to come up with a plan, but what's the best plan? Is Bill C-288 the good plan? It's not based on science; it's based on politics.

Bill C-30 deals with timeframes; it moves from voluntary to mandatory. It provides clear leadership in dealing with the issues of greenhouse gases. This is what I would encourage members to support, and not support Bill C-288. But that is my personal opinion.

My question to the witnesses, and the commissioner, would be deemed a political question, so I'm not going to ask it of you. I'm going to ask this of the witnesses--Ms. Donnelly, Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Hyndman, and the witness from Greenpeace. Do you believe we can meet the Kyoto targets, as recommended or required in Bill C-288, disregarding comments from Mr. Godfrey, who said that we must not be absolutely obsessed with the Kyoto target when we are dealing with Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 requires us to meet those targets. Do you believe we can meet those targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1999 levels? Can we do it domestically? Is it a realistic target?

[Steven Guilbeault]

Yes, I would. I think one important thing in life is to recognize one's own limitations. So on more specific questions regarding, for example, emissions trading, I would gladly pass the microphone--and I think it's been agreed upon--to my colleague Matthew Bramley from the Pembina Institute.

Obviously, Canada went into Kyoto not as well prepared as a number of other countries were. For example, when they walked into the meeting halls of Kyoto in 1997, the European Union already knew pretty much how the allocation system was going to happen amongst the member states. Everything was not finalized. For example, at the time, the attitude of the European Union was that they would probably not use emissions trading. They ended up changing their minds on this.

The fact that we were not as prepared as we should have been doesn't mean we should abandon—I think it's really easy for some in Canada to say that the Kyoto Protocol targets are unachievable, when we haven't even tried. In 2005 we had a plan that was put on the table. In her report, Madame Gélinas said there were some strengths and some weaknesses. I've heard a number of ministers and representatives from the government say that Madame Gélinas said in her report that the Kyoto Protocol was unachievable. I fail to read that in her report, but maybe she would like to clarify that.

Then, for the government to come in and abolish a number of the programs that would have enabled us, if not to achieve our Kyoto targets, certainly to come closer to them, I don't think it is the right attitude. We need to try. We have an international commitment, a legally binding commitment, I should point out, to achieve our Kyoto targets. Bill C-288 is what we need to get on with the program.

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

Thanks to all of the witnesses.

It's certainly been a morning rich in presentations and in contradictions, and I suspect we're going to be exploring those contradictions over the course of the morning.

I'm looking forward to hearing Mr. Guilbeault talk in more detail, in response to Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Alvarez, but I'd like to begin with the commissioner.

I very much appreciated your presentation. In a sense, I think we had this conversation when you initially released your report for 2006 on climate change.

If I may return to Bill C-288, the whole point of this bill is to actually increase accountability and, in the spirit of your suggestions, to attempt to better define roles, responsibilities, and authorities so as to understand the performance of policies and programs and to monitor and report broader objectives. The language is picked up in regard to our obligations under the Kyoto agreement.

I know the Auditor General had some issues concerning the role that was proposed for your office under the legislation. I think we will be taking it into account in our amendments, which will suggest that some of the things we originally thought you might do might instead be done by the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment and, I hope, would meet the objections.

I'd like to begin in terms of this bill, which recognizes that we have signed the Kyoto agreement and we've been trying to do our best. We need a plan and we need to understand what is expected from each element in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and how we're doing each year.

Does this bill go in a direction that helps to answer some of the suggestions you've made both in your report and in your remarks today?

[Aldyen Donnelly, President, Greenhouse Emissions Management Consortium]

Thank you for having me. I'll try to be quick.

I'd like to point the committee in a different direction than prior witnesses have. I've enjoyed reading the blues, and for a change, I've decided not to cover ground that others have covered before me.

For a bit of background, GEMCo is a not-for-profit consortium of Canadian large emitters. The large emitters join GEMCo to share in the process of learning how to trade carbon credits, how to manage their inventories, and how to develop business strategies to accommodate a carbon-constrained future. GEMCo has existed since 1995. A typical Canadian company belongs to GEMCo for three or four years and then moves on. At any point in time, GEMCo companies are competitors. They don't like each other very much. They share in the cost of learning. As soon as they feel they've reached a certain threshold, the last thing they want to do is talk to each other about how they're going to approach the carbon market competitively.

Together, GEMCo and its members have fought carbon credits and greenhouse gas credits speculatively in the carbon market since 1995. Our market activity is much reduced now compared to years past. But because of our historical activity, I'm still the largest carbon credit buyer in Canada and the third largest in the world.

Having said that, it tells you more about how little real market activity is happening than about how large an influence I am in the market. To put our current level of activity together this year, which has been a slow year, by the end of the year, we and our members will have firmly contracted to acquire 350,000 tonnes of future greenhouse gas reductions from Canadian landfill gas operators, and we will have optioned another 350,000 tonnes. And this will be our smallest year for commercial activity.

The principal goal of our commercial work is not to scoop the market, but to learn how the market should work, and will work, before we're stuck in it. You'll find that we have recommendations or ideas that are fundamentally different from what you may hear from many others. I think the difference between our recommendations or views and others is based on our commercial experience.

I have two other points. I put together the very first agriculture biological sequestration credit trade in the world in 1998. Prior to our putting together that transaction, which committed us to buy 2.8 million tonnes of carbon credits from 137 farmers, Canada's position was opposed to recognizing soil carbon gains. Our sole purpose in doing that one transaction was to prove that you should change your position. In 2001, I put together the first ever CO₂ injection enhanced oil recovery carbon credit trade. It's not about to be done. We did a 700,000-tonne deal in 2002, where we are financing a CO₂ injection project in the Texas panhandle.

Based on those experiences, I guess my punchline is--and I should say that my views don't necessarily represent my members or speak for all of industry; I've already described our group as diverse--if this Parliament passes Bill C-288, you're sending a strong signal to industry that you still don't know where you're going. It's pretty reasonable to predict that if you pass Bill C-288, the civil service and the politicians will be thrown into a six-month tizzy of writing reports--on the one side why, and on another side why not, you can achieve the Kyoto targets. That adds six months to a schedule that we're already behind on--at least six months.

The question I would ask you to ask yourselves is what you need to move forward. We're revisiting an old topic.

What we've handed out is a two-pager, in two languages, that has my key messages. I apologize to those of you who are French speaking. At the last minute, I also decided to hand out the speaking notes I made for myself, because I have tables and data in my speaking notes that you might find useful.

The bottom line is that when you look at the speaking notes, you'll see that in the international market, before accounting for Russian hot air, the Kyoto Protocol created a massively oversupplied quota market. At the end of 2004, the global greenhouse gas quota supply, created under the Kyoto Protocol, exceeds the maximum physical capacity of the countries covered by the emissions quota supply by 1.7 billion tonnes.

To go at this number in a different way, assuming that Canada has to enter the international market to buy 1 billion tonnes to meet our Kyoto commitment, after we withdraw the required billion tonnes from the Kyoto market, there's still 1.75 billion extra quota units out there. As well if the CDM/JI board keeps approving projects at its current rate, another billion tonnes of excess quota units will added to the market.

To use up all of the Kyoto limit, every nation in the world would have to increase its greenhouse gas emissions at a rate of 4.5% per year from now on. In other words, there's no cap; it's a false market, and we don't know why Canada wants to participate in this market.

The Kyoto Protocol is a trade agreement; it is not an environmental agreement. The Montreal Protocol is a fine example of a very effective environmental agreement. I was surprised to see that witnesses before me actually described the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol as parallel. They couldn't be more different. If you want to know what an effective international greenhouse gas treaty looks like, it looks like the Montreal Protocol, and it doesn't look anything like the Kyoto Protocol.

So my view is that from today on, our Parliament has to step back and say, what do we do next? We have two options. One is to re-enter the Kyoto process, recognizing the serious implications of Kyoto as a trade agreement, as a trade treaty—as an unprecedented historical attempt to create a new global quota regime that fundamentally changes how national economies work. Or we can walk out of Kyoto and be the country that steps back on the international scene and tells the world what the Montreal Protocol for greenhouse gases looks like.

In previous hearings, I heard one member of Parliament ask at least twice why Canada thinks we could influence anybody in this regard, since we're so small. Read my lips: if we walk out of the fake Kyoto market, it crashes. It's in oversupply. There are only three buyers, if you take the European Union as a bloc. Everybody is in oversupply except Japan, New Zealand, and Canada. We walk; we call the shots. Don't lose this opportunity.

When you go through my speaking notes, you'll see that domestically, if we were going to walk, the first thing to do is to sit down to seriously develop and reach consensus on a greenhouse gas budget for Canada that applies to the years 2008 through 2050—not 2008 through 2012, not 2050, but 2008 through 2050, which I must admit I read as the intention in the recently tabled notice to regulate. I understand that others don't read this notice as having that intention.

In my document, you'll see that I'm trying to encourage you to think of our getting into a process in Canada where we agree to a budget. We don't think of that budget as 500 million tonnes or 700 million tonnes a year. It's 19 billion tonnes of Canadian right to discharge into the environment from 2008 to 2050, or 23 billion tonnes, or 26 billion tonnes. It's a budget for a long period.

You liberate yourself when you think that way, because when you step back for any budget over such a period, you can create a whole series of targets and timetables that don't exceed the budget. You can also put costs on, because 23 billion tonnes between 2008 and 2050 has the same impact on the upper atmosphere, whether you discharge a bunch of it in the first or the last part of the period, as long as you don't go over. Because every time you put CO₂ up, it stays up there for 150 years. You're not making a significant difference in timing.

So the question is, what's our firm long-term budget? Then given our firm long-term budget, given our economy and the sectors, now taking exactly Pierre's advice, what is the most effective set of targets and timetables, starting with firm, binding targets in 2015 at the latest and ratcheting down every five years to 2050? How do we get to that budget?

I want to step back, and I'll stop here, but one person asked me to tell you what I thought keeping the Kyoto commitment would cost. My position is that we can comply with Kyoto, and to estimate what it would cost, let's assume Canada accepts a very stringent 2008 through 2050 emissions budget. Let's assume that budget we've accepted equates to a straight line from 2008--actual emission levels down to 80% below 1990 levels in 2050. That equates to a budget for Canada of 19-plus billion tonnes over those years. I modelled the least-cost Canadian path toward living with that budget and then I modelled what living with that budget and complying with the Kyoto target and timetable would cost.

So I am suggesting that the differential between those two costs is the cost of that one compliance obligation, the Kyoto Protocol. My estimate is that that cost is a minimum of $26 billion, and it can reach $38 billion. All you buy for that increment is perceived reputational gain.

Our reputation is in tatters because we didn't recognize that Kyoto is a trade agreement and not an environment agreement. We can recover our reputation by returning the world to a Montreal Protocol type of approach to greenhouse gases.

[Pierre Alvarez, President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We greatly appreciate the efforts of the clerk to accommodate us on the schedule. Considering the subject of today's committee hearing, the fact that we're doing this by video conference, I think, is appropriate.

CAPP is the industry association representing about 150 companies and 98% of the production here in Canada from the east coast to the north. I am the president of the association, and with me today is Rick Hyndman, senior policy adviser, who has been involved in this climate change file since the beginning.

Bill C-288 is about the relationship between Canada's near-term action on greenhouse gas emissions and the country's Kyoto target. In essence, should Canada's Kyoto target be the guiding star for our initial GHG policy step? We think not. Looking at what the world and Canada have to do to make significant reductions in GHG emissions over the next half-century leads to the conclusion that focusing on Canada's Kyoto target would be a mistake. It would continue to divert the country from getting on with what needs to be done to arguing over who is going to pay for foreign credits.

The short note we sent you yesterday takes us through some of the questions in that regard, and I will address a few of them in short form today.

First, what should Canada be doing about GHG emissions from now to 2050? The concept of emission reduction wedges is now familiar to almost everyone debating near-term GHG policies and is being explored by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy as a framework for action in this country. The wedge concept emphasizes the need to begin action in several key areas, areas that can stabilize global emissions through major reductions in the developed world and slow growth in emissions in industrialized countries with rapidly rising energy demands. These areas include energy efficiency and conservation throughout the economy; carbon dioxide capture and storage; in this country, coal-fired electricity, oil sands production and upgrading, and some chemical production; renewable electricity and fuels; nuclear power; fuel switching and cogeneration; and forest and agricultural sinks.

The value of the wedge pictures of what can be accomplished by 2050 is the focus it brings to assessing actual actions and the policies required to make them happen. Policies now, initial actions now, investing in technology development now--but recognizing that results will take time.

Two, how can we get going? As was just indicated by the commissioner, we need to identify, analyze, and compare costs in deciding on actions and then pursue them. We need to move ahead where and when ready, and we need to take acceptable, affordable initial steps, get going, build on success, and increase our effort over time with other countries.

Three, what should the policies be for an initial step? To begin with, the federal government and the provinces need to work together in designing policies and programs for emissions across the country. Some of these are ready, or almost ready, and others will take some time.

One area where considerable work has been done and is ready for decision and implementation is the GHG intensity target system for large energy-intensive industrial sectors. The work on the target system over the past four years has been guided by principles that are extremely important to us and to many other sectors. These principles include the intensity approach to avoid penalizing economic growth; equivalent treatment across sectors; defined limits on the cost of compliance to address uncertainty and competitiveness; adjustment for increases in GHG intensity driven by compliance with new environmental regulations; phase-in of targets for new facilities; promotion of R and D through a compliance option, such as a technology fund; and efficient, harmonized federal-provincial implementation.

As billions of dollars have been invested and committed on the basis of these principles, they are very important to industry and the investment community. We are hopeful that the current consultation process dealing with completing the design of intensity targets will be successful and that we can move on to implementation early in 2007.

Four, how would properly designed intensity targets advance action on one or more of the wedges? Targets create ongoing pressure on existing facilities across all large energy-intensive industry sectors to improve GHG performance. The defined price compliance option provides for increased investment and advanced technology, again through a technology fund, and step changes can be incorporated into new facilities as they are brought on.

Complementary strategies are needed for key technologies to deliver significant improvements over the medium to long term. A notable example is CCS, carbon dioxide capture and storage. The federal government needs to work with the provincial governments involved in CCS and industry to agree on a strategy and to move forward in this regard.

Five, would committing to implement the Kyoto target in Canada help us contribute to the international effort? The 2050 wedges perspective focuses on required actions. The Kyoto targets focused the world on allocating near-term quantitative national emission targets. Canada's target focused this country on allocating the burden of paying for foreign credits to cover the country's Kyoto gap.

Kyoto targets are all about dividing up a pie. To stretch the analogy, the wedges perspective is about figuring out how to make the pie. The U.S. energy information agency's most recent projection on global emissions by region indicates that, in aggregate, the emissions by countries with Kyoto targets will be below their 1990 levels and close to their aggregate of targets. However, one of the problems with the Kyoto approach is the distribution of those targets. Canada has a target that is over 30% below its trend in emissions in 2010. It would make no sense for Canada to devote billions of dollars to buy credits to reach an artificial target when we need the resources to get us going on the right path for the longer term.

As we've seen by recent international events, the current Kyoto structure has no future. There is growing international recognition of the need to find ways to cooperate on actions that will produce results over time. Another round of debates over how emissions rights should be allocated internationally is a waste of time. It will not succeed. Committing to implement policies to achieve Canada's Kyoto target would set this country back another five years. Remember, we've been at this for a long time now. This country needs to take an initial step in the right direction and get going.

That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to take questions later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If we could begin, I would ask Mr. Rodriguez to deal with the first item. I believe we decided yesterday we would have clause-by-clause of Bill C-288 on Thursday and then we would go on to CEPA on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday of next week and try to complete it in that period.

Mr. Rodriguez, do you want to say a word about that?

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's first question was on the Kyoto protocol.

Right now in the environment committee we have been debating Bill C-288, which is the Liberal re-enactment of their Kyoto plan.

For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the environment. They received a scolding by the Commissioner of the Environment. We have now heard that they are not going to be able to meet those Kyoto targets. This is what our environment minister has said very clearly. We would like to but unfortunately, the situation left by the previous Liberal government has left the environment in a real mess here in Canada.

This government is taking action. We are not going to continue on with the Liberal plan of inaction. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is part of Bill C-30 that we are debating today.

The experts who have come to the committee have said that we cannot meet those Kyoto targets. We need to set new targets. Those new targets will be set in spring 2007, which is just a few months away.

I encourage the hon. member to work with us to set those targets. Let us have realistic targets that will reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce pollution for the health of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, we're not completing it. We're suggesting that this would allow our researchers to come up with a preliminary proposal and recommendations. We would then come back and go through it in depth and could make changes and so on. It's just that we need to know now.

Mr. Cullen, just to quickly bring you up to date, 3:30 to 4:30 on December 11--we're talking about next Monday--the minister is available to come. I'm proposing that we then carry on, on that day, with our regular CEPA meeting and that we extend it by one hour, so that we would then go from 4:30 until 6:30 if necessary. We would then, on Tuesday, the 12th, have our final round table, into which we'd have to bring a group that would represent what we've heard. And then on Thursday the 14th, we would have our meeting to wrap up our directions to Tim, as to the direction he should go. That would let them work on it over the break, and when we came back, we would have those recommendations, that report, which we could then start to work on.

I'm assuming we'll be finished Bill C-288 on the 7th--it can be reported back on then--and we can then carry on for our next week with getting the final report begun for CEPA.

I need unanimous consent in order to tell our clerk that's what we're going to do, and then he can proceed to set up that round table, as our big concern is getting the round table set up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, my only reply would be that Bill C-288 is of course going to be completed, clause-by-clause, most likely on December 7. It can then be reported back to the House.

At this point, I think we have to assume we're here until the 15th. I don't know what else to do. I have no inside knowledge that we won't be here.

For our final round table, it seems to me that if we're going to have a good representation of people testify before us, we need to invite them this week. We can't wait to see what happens on Friday in order to do that. I'm only saying this would allow us to plan.

Mr. Warawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If we could begin the committee meeting, I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

Before that, with the members here, we're going to do some planning. If we're going to do this, we'll probably have to get our clerk started on it right away.

As everyone knows, we will have clause-by-clause for Bill C-288 on December 7, and it should be finished on that day.

I'm assuming the motion will be made tomorrow. I have talked to Mr. Rodriguez about it. It will probably go ahead, and we would finish Bill C-288 on December 7. It would leave us with Monday, December 11, Tuesday, December 12, and Thursday, December 14, available next week.

I would propose that Tim work on the report over Christmas, and when we come back, he would then have a report for us to go through, discuss, change, and so on.

The minister has offered to come from 3:30 to 4:30 on December 11. I would propose that we could extend the meeting, because we would be scheduled to talk about interdepartmental cooperation and legislative overlap for CEPA on that day. We would have the minister on the December 11, and we would then go into the regular CEPA committee for our regular session.

I'll finish this, and then you can see the whole plan.

On December 12, which would be a Tuesday, we would do the final round table, which we would schedule. We'd need to get witnesses for it now, because it's only a week away.

For any questions to the international group that were broken up by the fire alarm, we have their testimony. We don't have the questions, but we could take care of those on that date.

On December 14 we would provide our final recommendations to Tim, and he would then have January to work on those. When the committee comes back, he could have a draft report for us, which we could then discuss, of course, before sending it on to the government.

That's a suggestion. It's not a motion or anything. I would need unanimous consent to go ahead with that approach. It would be largely for planning purposes that we could proceed in that way.

Are there any comments? Mr. Silva.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill on air quality would amend three existing statutes, the first of which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Based on our observations, however, these are not new regulatory powers that the government plans to grant itself, because they already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill would also amend the Energy Efficiency Act. We find it strange that this amendment is being introduced after the EnerGuide program was eliminated. The third part of the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

The Bloc Québécois currently supports sending this bill to committee before second reading. In our view, the amendments proposed by Bill C-30 are unnecessary. They would only slow down the process of taking concrete action against climate change. This is simply a delay.

The bill is also accompanied by a notice of intent, which lists the regulations the government intends to adopt over the next few years and the deadlines it has set for doing so. This document shows that the government is starting from scratch and beginning a new round of consultations in three phases leading to new standard that would not be mandatory until 2010.

Bill C-30 in its current form is unacceptable. It practically means the end of the Kyoto protocol objectives. The bill would incorporate into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the statement that respecting Canada's international commitments on the environment is a matter of government discretion. We agree with referring the bill to committee before second reading because that will give us the latitude we need to consider the admissibility of amendments to this bill.

We will work in good faith in this committee, but the Bloc Québécois will make no compromises because respecting the Kyoto protocol targets is what is important. We will also present amendments to address the fairness of the polluter-pay rule, Canada's respect for its international commitments and, most of all, the urgent need for action to fight climate change. I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc's priority is still Bill C-288, which clearly respects the Kyoto protocol objectives and for which the legislative agenda is controlled by the opposition and not by our government.

Thanks to past investments by the administrators at Hydro-Québec in the area of hydroelectricity, Quebec has a non-polluting electricity production network. Quebec's plan mainly targets transportation and pollution reduction in certain industries.

As far as transportation is concerned, the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to create the regulatory power to impose mandatory vehicle consumption standards on the industry by 2011, after the voluntary agreement expires. This does not seem soon enough.

The government has announced that Environment Canada and Health Canada also intend to hold detailed consultations with the provinces and industry starting in the fall. This consultation is late. It is planned in three major phases: the first will end in 2007, the second in 2008 and the third in 2010. Therefore, no regulation will come into effect before 2010.

What is important to the Bloc Québécois is that targets are established. These targets are in our report on the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, production of greenhouse gases in Quebec was about 12 tonnes per person, or half the average rate of production of 24 tonnes per Canadian. As for the other provinces, per capita emissions totalled almost 69 tonnes in Saskatchewan and 73 tonnes in Alberta, or five to six times greater than in Quebec.

If we compare increases between 1990 and 2004, we note that Quebec emissions have risen by 6% since 1990, compared to 39.4% for Alberta and 61.7% for Saskatchewan.

As I was saying earlier, opting for hydroelectric energy certainly was a significant factor in Quebec's enviable performance. However, the collective choices made by its citizens, industries and the National Assembly also made it possible to achieve these results. The Quebec pulp and paper industry alone reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

The excellent performance of the Quebec manufacturing sector also made a substantial contribution to Quebec's positive results. Between 1990 and 2003, this sector reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8% and emissions arising from industrial processes by more than 15%. These reductions were made possible by significant strategic investments by Quebec companies in innovative technologies allowing them to improve their processes and their energy efficiency.

The Minister of the Environment refuses to acknowledge the efforts made by Quebec or the value of the Quebec plan. It was again obvious in Nairobi, where she failed to mention Quebec's green plan in her official speech to the international community.

Rather than revise its international obligations by calling the Kyoto protocol into question, the Conservative government must implement the climate change action plan. That was the Bloc Québécois' proposal, founded on the very important principles of equality and polluter pays. With respect to the polluter pays principle, studies have been done on Canada's emissions and it is generally accepted that responsibility for reducing emissions should be shared non-proportionally based on population or gross domestic product. It should be shared by the provinces and the territories. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a three-part approach to distribute the burden across Canada and give each province quotas to comply with.

The European Union succeeded in reaching an agreement on distributing greenhouse gas emissions among 15 European countries. The negotiations took two years to achieve concrete results. Each country has its own targets to reach.

In Canada, negotiations went on for almost five years and were suspended. We have not yet reached a compromise on distributing responsibility among the provinces and territories.

According to this three-part approach, Quebec's goal would be 0% relative to 1990 levels. The province could therefore simply address its 6% increase since 1990 to reach its goal: 1990 production levels.

Other provinces' goals are much higher because of their energy choices.

In conclusion, over the next few weeks, the Bloc Québécois will propose amendments to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, as the government is calling it. This bill amends three existing acts: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

We have been waiting a long time for the Conservative government to tell us what it plans to do to fight climate change and smog. We waited a long time because up to now, the policies of the Conservative Party, a political party on the verge of taking power more than a year ago, had nothing to offer in terms of measures or an effective plan to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol signed in that Japanese city in 1997.

The bill before us here today is a far cry from what we were expecting. First of all, we were expecting a plan and a bill that would integrate the targets for greenhouse gas reductions set out by the Kyoto protocol, especially during the first phase of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar to Bill C-288, which is currently in committee, we were expecting this bill to include a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012, compared to 1990 rates.

Not only does this nearly 36-page bill never mention Kyoto, it also never refers to this target for reducing greenhouse gases during the first phase of targeted reductions. I would remind the House that this target was endorsed by Canada.

The bill also contains nothing about the second phase of reductions or the government's intentions. The only target the government is proposing here today to fight climate change is a target somewhere between 45% and 65% in greenhouse gas reductions by 2050, as though we can continue to produce greenhouse gases without worrying about short-, medium- and long-term targets for reductions. This is no different than presenting a business plan to a board of directors of a private company—and I wonder what the government would do—with no short- or medium-term goals, but only one objective for 2050.

Personally, I think that board of directors would send its managers back to do their homework, so that they could present a realistic plan that respects the international commitments signed by Canada.

Not only does the bill set a target for 2050, but the reference level for this 45% to 65% reduction in emissions is 2003, rather than 1990 as set out by Kyoto.

What does that mean in reality? It means that we will start calculating the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2003, as if nothing happened in the provinces or certain industrial sectors before 2003. Yet the Province of Quebec—sadly, we are just a province, even though we are now a nation—is one of the first provinces to have tabled a plan to fight climate change.

Quebec is prepared to comply with greenhouse gas reduction targets that use 1990 as the reference year. But the government is proposing 2003 as the reference year, as if it were possible to emit more greenhouse gas before 2003. In addition, this bill does not provide for offsetting credits for industrial sectors that have reduced their emissions in relation to 1990 levels.

This bill therefore does not comply with the international commitments signed by Canada. In introducing Bill C-30, Canada has flip-flopped on its international environmental commitments.

This government has also decided to set aside something that is vital to Quebec: the principle of equity. Past efforts by the provinces and territories and by industries should be recognized under the government's bill, yet there is nothing in the bill that does this.

In addition, we are expecting major efforts in transportation, an important sector in Quebec. What is the government proposing? Essentially, it is telling us that the voluntary approach that the government has agreed on with the auto industry can continue on its merry way until 2011. After 2011, the government will consider regulations based not on the most effective criteria and standards in North America—those in California—but on standards comparable to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

They have decided, in terms of automobile manufacturing standards, to use lower benchmarks, and thus lower the standards, when Canada should be using its regulations to raise them. Worse yet, we learned just this morning that the government will have two systems for the industrial sectors: one that will be based on the intensity of emissions and another on the absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been decided in Canada to spare the oil and gas industry at the expense of the industrial sectors that have made some efforts in the past. This is the second unfair factor: after the territorial aspect, or the non-recognition of the efforts made by Quebec since 1990, this is unfair to the industrial sector, in that Canada's oil industry is being spared.

We are indeed in favour of referring Bill C-30 to committee, but we believe that fundamental improvements need to be made to this bill. Recognition of the Kyoto targets, especially in the first phase, must be seen in the very essence and spirit, the principle and preamble of the bill.

We need stronger commitments and an immediate plan that will allow us to take action in the second phase of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, a year from now, in Bali, when the international community will begin to reflect on the system that should be applied in this second phase. The only debate we are having in this House is on the reduction objective for 2050.

Let me say again: if executives were to present this plan to a board of directors, they would be sent back to the drawing board to come up with reduction targets for the short, medium and long terms.

I will close by addressing a major aspect that we will defend in the parliamentary committee: this principle of acknowledging the territorial approach. We have not, thus far, been able to achieve our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets because the proposed plans require reduction from coast to coast and Canada's economic structure differs from one province to another, while Quebec's energy policy also differs from those of the other provinces.

In committee, we will be working on having this territorial approach recognized within Bill C-30.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I found the papers that you've written—actually Pembina, not you personally—on the oil sands, the tar sands, very interesting.

I visited Fort McMurray to take a look at them, bought the DVDs, and actually met with a representative from Pembina. I was really surprised about their involvement with the development of the tar sands, and I was surprised that they weren't opposing the oil sands, the tar sands; it is one of the major producers of greenhouse gas emissions. Causing the increase in greenhouse emissions, globally, right here in Canada, is our tar sands, and yet Pembina is actively involved in consultation and has not taken a position in opposition to that. I find that ironic.

I also found your comment that Canada had abandoned Kyoto as equating...honestly sharing internationally the condition that Canada finds itself in, saying that we are 35% above the Kyoto targets.... An honest statement reporting the conditions of Canada...because of, according to the environment minister, the lack of leadership--and you were asking for leadership--shown by the previous government. We ended up with a situation where we're 35% above those targets, which is basically what Bill C-288 is trying to reintroduce, a Liberal plan of inaction.

You're supporting this, and you're supporting, it appears to me, reporting honestly that we're above those targets, and that's equated to an abandonment of Kyoto, which is not the case at all, Mr. Bramley. Actually, what the government has done is we've been committed to the Kyoto Protocol right from--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The point I'm making is that Pembina has presented itself as being non-partisan and they've come up and said they strongly support Bill C-288.

Do you strongly support Bill C-30?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, perhaps you could specifically try to relate that to Bill C-288. I think that's Mr. Bigras' point.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think the parliamentary secretary's question has anything to do with Bill C-288, since he has just asked the witness a question about Bill C-30.

[Matthew Bramley]

I think all of the members of Climate Action Network Canada are strong supporters of Bill C-288. To suggest that is partisan--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay, thank you.

You also said today that Pembina is non-partisan and you said that you strongly support Bill C-288. Are you speaking for yourself or for Pembina?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Okay. Thank you for that. Actually, you're the first one to say yes to the committee. We have had, to this point, a no from everyone I've asked that question to. We've had a couple of “I don't knows”, but you're the first one.... So congratulations.

We actually had comments specifically regarding Bill C-288 from Claude Villeneuve, a professor with the University of Quebec. He said it would have been an excellent bill if it would have been introduced in 1998, and we're in 2006 believing that it's not relevant.

Actually, Mr. Bramley, I'm quite happy that you're here today. I was watching the news late one night and there you were. You made a comment that grabbed my attention and I wrote it down. I found it shocking and I found it dishonest. That's why I'm glad you're here, so that I can ask this question of you.

You said at that time, I believe, that Canada had abandoned the Kyoto Protocol. Is that correct? Did you say that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Do you want to carry on, Mr. Warawa, and try to keep to Bill C-288?

[Matthew Bramley, Director, Climate Change, Pembina Institute]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Although this isn't the first time I've had the privilege of addressing the committee, I'll take a moment to introduce myself. I'm the director of the climate change program at the Pembina Institute, which is one of Canada's largest environmental NGOs. The Pembina Institute is a strictly non-partisan, not-for-profit organization focused on sustainable energy solutions. We work with any political or corporate leaders who want to take meaningful action on climate change. We're not afraid to criticize either, when we see a failure of leadership or responsibility.

I've worked full time on Canada's response to the climate change issue for the past seven years, and I believe I've participated in all the key federal and national policy discussions and processes during that period. I've published numerous analytical reports and opinion articles on Canadian climate policy, and I've addressed the issue many times in the media.

I will continue my presentation in English but of course I would be most happy to respond to any questions in French.

There's abundant evidence that climate change is among the biggest threats facing the world, and perhaps the biggest. Tony Blair, to give one example, has called climate change “a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence”.

So this is an issue that goes far beyond the environment. We're talking about impacts on billions of people and economic costs that could be catastrophic. Responding adequately to this challenge demands extraordinary leadership and commitment from those who find themselves in positions of responsibility.

The Pembina Institute strongly supports Bill C-288, and I'd like to make three points today to validate that position. The first point is the urgency of implementing policies to begin cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the importance of Kyoto in making that happen. The second is that meeting Canada's Kyoto target is a legal obligation that cannot be treated as optional. The third is that Canada is certainly able to meet its Kyoto target at a reasonable cost if our government acts quickly and recognizes the value of the international Kyoto mechanisms.

First, then, on urgency, this committee has already heard very clearly from leaders of Canada's climate science community that there's an urgent need to cut greenhouse gases. They explain to you that the long time lags in the climate system demand action now to prevent future impacts. Mark Jaccard, one of Canada's most accomplished climate policy experts, told you that strong policies should be implemented immediately, precisely because long-lived capital stock is being replaced continually and we now have to start replacing it with less “greenhouse gas intensive” choices.

That brings me to my point. To start playing a responsible role in preventing climate change, Canada need an ambitious, legally binding, short-term target for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions total so that governments feel obliged to act immediately with strong policies. That's why Kyoto is so important, not because it's perfect or it is more than a first step or necessarily has exactly the right target, but if Canada abandons that target, the pressure will be off. Even if the Kyoto target is replaced by a different short-term target, it will be a voluntary one at the international level because other countries are not going to let Canada reopen negotiations on this, and we know that voluntary does not work.

I will turn to my second point. For nearly two years now Kyoto has been part of international law. Bill C-288 calls for the Government of Canada to do two things: first, to meet the emissions targets set by Kyoto by any combination of regulations or other measures that it chooses; and second, to be transparent about how it intends to do so.

I don't believe that opposition to this bill arises from the transparency provisions. Opposing it because of a belief that Canada cannot or should not meet the target is equivalent to saying that Canada cannot or should not obey international law. I think we need to be very clear about this because Canadians care about Canada being a good international citizen, about keeping our promises and meeting our obligations.

We also need to be mindful of the possibility that another country that is party to the Kyoto Protocol could pursue legal action against Canada on this issue.

Because our Kyoto target is a legal obligation, I believe the time has long passed since we could have a debate about the target as a “take it or leave it” option. Canada had that debate in 2002. It was a very vigorous one, and the government of the day decided to ratify the treaty. My understanding is that the present government has made a decision not to withdraw, so now we need to focus on meeting our legal obligations, not call them into question.

In my view, it is not only inappropriate but also unnecessary to call those obligations into question--and this is my third point--because Canada's Kyoto target is achievable. Achieving it will require the government to move as quickly as possible to implement a comprehensive set of regulations and financial incentives to drive energy efficiency and a switch to clean energy sources, but as you've heard, that will only get us part of the way to the target in the limited time that remains.

Canada will also need to embrace the option of financing cost-effective emission reduction projects in poorer countries. This option must stop being treated as something wasteful or shameful. We need to challenge the assumption that, as the quote goes, “sending billions of dollars abroad is necessarily a bad thing”. Canadians constantly send billions of dollars abroad in exchange for goods or services. Why not for environmental benefits?

Kyoto credits from developing countries come from specific emission reduction projects that have to go through a rigorous, transparent process to show the reductions are genuine. It needs to be clearly understood that reducing greenhouse gas emissions in India, Kenya, or China has precisely the same benefits in preventing climate change in Canada as reducing emissions here, and there are opportunities for Canadian technology providers as well.

Richard Paton was simply wrong when he told this committee that buying credits will neither help our economy nor help our environment.

Jayson Myers claims that the total cost of credits to meet Canada's Kyoto target would be $20 billion, but he's using a price of $20 per tonne, which is considerably higher than current prices.

John Drexhage's estimate, $10 billion plus, is more credible, although I still think it likely underestimates the domestic reductions that could be achieved if sufficient efforts were made with sufficient urgency.

These funds need to be thought of as a type of specially targeted official development assistance. The amounts are modest when they are viewed in that light. To take John Drexhage's figure, $10 billion, to be spent between now and the end of 2012, would make $1.7 billion per year. In 2005, Canada spent $4.5 billion on official development assistance. If we had met the international standard of 0.7% of GDP, Canada would have spent $9.6 billion annually.

Here's another comparison. In 2005-06, the federal government received $33 billion from the GST. That means a cut in the GST of one percentage point is worth about $5 billion per year, three times more expensive than what is being estimated for Kyoto credits. Parliamentarians might wish to consider the relative importance of cutting the GST by one percentage point versus keeping Canada's international promises, providing targeted and much needed assistance to poorer countries, and significantly reducing the emissions that are causing one of the biggest threats facing the world.

There's something else to consider here too. The financial liability that Canada faces as a result of sharp increases in our greenhouse gas emissions should not be borne solely by the government, but shared, where that can reasonably be done, by those whose emissions increased. For instance, one-third of the increase in Canada's greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2004 came from the oil and gas industry. Nancy Hughes Anthony's numbers about emission increases cannot have included oil and gas or electricity. If regulated targets were in place for industrial emitters by 2008, when the Kyoto compliance period starts, those emitters could shoulder some of the costs of acquiring Kyoto credits. And these costs can be small compared to profit margins. The most efficient oil sands producers could reduce their net emissions all the way to zero for less than $1 per barrel of oil if they acquired credits at $12 per tonne, which is the current average price.

Overall, then, we need to view emissions trading as a bridge to enable a company or a government to take responsibility for emissions cost-effectively now, when its optimal opportunity to put in place new technology may be a few years down the road.

I'd like to conclude by reminding you of Kofi Annan's remarks at the UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi two weeks ago. He said:

While the Kyoto Protocol is a crucial step forward, that step is far too small. And as we consider how to go further still, there remains a frightening lack of leadership.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, meeting Kyoto targets is a minimum and Canada needs to stay the course.

Thank you.

[John Dillon, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel, Canadian Council of Chief Executives]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here.

For those of you who may not be aware of it, let me just give you a brief introduction to my organization. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives represents 150 CEOs of Canada's largest companies. They're active in all sectors and regions of the country and are responsible for the vast majority of Canada's private sector investment, exports, and research and development. As such, our members will be affected by climate change and clearly believe they must be part of the solution.

Industry believes climate change is a serious issue that must be addressed. To the extent that there is a debate, it is about the means and the timeframe, not the overall goal of reducing emissions.

Mr. Chair, the record clearly shows that Canadian industry has acted. The major industry sectors are prepared to do more. They have worked and will continue to work with federal and provincial governments to develop targets that are reasonable and achievable. Indeed, industry is not opposed to regulation, as many of our critics have tended to suggest. In fact, most of the key sectors already are regulated with respect to air emissions, through provincial operating permits that usually incorporate the best technology to address emissions.

Let's take a moment to look at the issue in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, since Bill C-288 would compel the government to try to meet that target. We are barely more than one year away from the start of the Kyoto commitment period and our Canadian emissions are still growing. We are not the only country facing this kind of challenge. I'd refer you to pages 2 and 3 of my presentation, which outline how various countries are doing in meeting their targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Page 2 details the results for the fifteen members of the European Union. While those countries have clearly committed to do more, this chart shows their progress from 1990 to 2004. I would note that in the case of both Germany and the United Kingdom, which have the most impressive results to date, there are issues related to major economic restructuring in both of those countries. Indeed, their governments have had to admit recently that their emissions have actually been going back up in the last year.

With respect to a number of other countries that have commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, on page 3 you can see how Canada is faring relative to a number of those other countries. I think what's interesting to note about all of this is that of course the targets vary widely between countries, both because of the burden-sharing arrangement within the EU and because a number of countries that arguably have a very similar emissions profile to Canada were actually given an increase over 1990, whereas Canada's target was minus 6%. So Canada is clearly not alone in trying to meet this challenge.

That brings me to one of the main difficulties we see with Bill C-288. A real plan to deal with climate change is more than just a target, however ambitious that target may appear. Indeed, the current debate that we've seen in the last few weeks leaves me worried that we will devote far more time to discussing the next ambitious target and not nearly enough time to what we actually intend to do to start slowing the growth of GHG emissions.

On that score, the various plans that we've seen to date rely more on wishful thinking than on any solid analysis of effective long-term policies. Indeed, this was reinforced by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in her recent report. Previous government plans would likely have had to rely on large purchases of foreign credits, at a price tag of as much as $4 billion to $6 billion per year.

The challenge of dealing with this is I think amply illustrated by the numbers I've put on page 4 of my presentation. This outlines the history of the attempts by the federal government to estimate the gap between Canada's Kyoto target, which is of course 1990 minus 6%, and projected emissions for Canada in the year 2010, the mid-period of the Kyoto commitment. In 1998, shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, the first estimate by the federal government tagged our gap at 140 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. The most recent estimate, produced in 2005 in Project Green and confirmed again in Canada's Energy Outlook, which was just published by NRCan, puts that more in the range of 265 million to 270 million tonnes, which is almost double.

Obviously, a lot has changed both in terms of how our economy and our society have grown and used energy in that time period, but clearly too, I hope, has our understanding of what it would take to try to close that gap. It is interesting to note the growth in it, along with our growth in emissions.

I would argue that a big part of the problem has been the tendency to treat climate change in isolation from the social and economic reality that surrounds it; that is, the fundamental relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and how, both here in Canada and around the world, we produce and use energy.

That's to some degree illustrated by the chart I've included on page 5 of my presentation, which looks at our consumption of energy from the period 1990 to 2004, which is the latest year for which figures are available. As you will see, our population has obviously grown during that period, and our energy consumption per capita has also grown. What is interesting, of course, is that our economy has grown significantly as well since 1990. We're actually doing reasonably well in terms of reducing the energy intensity of our economy, but not so well in reducing the energy emissions per capita.

It's important to note that many of us in the industrial sector acknowledge, as I said earlier, that regulation is coming and is appropriate. Indeed, my view is that regulations upon industry will come more quickly than most critics have suggested, and once they're in place there will be a very high degree of compliance.

But the question, I think for all of us, is where the rest of the reductions come from in Canada's overall GHG emissions. Governments have been preaching energy conservation for many years, with limited success. The challenge is to figure out how to affect and influence in a positive way the energy-use decisions that millions of individual Canadians make every day.

Chart 6 gives you just a snapshot, by no means comprehensive, of some of the challenges we face in trying to address GHG emissions, in terms of how the population is growing and energy use in households is growing in a way that more than offsets the obvious energy and efficiency improvements of appliances and efficiency within those houses.

Clearly, challenges exist in the transportation sector as well. The average commute time is higher now than it was in 1992, while the proportion of Canadians using public transit has stayed pretty steady across the years, regardless of various government policies to try to change it. Of course, in the case of airlines, we've seen a huge growth in overall travel.

This really is a reality. Even if we were able to define effective consumer policies today, it clearly would take much longer to see their impact and begin to bend the trajectory we currently are on—arguably, much beyond the current timeframe of the Kyoto Protocol.

When it comes to Canadian industry, the question is whether we want to try to force incremental changes at the margin, which will come at a very high cost relative to the emissions reductions, or whether we can have a more far-sighted policy that better integrates climate policy with the technology investment and capital cycle realities of our most energy-intensive industrial sectors.

I want to finish the visual presentation with a chart I borrowed from Jay Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, who I think used it in his presentation last week. He gave you a fuller story on what the manufacturing industry has been able to do in the last few years.

I think what's important about this chart is that it shows very clearly that it's when industry is investing in new technology that emissions improvement really occurs. It is absolutely critical that we start thinking about that issue.

Investment planning and decisions for major technology changes take much longer. We need a fiscal and regulatory framework that encourages investment and the deployment of new technologies that improve environmental and economic performance.

In conclusion, I would like to briefly sketch how we can move forward effectively. This is by no means comprehensive, but these strike me as some of the key issues.

Clearly, we need concrete measures across all segments of society. More fundamentally, we need to build understanding and support for the changes and long-term transformational change that will be necessary. We need an honest dialogue with Canadians about what policies are effective and about what they will support that reinforces and builds on smart consumer choices over time.

We need real cooperation and coordination with the provinces—the important jurisdictions with respect to energy and natural resources, urban planning, and communities. Indeed, they own most of the electricity generation in Canada. Provincial coordination is essential, since industries already are regulated when it comes to air emissions, and in some cases greenhouse gases, through provincial permitting.

When it comes to a sounder framework for addressing industrial emissions, there are three essential elements. We need policies to support cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities; investment in renewables and other low-carbon energy sources; and a strategy to stimulate research, development, and deployment of leading-edge technologies such as biofuels, clean coal, and carbon capture and storage. This is not only essential for Canada, given our energy mix; these technologies can be used around the world in places where energy demand is growing even faster than here in Canada.

We were pleased to see the government's Advantage Canada strategy last week and the recognition that Canadian business pays some of the highest marginal tax rates on new investment among any of our competitors. We think it is essential to have an investment regime that allows firms to turn over capital stock on a timely basis, allows investments in new technology that have an environmental and productivity payoff, and grows leading-edge firms that can compete internationally from a Canadian base.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, we have to devote far more attention to the issue of adaptation, because it appears that global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing quickly, and even with aggressive policies, it will be some years before we can stop that growth, let alone achieve reductions on a global scale. Canada has some unique vulnerabilities to the effects of climate change, but also some important contributions to make in managing the adaptation to climate change.

Thank you, members of the committee. I look forward to your questions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's no surprise with the results of the previous two motions and the lack of accountability from the former government. It actually, Mr. Chair, discredits Bill C-288 big time.

On the next motion that's on the schedule, Mr. Chair, the one the chair unfortunately vacated over, in the spirit of cooperation, I'm not going to present that motion. We've heard from the clerk that the 28th, which was what we were proposing in that motion, is filled up with a number of witnesses. Rather than try to reschedule them on the 7th, which probably would not be fair to them, we will try to arrange another day when we can have the minister come to speak to the committee.

Thank you. I will not be presenting that motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes, I have a second motion. Rather than take a lot of time, the points have already been made on the importance of accountability.

The motion is to invite the Honourable David Anderson to appear as a witness before the committee by November 28 for the discussion of Bill C-288.

The rationale is that Mr. Anderson was the Minister of the Environment under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien when we signed on to Kyoto, and I believe he has a responsibility to come before this committee. That is why I propose the motion. I think it is very fair and, again, in the spirit of accountability.

Unfortunately the previous motion was not supported. It provides grave concern for me, Mr. Chair, that the members of the committee do not appear to want accountability for poor decisions of the past. Hopefully they will change regarding Mr. Anderson.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I will simply comment as well before we go to the vote.

I believe the actions of our vice-chair just moments ago, in terms of not even being willing to take his responsibility to sit in the chair at the start of the meeting.... I don't know where this leaves us in terms of precedent for the future. And then in dishing all of our stuff...we cannot even get to our duly filed amendments. That is the whole point of having notice requirements. We filed, and then the chair walked away. I think that is something that deserves a chiding from the House, because he was clearly out of order—I will just finish, I am speaking on the motion—at the time in respect to walking away. The clerk confirms that he was out of order.

The unfortunate thing is that we didn't get all of these motions under way. In particular, on this one, there might have been more extensive discussions.

As was already pointed out by my colleague, Mr. Dion is a past environment minister who proposes to be the leader of the Liberal Party. More importantly, he was the minister over a period of time when there was nothing in terms of proper analysis for the minus-6% Kyoto target. It was under Mr. Dion's watch where we dug the hole, if you will, and there was no concrete action taken during that period of time.

The Canadian public wants to hold governments to account. They did that at the last election. I think they want to hold ministers to account. Mr. Dion is a fine man, but he does need to be brought to this committee to answer and respond for the lack of action that we had over that period of time under his watch.

Again, I can't understand why there would not be an agreement by Liberal members. They tout all that they're doing in Bill C-288 and so on. Mr. Dion may have something very revealing to divulge to us in respect to reasons why he could not...excuses if you will, or maybe some very exceptional kind of rationale that would be helpful to us to understand the current dilemma and mess that we're in, as foisted on us by the Liberal Party, which is now not in office.

I obviously am supportive of this, and I think the Canadian public would want to hold Mr. Dion to account for being the Minister of the Environment at the time when there was no concrete action to meet Kyoto targets.

[Justin Vaive, Procedural Clerk]

Next week, on November 27, we have a scheduled meeting on CEPA. On November 28, we have a full list of witnesses for further consideration on Bill C-288. Mr. Warawa's amendment is to ask Mr. Dion to appear before Wednesday, November 29. We would have to juggle one of the other meetings in order to accommodate Mr. Dion or to add Mr. Dion to one of our current meetings.

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

The other concern I have with these motions is that they don't delay or interfere with the committee's commitment on delivery of Bill C-288 back to the House. I suppose, in a sense, we need to rely on the clerk to be able to establish a calendar that achieves both any inclusion of extra witnesses and arriving back at the commitment that this committee has already committed to.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have three motions that I want to introduce, and I'll do this as quickly as I can.

Unfortunately, at the previous meeting there were some issues. The meeting started quite late. I keep time, and unfortunately we were shut out on opportunities for our round, so we have to try to move these motions. It was quite disappointing. It seemed as though there was a strategy to start the meeting late and end it quickly and early in order to eliminate us from having the opportunity to question the witnesses.

So here we are on the motions, and I thank you for this opportunity. I have three motions.

I'd like to start off with the first motion inviting the Honourable Stéphane Dion to appear before the committee by Wednesday, November 29, of this year as a witness for the discussion on Bill C-288. The reason is—and I'd like to deal with these motions separately—that Stéphane Dion was the last environment minister, and I believe he has a responsibility to address why virtually nothing was done to combat growing greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-288 states that we now need to meet those Kyoto targets. Well, that former minister needs to answer to Canadians why he didn't do anything.

The next motion I'll be making will be to invite David Anderson. Again, we need to find out why these former environment ministers really did not protect Canadians and did not meet the obligations of Kyoto. We've heard from other witnesses that if Bill C-288 had been introduced in 1998, it would have been relevant, but at this point it's not relevant anymore. It appears to be more mischief and obstruction tactics by the opposition.

We need to hear from these former environment ministers on why they didn't do what they were supposed to. Why did they permit greenhouse gas emissions to go far beyond the Kyoto target? Why did they sign up for Kyoto and then not do anything? I think it would be really helpful as we consider Bill C-288. That's why I moved that first motion to invite Stéphane Dion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I move the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development invite the Honourable Stéphane Dion to appear before the committee by Wednesday, November 29, 2006, as a witness for the discussion of Bill C-288.

Secondly, I move that the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development invite the Honourable David Anderson to appear before the committee by Wednesday, November 29, 2006, as a witness for the discussion of Bill C-288.

I so move.

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

Can a point be made, though, as our signature is now sitting on this document, an international binding treaty, that we should simply, under bills like Bill C-288, say we're going to try, that this is the target that has been set and we must try to achieve this target--otherwise, face penalties, which will cost more?

Disparaging whether the 2012 targets are achievable, or what the cost will be, the effort must be made.

[John Drexhage, Director, Climate Change and Energy, International Institute for Sustainable Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to thank you and the other members of this committee for the opportunity to speak on this issue, the Kyoto Protocol and Canada's position and profile within the international climate change community.

First allow me to directly address the question that is the basis of these current inquiries. Can Canada actually meet its Kyoto commitments, as Bill C-288 requires? Well, yes and no. It all depends on the scope of actions this government would be willing to consider. To clarify what I mean actually requires a bit of a history lesson.

Having had the privilege of being a core negotiator at Kyoto, I would like to share with this committee the dynamics of those talks in 1997. The end game of these negotiations at Kyoto revolved around two critical issues: quantitative emission limitation or reduction targets and the use of flexible market mechanisms as a means of delivering on those targets. Those two very initiatives had been defined and identified through recent successes in other environmental issues in which the United States had played a leading role.

Ozone depletion and acid rain.... Under the Montreal Protocol and its consequent amendments, the identification and acceleration of legally established targets for the reduction of ozone-depleting substances proved to be an enormous success, with developed countries first having demonstrated that these targets could easily be met, and then with other countries eventually coming on board, this despite expert economic projections of economic ruin to communities across the U.S. if its government were to agree to strong reductions.

Secondly, the seminal case of sulphur dioxide emissions or acid rain.... While there are many now who claim authorship on the idea, the notion that pollutants could actually be commoditized and traded to mitigate costs came out of the United States in the late eighties and early nineties and again proved to be a huge economic success, with reductions as much as 10% of the original cost. And again, it was the United States and the climate change negotiations that pushed on both issues.

It was at their insistence at the second conference of the parties in 1998 that countries would need to agree to legally binding targets. It was the umbrella group of countries led by the United States, but strongly supported by Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, that insisted on the inclusion of flexible market mechanisms as a means of reaching those targets.

Far from a made-in-the-EU pact, the protocol and its elaboration in the Marrakesh accord actually reflected North American preferences for a target-based approach using market mechanisms as a means to meet those objectives. In other words, Canada agreeing to minus six was predicated on two variables: the U.S. committing to minus seven and Canada enjoying access to the Kyoto mechanisms as a cost-effective means of reaching those targets.

Since then, of course, we are more than aware that those two parameters have significantly changed. The Bush administration made it clear that it had no intention of joining the Kyoto family, and international credits became a hotly contentious issue within Canada, with some powerful industry interests and environmental groups--in my view, unfortunately--both characterizing such international investments as wealth transfers for no real environmental gain.

The debate constantly revolved around whether minus six could ever be reached with these new realities, with the result that concrete actions to begin reducing our emissions constantly made their way to the back burner of the climate policy debate. And everyone here frankly is culpable. The debate raged not only among political parties, but among provincial and federal governments, among industry and environmental groups, and even among departments within the federal government.

The result: close to ten years after Kyoto and we still don't have a coherent plan. So we return to the central issue of this bill: Could Canada actually reach its target even without such a full plan in place at such a late date? Yes, but it would require robust participation in the international carbon market. Does that mean Canada buying so-called hot air from Russia? In my view, no. There is no reason why Canada could not purchase credits through discrete project-based activities that show real reductions and also help support the export of clean Canadian technologies.

Domestic reductions alone, to which this current government has indicated it is committed, would simply not be in place soon enough to make the kinds of reductions that would be required. Most importantly, in my mind, we should not continue to be transfixed by the question of the target. It is needlessly politicizing the debate about what actually can be done and delaying Canada from taking meaningful actions that are required by us and the rest of the globe. That became abundantly clear during the last two weeks in Nairobi.

While there was no meltdown in the negotiations, and in fact we saw good progress in the elaboration of an adaptation work program for vulnerable developing countries, progress on a post-2012 mitigation regime, one that would also see some form of commitment on the part of major emitting developing countries, proved to be most disappointing. Small wonder, if you look at it from the perspective of China, India, Brazil, or South Africa.

The secretariat for the convention and the protocol reported that only six industrialized countries are actually on track in meeting their reduction commitments. At this point, we can hardly say we are showing leadership in reducing emissions required by OECD countries, both in the convention and the protocol.

At the same time, we need to keep in mind that we live in a very different world from the framework convention of 1992, or even the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. While poverty is still all too prevalent in these major developing countries, there is no doubt that they are also quickly becoming major global economic powerhouses. At the level of industry and other commercial enterprises, they are very much our competitive peers. They are developing quickly, perhaps too quickly for their own environmental and social good.

The question is how much leadership we in the developed world can show in reducing our emissions, without compromising our competitive positions to those growing economies. These are all very interesting issues. The problem is that we can hardly afford to wait before we sort out who should act first.

Allow me to provide two more omens that have recently come to light. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will soon be reporting, in its fourth assessment report, that as a result of global warming, the oceans' acidification rate is taking place at a much faster pace than originally thought. On the other side of the picture, China's emissions are rising much more rapidly than previously forecast. The International Energy Agency is predicting that China will now be the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter by 2009, a full ten years earlier than it had predicted a few years back.

The situation calls for innovative approaches. One of the most significant events at the conference in Nairobi was the presentation by Sir Nicholas Stern at the second round of the informal dialogue on long-term cooperative action to enhance implementation of the convention. It was significant by what he had to say: that the costs of addressing climate change, which critically must include a robust global carbon market, pale in comparison to the human environmental and economic costs of not taking actions. He also pointed out that deforestation continues to play a massive role in the atmospheric greenhouse gas budget, with close to 20% of our annual emissions being the result of these activities. This is an area that needs to be as much a part of the solution as energy. It was significant by the fact of who was saying it: a pre-eminent economist, formerly the chief economist for the World Bank.

If we are to effectively solve the climate change quandary, the solution lies much beyond the world of environmental negotiators. Most importantly, it lies with the world's financial and investment decision-makers, at all levels, from the community banker in Bangladesh, to the finance policy advisor in Ottawa, to the international broker in London. IISD's late and esteemed senior fellow, Konrad von Moltke, who worked tirelessly in the field of trade, investment, and the environment, would regularly say to me that Kyoto is above all an investment, not an environment treaty. I'm only beginning to appreciate the wisdom of this insight.

That means the scope for addressing climate change lies well beyond the parameters of the framework convention of the Kyoto Protocol. These two instruments are very important vehicles in addressing the climate change threat. We need to appreciate that they represent much more than targets. They establish the international policy architecture for addressing climate change.Talking off line with U.S. and Australian state officials, it is also clear that even if their countries hadn't ratified the treaty, Kyoto definitely operated as a catalyst for those countries to address climate change more seriously than they otherwise would have.

These are significant accomplishments that must be noted and appreciated. That said, we should not fall in the trap of regarding them as the be-all and end-all of addressing climate change. Clearly, they are not. They require the support of a wide range of other international forums and strong national actions.

The recently convened G-8 plus five group, which provides a forum for the G-8 to have discussions on climate change with China, India, South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico outside of the formal framework of the climate change negotiations, is a primary example of what I'm talking about.

Of course, there is also the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate, which this government has indicated it is interested to join. As a complement to the UN bodies, the APP can be a very positive contribution. Its emphasis on a sector approach, with industry at the table with governments, could provide some useful lessons. We would be very keen to work with the government to ensure that Canada's participation works to broaden and deepen actions that promote development in clean, sustainable directions.

In closing, Mr. Chair, Minister Ambrose in her intervention at Nairobi noted that Kyoto has become a source of division within Canada. Sadly, too often that has been true, but I would argue that the fault for that lies less with the treaty itself and more with the atmosphere of acrimony and recrimination that has existed for quite some time among a range of interest groups within Canada.

[Michael Cleland]

I would agree with you at a level, in principle. I would distinguish my answer from anything to do with Bill C-288, for reasons that are obvious in my testimony.

I agree with you. Governments deal with that. Governments look at environmental externalities. It's one of their jobs to make estimates of what the costs of those externalities are and to ensure that they're effectively priced into economic decisions, usually by regulation.

Are we going to have to push harder on that? Absolutely. Will we ever be able to measure what that externality is? No. It's a political judgment as to whether it is as big as a house or as big as a bread box. We know this one's at least as big as a house and we'd better get going.

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

I have a question for Mr. Cleland with respect to full cost accounting, and this is outside of just the narrow interests of your particular sector, but as an economy, because we've been speaking about the economy quite a bit.

We've watched the pine beetle devastation and we've watched the mines in the far north not being able to operate, certainly, like they used to. Does it not come to a certain point--and this is the role of government again--to take in that full cost accounting of the expense of meeting something like Bill C-288, with the various tools and mechanisms available, versus the expenses that get accrued by all members of that society? Does it not come to some point where, as committee members have mentioned, this constant debate and discussion needs to end and you simply have to act? And it may be expensive.

[Kory Teneycke]

I think it's addressing a different issue. Insofar as the government has targets that are long term, stable, and viable both environmentally and economically, I think that's a positive piece of the puzzle. I would agree with those who are saying this is one component of what needs to be a broader strategy.

But I think where we're in limbo as an industry is from the lack of clarity on direction on specific issues that pertain to us—and I think that's something you'll probably hear from many other industries too. And no, they're not in Bill C-288. And some of those issues aren't in the Clean Air Act either. We're having the government saying, we're going to change all the rules, but we're just not going to tell you what the new rules are going to be. Understandably, people don't want to invest in that climate.

So I think there's plenty of blame for everyone to share in, but moving past the recriminations to clarity is what's necessary.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Teneycke, this tags on to Mr. Cullen's question regarding Bill C-288 and whether this would be a good bill to guide us in moving forward. Do you see anything in Bill C-288 that would advance the use of renewable fuels? You said there was this limbo right now, with Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act, having been introduced, and now we're in this time of political limbo where the opposition, the Liberals and the Bloc, have said they're not going to support that bill. It's created this instability in the investment market.

Does Bill C-288 provide that security or stability?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Sauchyn, I find your comments quite interesting, actually. You said that Bill C-288 only covers a very small portion of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet you said you didn't know if we could meet it, and you also said you're very supportive of it. So I find that a little bit puzzling, but that's fine.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be sharing my time with Mr. Harvey, as you mentioned.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here this morning.

As has been pointed out, the focus is to be on targeting and modelling. I appreciate the comments on adaptation, because it's an important topic, but that's not the topic this morning.

We've heard some comments from the Liberal Party regarding Bill C-288. It sounds as though they're already considering amendments to this bill in relation to targeting. But Bill C-288, as it is before us, is quite clear, even in its title: An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

In terms of targets, the Kyoto Protocol requires that Canada reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions, during the period of 2008 to 2012, to 6% below their level in 1990. We've heard from the Commissioner of the Environment that we will not meet those targets. We've heard from the Minister of the Environment that we will not meet those targets. We've heard from the witnesses at this committee already that we will not meet those targets. One of them said that Bill C-288 would have been a good bill in 1998, but it's not relevant anymore. We had an opportunity to meet those targets, possibly, but it's too late.

My first question to you is this, and I think some of you addressed this already during your comments. Without spending billions of dollars internationally to meet those targets, can we domestically meet those targets?

Mr. Sauchyn, I think you said you don't know.

Perhaps I can ask each of you for a yes , no, or I don't know to this question: do you believe we can meet those Kyoto targets, which is what Bill C-288 is asking us to do?

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

Maybe we'll make an amendment to Bill C-288 to encourage walking.

[Dr. David Sauchyn]

With all due respect to Mr. Godfrey, I don't think we can isolate mitigation from adaptation. The degree of adaptation that will be necessary will depend entirely on the extent to which we're able to slow the rate of climate change. So we can't consider one without the other.

The fact that Bill C-288 is exclusively focused on a single paragraph in the Kyoto accord simply underscores the fact that there is a policy vacuum at the federal level and that we're not developing a comprehensive strategy for climate change.

[Michael Cleland, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Gas Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you and the committee for the invitation to appear before you today on this important matter.

Let me just take a few minutes to introduce the Canadian Gas Association. We're the association that speaks on behalf of Canada's natural gas delivery industry. Our principal members are the local distribution companies that deliver gas to almost six million Canadian business and residential customers from coast to coast in Canada.

Natural gas accounts for something over one-quarter of the end-use energy used in Canada: 30% of industrial energy, 44% of commercial energy, and 46% of residential energy. As well, natural gas accounts for a growing part, albeit still a small part, of the power generation energy and a small part of our transportation fuel.

CGA and its members have been active participants in the climate change debate for well over a decade, and we take the perspective that the natural gas delivery industry is part of the solution. By that, I mean three things.

First, while our direct emissions from the gas delivery operations are relatively small, we are part of the so-called large final emitters groups of industries, and we have worked and are continuing to work with government to develop a framework to manage our emissions. By that I mean a framework that includes short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets.

We also work with our customers and our regulators to develop and implement demand-side management programs aimed at improving the efficiency with which natural gas is used. Finally, we advance the use of natural gas as a clean alternative in many applications, an alternative that not only can reduce GHG emissions but is also extremely effective at reducing other air contaminants. They can be brought together, though I agree that they are not essentially related.

In short, Mr. Chairman, CGA believes that by using multiple strategies, Canada can cost-effectively manage its greenhouse gas emissions and, over time, begin to reduce them. I think the question of meeting the commitments in the Kyoto Protocol, however, is another matter.

While the intent of Bill C-288 is laudable, with the greatest of respect to members of this committee, I would argue that its substance is ill advised. It is ill advised for two reasons: because it is not possible for Canada to meet the Kyoto target, and because the continuing debate about whether we can or can't do so and who is to blame is a distraction from getting on with solutions.

Let me comment briefly on both of these points.

Why can't we meet Kyoto? Simply put, I would argue that it was conceived with almost no consideration of the underlying reality of Canada's energy system. In 1997 when we signed on, we were well aware of the following things. Greenhouse gas emissions had been growing at something over 1.5% a year for several decades. That growth was a consequence of energy production and energy use throughout the economy. Every individual and every business decision every day affected and continues to affect our GHG emissions. Meeting Kyoto even then would have required us to turn the economy on a dime and get on a trajectory of something like minus 1% a year as compared to the 1.5% a year growth we'd seen for the past several decades. At the time there were no economically available options to capture emissions or to deal with them.

We are now beginning to see that the fourth point may not be true if we can solve the capture and sequestration problem from large emitting sources, and I'm optimistic that we will be able to. But the first three remain true, and indeed, in 2006 there is no meaningful physical possibility for Canada to meet Kyoto. We could buy international credits if we could find them in sufficient quantity, which is in some doubt. But the arithmetic is fairly simple, and I'll leave it to you as parliamentarians to reflect on how government could explain to Canadians that billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money will be sent abroad to meet a commitment that, I would argue, we had no business making in the first place.

More importantly, I think the reason we focus on Kyoto per se as opposed to getting on with climate change is that it distracts us from getting on with solutions. Canada clearly has a very big challenge. We are an inherently energy- and GHG-intensive economy for many historical reasons. That history has left us with an interesting legacy, a strong economy with a heavy proportion of natural resource-based industries, sprawling cities, large houses, large cars, and all manner of energy-using equipment that most of us enjoy having and using. What goes with all of that is a very high level of greenhouse gases per capita, a level much higher than almost any other country.

In these circumstances, it strikes me that we should be focusing on solutions. It is less obvious why we would be focusing on trying to meet a target that is roughly the same target as the European Union. They have very different historical, geographical, and economic circumstances, and indeed, they already had their target in the bank when they signed on to it in 1997.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about one possible solution that I think is germane to your discussion. My association has been advancing the concept of clean energy for Canadian communities and a strategy to do that. Let me put it in context. About half of the energy we use in Canada is consumed in Canadian cities and towns: about 30% in buildings, about 13% in urban transportation, and about 7% in small urban industries. We all seem to agree that a real climate change plan needs to start action now, but it also needs to look out to around the mid-century and what will involve reductions of 50% or 60%, or more, from today's levels, even though we expect the economy to continue growing. This will entail a transformation of historic proportion, and one part of that transformation needs to be the way we use energy in our cities and towns, in our communities.

To date, the public policy debate on energy and energy and the environment has focused on individual fuels and technologies, and the respective merits or demerits. I would argue that this piecemeal approach ignores the fact that energy is a system of closely interconnected parts and is proving to be suboptimal. We need to do a few things. We need to significantly accelerate our energy efficiency efforts, where the main challenges involve system integration rather than individual technologies. We need to provide an enabling platform for emerging on-site renewable energy sources. We need to reduce the pressure on existing traditional energy delivery systems by ensuring that the right fuel is used in the right place and that we extract the full energy value from the energy delivered.

Energy consumers, businesses, and individuals purchase fuels and technologies to deliver energy services. While consumers want better environmental performance and energy efficiency, they are almost never willing to sacrifice things like safety, affordability, or reliability for environmental performance. We know that from a lot of years of experience. The question is, the challenge is, how do we make sure those factors come together as opposed to being in opposition to each other? That needs a strategy.

Our proposal would be to have something called a “clean energy in Canadian communities” strategy, which would be a platform for moving forward a variety of initiatives that ensure reliability, affordability, and environmental performance delivered at the same time.

Four principles would guide this strategy, Mr. Chairman, and then I'll wrap it up.

One is that we should build on the existing infrastructure and energy service businesses. Canada's energy system is a complex of infrastructure and businesses and customer relationships that we should be making maximum use of in order to ensure that we can deliver those energy services to Canadians using less energy and using cleaner energy.

We should recognize the benefits of diversity, and “diverse” means delivering energy services. We need to bring the grid base—the electricity grid, the natural gas grid— on-site renewable sources, and energy efficiency technologies together to create optimum solutions.

We should develop and deploy new technologies. We should benefit from market-ready technologies today and, at the same time, support the development and deployment of emerging technologies, the full benefits of which will emerge in coming decades.

Finally, we should mobilize stakeholders. We should mobilize interests among new and traditional energy suppliers, equipment and service suppliers, including new technology developers, builders, and community leaders.

In all this, Mr. Chairman, there are many important roles for the federal government, as a partner, working with provincial governments and municipal governments, to move such a strategy forward.

Let me wrap it up by saying that this is a strategy that I believe would receive strong approval from provincial governments. As I say, it could be done in partnership with them without in any way intruding on their jurisdiction. It would improve federal leverage on the efforts that it now undertakes.

Members of the committee, I applaud your commitment to ensure that Canada acts responsibly on climate change, but I leave you with a caution. We have today talked a great deal and done very little to come to grips with our GHG challenge—and other speakers have said this too. We may well be at an historical turning point when we can turn from rhetoric and recrimination and begin to focus on action. In order to do so, we'll need to mobilize every resource at our disposal, every idea, every technology, and every ounce of political will.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Dr. David Sauchyn, Research Professor, Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, University of Regina, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity to participate in your study of Bill C-288.

The preamble to this bill accurately describes climate change as one of the most serious threats facing humanity in Canada, one that poses significant risks to our environment, economy, society, and human health.

First, I want to make the observation that scientists do not believe in global warming. They don't have to. Global warming is not a religion. Global warming is a fact. It's not a question of whether you believe or not. The evidence for global warming is extensive, conclusive, and overwhelming. There no longer is a scientific debate about global warming. The debate has shifted to the analysis of the appropriate institutional, corporate, and individual responses to climate change.

As Dr. Burton pointed out, there are two categories of response, and those are mitigation and adaptation. My message will be similar to Dr. Burton's, although I take the slightly different approach in that I'm going to provide a review of the objectives of Bill C-288, and in particular, relative to the other proposed legislation, Bill C-30.

I'd like to congratulate the proponents of Bill C-288 for their attempt to restore Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. This international treaty is a first and major step in the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby the rate of global warming. It establishes a common language, targets, and objectives. A single protocol supports international collaboration and cooperation. We have research projects in Chile and Ukraine, and I can tell you that because they are parties to the Kyoto Protocol, it very much facilitates our international research because we are speaking a common technical language.

A made-in-Canada solution, on the other hand, separates us from a process that was developed and monitored by an international body of scientists and decision-makers. Furthermore, the Kyoto initiative will lead to further action beyond 2012, and Canada must be involved in this further planning of science and policy to deal with the causes and impacts of climate change.

In terms of more meaningful and effective targets for controlling greenhouse gases, Bill C-288 is a major step forward relative to Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. As climate change policy, Bill C-30 has three major flaws. First of all, Bill C-30 suggests that climate change is an air quality issue. It is not. Embedding climate change in the Clean Air Act is avoiding the real issue. Secondly, Bill C-30 sets targets for greenhouse gas emissions for the 2050s. This implies that by meeting these targets we will somehow bring climate change under control by the middle of this century. This approach demonstrates a misunderstanding of the climate system. The climate of the mid-21st century is being determined today by emissions of greenhouse gases. This is because there is a lag of several decades between activities that modify the atmosphere and the full response of the climate system. As the preamble of Bill C-288 states, the problem of climate change requires immediate action.

I refer to these flaws in Bill C-30 only because Bill C-288 addresses these and avoids them. However, there is a third shortcoming of Bill C-30 that is perpetuated by Bill C-288. Both of these bills address only a small component of Canada's commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Bill C-288 explicitly deals only with paragraph 1 of article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol. There are 28 articles in the Kyoto Protocol, and article 3 alone has 14 paragraphs.

To this brief I have appended other articles of the Kyoto Protocol to remind the committee that Canada is also obligated to address climate change and its adverse impacts, including capacity-building and adaptation measures, facilitating adequate adaptation to climate change, cooperating in scientific and technical research and developing systematic observation systems and data archives, reducing uncertainties related to the climate system, and addressing adverse impacts of climate change and the economic and social consequences of various strategies.

We're also obligated to implement education and training programs and to strengthen national capacity, to facilitate public awareness, and to share the proceeds from certified activities to assist developing countries to meet the costs of adaptation.

I'm making the same argument we just heard from Dr. Burton, which is that we have a policy vacuum in this country with respect to the impact of and adaptation to climate change. There are no references in either Bill C-30 or Bill C-288 to these important obligations.

Canada needs a comprehensive climate change strategy to avoid the adverse consequences of climate change. Besides the mitigation of greenhouse gases, a comprehensive strategy should address our understanding of the climate system; the influence of human activities; the impacts of climate change; the risks and the opportunities; and the necessary adjustments to public policy, resource management, engineering practices, and infrastructure design.

By focusing public policy on only one of these five components of a climate change strategy, Canada is at risk of failing to meet its treaty obligations, and in general, Canada is failing to deal with climate change.

I want to conclude by describing the impacts of climate change in my home region, the prairie provinces. I'm with a research institute called the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative, or PARC, based at the University of Regina. PARC was established with funding from the federal government and the governments of the prairie provinces. We were asked to research the impacts of climate change on the prairie provinces.

Currently, PARC is responsible for preparing the Prairies chapter of the national assessment of climate change that the Government of Canada will release next year. Therefore, I can tell you with confidence that the climate of the prairie provinces is changing dramatically. All the weather records show this. Summer river flows are declining as the Rocky Mountain glaciers are disappearing and as warmer winters are producing less snow and ice for the spring runoff.

The growing season is getting longer and warmer; however, the productivity of the forests and the farms is constrained by declining water supplies. The recent weather has included the worst drought since the Prairies were settled by Europeans. It also has included the worst flooding. The drought of 2001-02 cost the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan $3.6 billion. This is in reference to the adaptation deficit Dr. Burton mentioned.

Ecosystems have begun to change. There are threats to the integrity of the ecological services that support agriculture, forestry, the recycling of water, and the traditional lifestyles of our first nations.

The Rocky Mountain pine beetle has devastated the B.C. forests. This year it skipped over the Rocky Mountains. It now exists in Alberta, and there is a real threat that the boreal forests of Canada will be devastated by the pine beetle because it is surviving the warmer winters.

Finally, these shorter winters are also a problem for northern industries that require frozen ground to move materials and supplies. We are losing the advantages of a cold winter in the interior of Canada.

These are just some of the changes that Canadian scientists have documented for our region. Please note that I made no mention of air quality. The impacts of climate change are occurring first in the Arctic and the Prairies, where air quality is just fine, thank you, except for maybe Calgary or Edmonton.

The rate of climate change and its consequences will almost certainly accelerate through the coming decades, and until we are able to retard the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, as a Canadian citizen and a climate change scientist, I am deeply concerned by actions that would have Canada undermine our international treaty on climate change. I'm also deeply concerned by the lack of action to deal with the climate change and impacts that are presently occurring.

Our children and their children urgently need your leadership to create public policy that will reduce greenhouse gases as quickly and as much as possible. However, we also need your help to enable individuals, institutions, communities, and industries to adapt to the impacts of a rapidly changing climate. These impacts are already serious, and we are already locked into more severe impacts in the immediate future.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I don’t see any problem with that. I know that we have obligations, but we must remember the principle behind the motion that we adopted regarding Bill C-288. It intended to ensure that this bill could be sent back to the House before this current session ends. I do not have the parliamentary timetable in front of me, but isn’t it possible this schedule change could prevent us from sending this bill back to the House before the end of its session?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

The interesting thing that I picked up from a comment you made, Mr. Paton, in terms of the billions of dollars required, was that every $1 billion manufacturers invested in new technologies and structures between 1990 and 2003 resulted in a 0.2% annual reduction. There's a need, obviously, for technology. I think that was the underlying point here.

So I say this kind of tongue-in-cheek here that I assume, then, that the CCPA was not making big moves in terms of converting to income trusts with the need for technology and that kind of stuff. I'll just leave that hanging out there on the record, because I do believe there needs to be capital infused into the technology if we're going to get some major gains in manufacturing, in chemical, in terms of energy, oil, and so on.

I have just a few comments, though, because I want to get to the heart of my question, which is the whole matter of setting targets and getting credible, realistic targets. I'll set you up with a few quotes here, first off by no less an individual than Michael Ignatieff.

He says, “As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to.” He also said, “Kyoto allows polluting countries like Canada to meet its objectives by buying credits from countries emitting less carbon dioxide. We'll clean up Kazakstan, but we won't clean up downtown Toronto.” And “Despite efforts by the previous Liberal government to curb emissions growth, Canada cannot now meet the Kyoto target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012 without spending billions of dollars buying emissions credits from other countries.”

He goes on to say at another point in the Globe and Mail that Canada is not on track to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

I just want to get to something very basic here. As a father of four children, as a grandfather to five, when I make commitments and promises to my children or others within the family configuration, there is an impact in terms of what I say.

So my question is this, and I'll set it up this way. If I were to say to my children or my grandchildren--and that's more difficult to do, because they are at the other end of the country in Saskatoon. If I were to sit those four children down--two of them are married, but there are five grandchildren--and say, “I'm going to spend two hours with you every night, doing what you want to do, a family time kind of thing every night, with each one of you separately....” So we get into this, and it's obvious pretty soon that I'm not able to keep that commitment. I guess, for one, I destroy a trust and credibility. I hurt the relationship, I think, by making those kinds of promises. It's obvious that I can't keep those commitments.

Our party, the Conservative Party, is actually interested in and willing to take action on clean air in terms of greenhouse gas reductions as well.

So my question, in a philosophic sense, is to several of the presenters--Mr. Villeneuve, Mr. Paton, Mr. Rutherford. When we make commitments of the unrealistic sort that we did in Kyoto, what is the net effect in terms of our credibility, our trust relationship with other partners internationally, across the world stage, and so on, when you set those unrealistic targets, as acknowledged by Mr. Ignatieff and others? Those are the kinds of targets that are emphasized in the Kyoto Protocol and also in Mr. Rodriguez's Bill C-288.

What, philosophically, is the impact of making unrealistic commitments like that?

[Paul Kovacs]

If I can speak very briefly to the second question, I am an economist. I guess economists speak on most issues or something. I'm not quite certain what the reference to the profession is about.

I believe very much that it's good economics to set targets and measure performance against targets. I think it's good politics as well. The spirit of Bill C-288 to do that is a very positive thing. I only remind the committee that in addition to Canada ratifying Kyoto, Canada also ratified earlier the Framework Convention on Climate Change. I think that's actually a more important document, and that was much of what Professor Villeneuve talked about.

The bigger goal is the climate change convention. It deals with issues like adaptation and another set of issues, including informing the public about progress. To measure progress against the climate change convention would actually contribute more to this issue.

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, everybody. It was a most helpful session.

I have two questions, and these are addressed to Messrs. Stone, Rutherford, Kovacs, or Villeneuve, whoever wishes to answer.

My first question relates to Mr. Paton's presentation in terms of the difficulties he sees in moving in a way that responds to the urgency you describe. I would like to know what your reaction is to his difficulties or the case he made, in terms of how the two balance off—the urgency you describe and the problems he describes.

The second question relates to the bill we're studying, Bill C-288, which is simply an attempt to increase accountability in terms of our obligations under Kyoto. Imperfect though Kyoto may be, do you think this is a helpful way of increasing the urgency of our response to the urgency of the problem you describe?

I'll turn it over to whoever would like to respond from among the four I asked.

[Richard Paton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Chemical Producers' Association]

My name is Richard Paton and I'm the president of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. With me is Gordon Lloyd, our vice-president of technical affairs, who I understand seems to very often appear in front of your committee.

Thank you for the opportunity for CCPA to appear in front of the committee to review Bill C-288 on the important issue of climate change.

CCPA is not here to speak for the industry in general, but we will talk a little about the overall issues facing our sector, in particular, and focus on the challenges and experiences of the chemical sector, which is Canada's second largest value-added manufacturer. This will perhaps provide members of the committee with an insight into how industry is trying to deal with this issue.

Our association recognized the concerns about climate change after the Rio de Janeiro convention around 1992, and as a result, we started to report and monitor our emissions of greenhouse gases starting in 1992. In 1995 we also developed a policy on climate change to help our companies address this issue and to reduce emissions. We've been involved in this issue for a long time.

Because we take this issue seriously, we believe governments must develop policy approaches that are sound, realistic, and effective. This will require a significant change in how Canadians live and will require a significant economic intervention as well as provincial coordination.

Since our government agreed to the stabilization target in the mid-1990s, we have yet to see any program to meet this commitment that is either workable or effective at achieving the environmental priorities for Canadians. These programs all had the potential to create grave problems for the economy and, had they been implemented, probably would not have helped achieve environmental priorities either.

We thus have serious concerns about a bill that proposes that the federal government adopt the Kyoto targets without a clear idea of how this could be accomplished and the impact this would have on the Canadian economy or society.

On a note about our association, if our association was given credit for the early action we took as an association since 1992, we would meet the Kyoto targets for our sector. However, no proposed program has recognized this contribution.

As you can see from the charts that I believe you have, the top chart shows that Kyoto called for a 6% reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2010. On a CO₂ equivalent basis, CCPA members will achieve a 56% reduction by 2010.

By 2000, CCPA members had already reduced GHG emissions by 43%. While CCPA members' GHG emissions will have declined 56% by 2010, our output will have increased 26% from 1992. We're creating a high-intensity improvement basis of around 65% improvement.

We've been reducing emissions for over a decade and will continue to make improvements. I think how we have done that is instructive for how you deal with this issue. It's been done gradually. We've been making improvements of about 1% to 1.3% a year in greenhouse gas performance. We've been making those improvements linked to our economic objectives, as well as reducing other pollutants linked to clean air. We've continued to make that kind of progress. These investments were aimed at reducing energy costs, which have economic benefits for companies and a return on investment.

We also had one huge technological breakthrough at DuPont that is limited to one plant and is a “once in a generation” kind of improvement. It illustrates that these can happen, but they happen very rarely.

Our environmental performance is not unusual for large manufacturers. As the third chart illustrates, you'll see a chart that was developed by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association showing general manufacturing progress on greenhouse gases.

I know in our parliamentary day, many parliamentarians were quite surprised to find that manufacturers are generally 7% below the 1990 levels, and large manufacturers as a whole, steel, aluminum, and others, will be 20% below the Kyoto targets by 2003.

There's a lesson to be learned here. The lesson is that capital investment is the key to reducing emission intensity in manufacturing and, in the longer run, the key to absolute emissions. Over a long period of time, investment works to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases, it works to reduce energy costs, and it helps productivity. This has all been done without regulation and without targets.

Recognition of this fact is a critical foundation to build climate change policy. As you can see from the second chart in your package, also done by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters association, there is a very strong link. The chart shows that as the investment goes up the top curve, the emissions intensity performance showed by the bars that go down improves substantially. On average, every billion dollars manufacturers invest in new technology and structures between 1990 and 2003 resulted in a 0.2% annual reduction in their emissions intensity.

Unfortunately, as you can see in this chart, something happened around 2000. Improvements in emissions intensity slowed as manufacturers cut back on capital spending, and this reflects the impact of the high-dollar energy costs and Asian competition, which reduced available capital for investments.

Targets for greenhouse gases can be set if they fit with the performance of our industry and with natural investment cycles. This is a win-win for industry and for the environment, but it takes time to make these technological changes and it takes money.

An important contribution this committee could make to Canadian climate change policy would be to recognize the link between new capital investment and improved environmental performance on greenhouse gases and other pollutants generally. It's extremely important to understand the realities and restraints on how companies invest capital and the technological realities of reducing greenhouse gases.

Why are we concerned about this bill if we've had all that great performance? At this point in time, no one can seriously believe that Canada can meet its Kyoto targets by reducing emissions. It's basically just too late. Potential for action that would meet these Kyoto targets by actual reduction is now long past. It's a long-term problem; it's going to take a longer-term solution. Ensuring that the Kyoto targets are met would require Canada to purchase credits abroad. To look back at the Liberal platform, that's the plan that was basically going to have to happen, at a cost of around $5 billion a year over the Kyoto commitment period of 2008 to 2012.

The math is very simple. According to the previous government's projections, Canada was about 270 million tonnes short of our target in 2005. That number is increasing as the economy grows. The Environment Commissioner used a $20 tonne as a base price for purchasing carbon. You just multiply 270 times $20 and you get $5.7 billion. Maybe we can do better than that; maybe we'll do worse. The number is going to be $4 billion or it's going to be $6 billion, but it's a big number, and we're going to have to deal with that number in order to be talking about meeting the Kyoto targets.

The industry committee's work has noted that the manufacturing sector is in trouble right now. We've seen that with pulp and paper plants closing, which I know many members have commented on in the House. The huge cost of buying foreign credits, even when our performance in the manufacturing area is remarkably good--in fact, it's probably going to be below Kyoto--would have significant impact economically and reduce our ability to attract further investment. It may also reduce our capacity to meet other environmental objectives relating to clean air and water.

I'm sure some of you will debate the economic impact in trying to meet the Kyoto targets. CCPA is not the group proposing this bill. The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate that it will not have serious consequences for the economy and on individual Canadians. As far as I know, no substantial analysis has been done that would give me any comfort that the bill has taken into account these potential consequences. In fact, I've not seen a legitimate and credible analysis by government to date of the potential impact of meeting Kyoto targets. Until that analysis has been completed, our association cannot support this approach or this bill.

My final point is that addressing climate change in a serious way, as is needed, means looking at what can be done realistically in the short, medium, and long term and recognizing that we are committed to this issue in the long term. The government's notice of intent with respect to the clean air bill does set out a framework that could be used to do just that if it's implemented effectively. It recognizes that we need an integrated approach to clean air and climate change, to working with the provinces, and this needs to be an approach that recognizes the critical role of investment and business cycles.

In conclusion, we believe that to make progress there has to be a carefully developed path to achieve reduction targets. We have not seen a workable plan yet. Until it is clear how Canada can meet such targets and at what cost to economic, fiscal, and environmental priorities, we cannot support this bill. After ten years of discussion on Kyoto, I have not yet seen a government do this kind of assessment. Without any target, it's going to be unrealistic and probably counterproductive.

The evidence illustrates that technological change and capital investment are the key drivers to greenhouse gas reductions. This is something that takes time and cannot be legislated into existence by the government. Right now the technology is simply not available to economically capture greenhouse gases, particularly in a short timeframe. There is no program that adequately addresses this fact, and to that end the alternative is to bear the huge cost of purchasing foreign credits that have no environmental benefit for Canada or Canadians in terms of absolute reduction of greenhouse gases.

Thank you very much for your time.

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

That is fine with me. We can discuss the broad outline of the Kyoto Protocol, the cost, the mechanisms, but I am intent on doing one thing, and that is examining Bill C-288. I feel that it is important. Our mandate here is not Kyoto, we should try to see if we can amend this bill to make it acceptable to everyone. For example, clause 6 gives the provinces a certain amount of flexibility. That is something that concerns me greatly, and I would like to tighten up the definition and see how the provinces could implement the objectives that are set out in the bill's preamble.

We should devote some time to discussing how the provinces will implement this bill and how much flexibility they will be given. I do not know if one meeting will be enough, but this is something that we must certainly do. Personally, I do not think we will need more than one sitting out of six to discuss how these mechanisms to provide flexibility to the provinces would work. I think it is an interesting suggestion. And one meeting out of six is not too much to ask.

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

Mr. Chairman, I think we are straying off topic. I read the list of topics. We must not forget that there will be six sittings, which is a limited number. If you look at the government's proposals, you will see that the first one is target setting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent. I hope we will not spend an entire meeting discussing how the 6 per cent target was set. We could easily devote 10 sittings to that issue alone.

Then we have the following topics: actions to date and previous plans. In my opinion, we should first be dealing with the content of the bill itself. For example, is it feasible to require annual plans relating to the targets? Can we do this?

Moreover, the environment commissioner could tell us if this bill is a step in the right direction and if it can indeed be done. We could discuss how the 6 per cent target was set, we can even revisit previous plans, but what is most important is the full consideration of Bill C-288.

Can we submit plans to the House of Commons? What type of plan does Mr. Rodriguez's bill provide for? I think these are the basic elements that we should be tackling before we discuss what will happen in Nairobi and what will come after that.

Let's deal with the basics and the content. I am sure that the government has its own questions and is wondering if this bill can really fly. The government has every right to ask that question. Can annual plans be submitted? Some will say that they cannot, and the question is a perfectly legitimate one.

That is why the bill is before us today. Personally, I think it is possible and it can be done, but the government seems to think otherwise. As far as I am concerned, that is what we should be discussing, rather than spend the next six meetings wondering how the 6 per cent target was set. Because in the end, as they say, it is all academic.

Let's look at the content of the bill, which, to my mind, is much more constructive and is what we should really be doing.

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

We do not want to delay Bill C-288. What we are doing is deciding whether or not we want to add one sitting in order to continue the work on CEPA which we began in April. If we want to do a good job, then we must not lose our momentum or any of the information that we have already collected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa, if I might interrupt, we do have a motion, which was passed, that we have to report back about Bill C-288 by December 7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen made a suggestion that he was hoping the clerk would provide a schedule or a listing of upcoming business to make our responsibilities a little clearer. If he's suggesting that we defer, that would be an option we could consider and then deal with this at a future meeting.

But my first choice is that we make a decision today. I think based on priority, is a CEPA review important? It is to the government.

We've heard from the Bloc and the Liberals that Bill C-288 appears to be more important than CEPA. Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that Bill C-288 is taking a priority. As has been pointed out, we have until the end of February to deal with Bill C-288. So at the last meeting we suggested that we do Bill C-288 on a Tuesday and then on a Thursday do CEPA review, so we could be doing both in parallel. Mr. Chair, that was not supported. So what we are willing to do, if the Liberals and the Bloc want to push through Bill C-288, then—

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

I am in full agreement with Mr. Bigras.

I only have one thing to add. I would like to remind our government friends that since we set a date for Bill C-288, which should return to the House before December 7, we are wasting time quite uselessly here today.

Since you feel that Bill C-288 warrants our attention, I would encourage members to begin discussing the list of witnesses so that we may, as they have suggested, spend as much time as possible on Bill C-288.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Watson's arguments make no sense. He says that there is no guarantee that the government will not introduce new environmental legislation.

I do not want to make this political, but according to the Conservative Party's election platform, the only commitment that they made was to introduce a bill on air quality, which is Bill C-30.

In view of what Mr. Watson has just said, I have every intention of checking with my House leader to enquire about the government's agenda. I will ask my House leader if the government House leader has any other bills related to the environment.

If we follow that reasoning, then we should not even study Bill C-30 in committee, since there might be an election in May. So there would be very little time to move Bill C-30 along to report stage.

That makes no sense, Mr. Chairman. We have deadlines to meet, and the number of meetings that we have planned will allow us to deal with Bill C-288, amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and — I hope, for the government's sake — Bill C-30 as well.

With things as they now stand, we will not need to add any extra sittings.

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

I do not see why we need to add another sitting, at this time, since we have until May for CEPA, particularly since the government should be delighted that we will be dealing with the Clean Air Act and Bill C-30 as soon as a committee has been struck.

I think this fine balance will allow us to deal with Bill C-288 and respect our deadlines for the CEPA review, while allowing us to study Bill C-30, which is what the government would like us to do. To continue the discussion would be...

I do not know what the government is looking for, but it is clear that we have all of the time we need to do it and we can meet all of the regulatory deadlines.

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

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Harvey's question was quite relevant; it helped us to better understand how much time is available for each one of these bills or acts.

We have until December 7 to deal with Bill C-288. You said that there are seven sitting days left for us to hear from the witnesses and two or three meetings to draft the report. We have until May.

Are you saying that we have until next May to study CEPA?

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

And for Bill C-288?

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

What is the deadline for C-288? When should it be sent back to the House?

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

We should study Bill C-288, CEPA, and Bill C-30. Are there any issues that the committee should tackle in the short and medium term?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of things.

To your earlier point, the motion doesn't call for us to finish the review by Christmas; it's to continue the review with an additional meeting per week, so the review may actually take us beyond the Christmas timeline. What we're suggesting is that we continue with the review with an additional....

It's not only that. The experience of this committee in the last Parliament was that we were many, many weeks into a study of Kyoto and then the government dropped the plan in the middle of it. We continued on with our review of the Kyoto Protocol. We of course brought in aspects of what was happening with the government's climate change plan. That came in. It informed the work we did as a committee. We had no problem with doing that at the time, and we still produced a report--one that we're going to be bringing back, interestingly enough, in the discussion on Bill C-288--so I don't think that parties agreeing to put a special legislative committee to discuss the Clean Air Act can't somehow inform what we're doing.

It is a mandatory requirement that we do a review. Whether or not the result is binding on the government, it's mandatory that we actually do the review, so I think it's important that we continue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a small point.

On Bill C-288, when is the legislative requirement for it to be back?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I will add a clarification to what Mr. Cullen has said. The motion says that we'd have one additional meeting per week until the Christmas break; at that point we will be done with Bill C-288, so we could then go back to the CEPA review at full speed. It keeps momentum. It keeps us updated on the issues.

There have been accusations that some do not support CEPA or even a CEPA review. I don't believe that. I believe there is a true desire to support CEPA. It's a good piece of legislation. What we've seen, basically, is Bill C-288 take over from CEPA. CEPA has been put aside. I want to give the committee an opportunity to show in good faith that it is still a priority; it is to us, and hopefully it is to everybody on this committee.

Yes, these are busy times. At the last Parliament I sat on three different committees. I sat on a Bill C-38 special legislative committee; we were meeting for many hours almost every day because it was a priority. Is CEPA a priority? Absolutely.

Basically we have an opportunity to show whether or not it is indeed a priority. I will be supporting this because it is a priority. I'm willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and to go to as many meetings as necessary, to do the CEPA review.

I will respect the wishes of the majority to deal with Bill C-288, but, Mr. Chair, we have to continue on with the CEPA review. Morally, it's the right thing to do. Whatever is required, I'm willing to go to as many meetings as necessary for as long as necessary to do it. That's the spirit of this motion, and hopefully the majority of the committee members will agree that CEPA is indeed a priority to this committee.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to suggest anything cynical, but let me just suggest a scenario. I would be interested to find out what the opposition think of something like this. In order to keep the CEPA review going, if we were to alternate days with Bill C-288, and push back the timeline, I submit there would probably be some howling from the other side.

Quite frankly, I think they're dressing up an argument on this one. I think we should go for an additional meeting. There is no guarantee that someone like me is going to end up on the Clean Air Act. I would like to keep going with the CEPA review, so we don't lose momentum and it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I think it is a priority.

I think we've been accommodating with respect to the need to get on with Bill C-288 and some of those things. I suggest that it would be good faith from the opposition to accede to this additional requirement. Let's get on with the CEPA review.

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

Well, I understand and have some sympathy for that point of view. It seems to me, though, our world has changed since the motion was put forward. We now find ourselves moving forward on the clean air bill after first reading, and while it will be going to a special legislative committee, I suspect that many of the people around this table will be part of that special legislative committee. I would assume that many of us would want to be.

Ironically, of course, the bulk of the work around the clean air bill will be about CEPA. It is an amendment to CEPA. Mr. Warawa was not to know what the conclusion of those negotiations were when he put forward his motion, but I think realistically for those of us who.... We don't know for certain which of us will be there, but I suspect that we'll be doing double shift, as it is, with the environment committee on Bill C-288, and then some of us will be on the special committee, so that to add a third burden would be unreasonable, particularly since we will be discussing CEPA.

I think it would be very important, by the way, for as many of us as are around the table to be part of that special committee, because we've been prepped on CEPA. To go out and find other people who have not been studying it, as we have since May, would be very unproductive. It's rather ironic, actually.

I think in the context of the new responsibilities that many of us will have, I would have to vote against this, simply because--you weren't to know--I think we can't--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an item left over from our last meeting, and I was actually quite pleased with the spirit of cooperation that we all saw at our last meeting.

I did, at our last meeting, express concern that CEPA appeared to be shelved for the time being, and as you all know, I think it's a high priority that we need to deal with. Again, in a spirit of compromise and the willingness to keep the momentum of the CEPA review ongoing and the list of witnesses we have, I've represented in this motion that I'd be willing to work within the committee an extra day a week so that we could keep the CEPA going.

What's being proposed in the work plan for Bill C-288 is that we meet Tuesdays and Thursdays at our normal hours. We could then continue on with the CEPA review in an additional meeting per week. This would show support for CEPA and the review, which is a legislative requirement. We have to finish. The plan was that we were going to have a report tabled in December, and hopefully we can still strive to meet that goal.

So I hope for your support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

No, I'm talking about Bill C-288, specifically, because we have lists now from everybody. I'm just saying that it would be good to clear the air now; that the clerk gets the instructions from this committee, that he does not have members from just one list at any given round table that we would have in the future.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think your suggestion is good. I just want a clarification, though.

You're talking procedurally for all future meetings, whether it be for Bill C-288 or the CEPA review--

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

Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of cooperation, we would be prepared to spend a number of additional meetings discussing Bill C-288. There is no problem on that score, I wish to assure you. We ought not to go so far as to alternate meetings to also discuss the CEPA, because we are clearly not obliged to give priority to the CEPA over Bill C-288. We have until May to study the CEPA whereas we have only 60 working days in the House to deal with Bill C-288.

That said, let us set aside the CEPA file and return to it as soon as possible. We will do solid team work and get back to it as soon as possible. But if the government wants to extend work on Bill C-288by a few days, we are prepared, in good faith once again, to spend a little more time on it, but strictly to speak about Bill C-288, and not to mix in all kinds of other subjects.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

So you're proposing we do Tuesdays--whichever order--on CEPA, and then on Bill C-288, and we alternate. That's your proposal?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the reason for the amendment is that I expressed concern moments ago that what's being proposed in the original motion does not give adequate opportunity and time. Mr. Godfrey did make a comment, also a moment ago, that he would be willing to provide adequate time, more time. If the mover were willing to provide an amendment to his original motion, that would provide adequate time for witnesses. And as I pointed out to him, what's being proposed with the wording of his motion is it only allows two meetings for witnesses. Yes, there are meetings for clause-by-clause. As of this week, there is an opportunity to table a working plan and also to go over the list of witnesses. We could do that in one meeting, next Thursday. But then we need more than two meetings to deal with all the witnesses. We could resolve this.

Mr. Chairman, at the same time as doing Bill C-288, we may also want to consider doing the CEPA review, so both are ongoing. We can be creative as a committee and deal with both, because I sure hope I'm right in that there is a genuine concern that we deal with the CEPA review and that we continue it. Maybe they could be done in parallel. We could be creative and come up with a solution that this committee could move on and deal with all the issues, not just the plans and aspirations of the opposition, but also the requirements of us as parliamentarians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

As we're waiting for the clerk to share some guidance with us from the procedure manual, I do have a question. Again, in the spirit of wanting to cooperate with Mr. Rodriguez' motion, we were talking about the amendment, and we'll go back to that. I do have a question.

Mr. Rodriguez' original motion said we would begin studying his bill, Bill C-288, no later than Thursday, November 2, which is this week--two days from now--and that we would proceed to clause-by-clause no later than Thursday, November 21. I'm looking at the calendar and see that this would leave us, with a break week in between, only two meetings. I am ensuring I understand the original motion and why I have raised an amendment. What the work plan would do would allow for two meetings for witnesses. Am I interpreting that right? If I am, that's why I have great concern.

The original work plan presented by Mr. Godfrey had seven meetings; what you're proposing has only two. There are only two scheduled meetings, which would be November 7 and November 9, and Mr. Cullen's motion was to invite the minister before she went on her trip to Kenya, and that could be on November 7 or November 9 as well.

We have a lot of pressure on the committee. I think your original motion is not realistic. It does not provide adequate debate, adequate witnesses, adequate meetings. That's where I think we're having a huge problem, in that Bill C-288 needs to be done properly.

If we vote on my amendment, which we will do--when, I'm not sure--and then go back to your original motion.... If the amendment doesn't pass--hopefully, it will pass--but if it doesn't and we go back to the original motion, what are you proposing? That's my question to you.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm obviously going to speak in support of the amendment.

Let's remember that the Liberals made the legislative requirement for a mandatory review of CEPA. This is actually part of CEPA itself. They had a majority government, and they established that every five years, CEPA will have a mandatory review. I understand that in the last Parliament they were a minority government and they chose at that point not to follow the rules, if you will. I guess that's their prerogative as to whether they want to play fast and loose with legislative requirements. They certainly chose to do that in the last Parliament.

But here we are in a situation now, Mr. Chair, in which they're still playing fast and loose with the rules. They think we can just keep putting this off to deal with other issues first. They want our government to be in a position where we're suddenly not going to respect the rules. Mr. Chair, I don't think that's a good trend or direction. We certainly want to abide by the rules as they've been set. We respect the laws of the land, even laws passed by the Liberals when they were the government. I think it's important that we continue to demonstrate that we're a government that plays by the rules. It's important for this committee to respect that. I think this is an incredible hypocrisy by the Liberals. There are rules that they themselves established and suddenly they don't want to play by them--or they want to continue not playing by them, I guess.

I think the amendment to the motion is important. It's going to re-establish that the CEPA review should be completed. Let's just get on with the business. We haven't said that we're not going to deal with C-288; we've simply said we're going to postpone it. Let us finish the legislative priority first, and then we'll get on with the other issue. We're serious about tackling the issue of greenhouse gas reductions, but let's get the legislative requirement out of the way first. Let's cooperate to work quickly on that particular measure. Then, after Christmas, when we reconvene, we'll get down to business on the other issue, Mr. Chair.

So obviously I'm going to be supporting the amendment as it's worded. I would encourage the Liberals to rethink playing fast and loose with rules that they themselves put in place when they had a majority government.

I would also like to caution the opposition members, whether they are in the Bloc or the New Democratic Party. I'm not sure why they would want to support a Liberal bill, Mr. Chair, unless of course they want to help the Liberals' chances, either in Quebec or against the New Democrats. I guess that's their prerogative. We would think they'd want to get on with doing CEPA and other issues. Let's get on with strengthening those.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

The transcripts clearly indicate that Mr. Warawa was absolutely correct in objecting to the decision made by the chair of the day. I quote from the official transcripts of the committee meeting in question.

After Mr. Rodriguez made his verbal motion—which in itself, as I have discussed at length, should have been ruled out of order at the time.... After the motion was made verbally, the chair responds, “We have a motion, but we need to vote on it.”

To that Mr. Warawa, who was in the middle of a point of order, responds, “On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Bill C-288, as I said.... Mr. Chair, I have the right to speak on a point of order, do I not? Are we at the end of our time?”

Then the chair says, “We are at the end of our time. I believe we have a motion.”

Mr. Warawa says, “Mr. Chair, then to do this properly, it should be dealt with at the next meeting. Otherwise, Mr. Chair, I have the right to continue.”

The chair responds, “We have a motion on the table. The clerk tells me we have to deal with that motion.” To that Mr. Warawa responds, “The motion is not in order. I'd like to share the reasons why, if I have your permission.”

Mr. Chair, I don't think I have to go on beyond that. The fact is, as indicated quite clearly in these transcripts, that Mr. Warawa was in the middle of a point of order, and when one is discussing a point of order, one has the floor and one can discuss that point of order, Mr. Chair, for as long as the member wishes. But in the case of Mr. Warawa and the chair of the day, his point of order was interrupted, and that in itself is out of order, Mr. Chair.

That is further demonstration, further proof, to underscore and augment the arguments I'm making to you this morning, that the motion presented by Mr. Rodriguez in and of itself was out of order. The business being conducted at the time the motion was submitted, Mr. Chair, was handled—unquestionably from an inadvertent standpoint—incorrectly, and was procedurally not in order.

The transcripts again, Mr. Chair, I submit, clearly show that Mr. Warawa was in the middle of a point of order, yet was interrupted, and that is against the rules, procedures, and practices of this House. He must be allowed--he should have been allowed at least, Mr. Chair--to continue.

So what do we have, Mr. Chair? We have a number of examples in the case of this particular motion in which protocols have been breached. We have the fact that due notice was not given. That is quite apparent, since the transcripts indicate that this was a verbal motion. The chair admits there is no evidence that a written submission was given, certainly not in both official languages, and in fact the manner in which the verbal submission was entertained, Mr. Chair, was out of order, since Mr. Warawa, as is clearly demonstrated in the transcripts of that last committee meeting, was in the midst of a point of order.

Mr. Chair, that means there have been several breaches of protocol, several breaches of accepted conventions, practices, and procedures that have guided this place for literally hundreds of years.

Do I consider this to be a serious piece of business that needs to be discussed and debated? Absolutely. How can any member think otherwise? Have we not been guided efficiently and effectively in the tradition of the Westminster Parliament for the last century? Of course we have. Why have we been guided by such? Because we have followed the rules of the day.

Now, from time to time, Mr. Chair, rules can change. I understand that. In fact, we just saw an example of it within the last couple of days, wherein certain standing orders of this House were altered. They can be altered at any time. Parliamentarians can change the standing orders. Parliamentarians can change and, in effect, make some of the very rules to which they are bound to adhere.

But, Mr. Chair, the point remains that once rules and protocols have been established, they need to be observed. They have to be followed, because what happens if they're not followed? Would it be the slippery slope?

Some may argue, Mr. Chair, that in this particular case, if this one little thing could be accommodated, if we could just ignore this one little protocol, what harm would it do? After all, there will be 60 days in which this bill can be debated, so who cares? Who cares if we didn't observe proper protocol? Who cares if we got this bill before the committee a day before it was supposed to appear?

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that I care. I would suggest that every member of this place should care, because we are bound not only by convention but by the very rules that guide this place.

I would hope, Mr. Chair, that we would present ourselves as parliamentarians, as examples to the general public of how democracy should work and how parliamentary function should work. Therefore, Mr. Chair, if we choose to ignore protocol, even one little protocol in the minds of some that wouldn't really matter at all in the larger scheme of things, if we just ignored that, what would be the result? I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, the result perhaps would be one small chink in the armour that we like to think encompasses this very place.

Amongst other things, Mr. Chair, this Parliament was built on tradition, was built on a sense of respect, and was built on a sense of order. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that at any point in time, any parliamentarian should ignore those very tenets of this Parliament.

If at some point in time, Mr. Chair, protocols, practices, and rules were avoided or ignored, due to a simple error and not corrected, I suppose that's something that we could all live with.

But in this particular instance, Mr. Chair, the error has been pointed out. In fact, Mr. Chair, the error was identified at the very time the submission was being made. This isn't a case, Mr. Chair, where we checked the records three weeks later and said, oh my God, you know something? We missed something there. We ignored protocol; we breached protocol; I didn't realize it at the time, but I realize it now. What, if anything, can we do?

That isn't the case here, Mr. Chair. At the time Mr. Rodriguez was submitting the motion, his verbal submission, there was an intervention. There was a point of order made by Mr. Warawa—a very legitimate point of order, because Mr. Warawa correctly identified that what was happening was in breach of protocol, that Mr. Rodriguez was in breach of protocol, because he was not allowed to verbally move the motion he submitted.

Yet what happened subsequent to that, Mr. Chair? Due to the confusion—and I can only attribute the course of actions that followed Mr. Warawa's intervention as due to confusion—the chair of the day in effect overruled Mr. Warawa's point of order and allowed the motion not only to be submitted and entertained, but he allowed it to be voted upon at the time.

The subsequent vote, as indicated, of course, was that members of this committee would hear and start discussion on Bill C-288 the next sitting day, the next committee sitting day.

Yet that is the whole reason behind my intervention this morning, that that was completely out of order, that Mr. Warawa initially should not have been interrupted. Mr. Warawa, as the transcripts clearly show, was indicating to the chair that he had much more in terms of his argument to present to this committee. That's why he raised the point of order.

Yet unfortunately, and I would suspect inadvertently, Mr. Chair, he was overruled, in effect. That in itself should be reason enough for your ruling that Mr. Rodriguez's current motion is completely out of order. That in itself should be sufficient for committee members to understand that there was a breach, because we have, I would suggest, some very experienced parliamentarians sitting around this committee.

I do not know when everyone was first elected. I believe my colleague Mr. Vellacott was first elected in the mid-1990s.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I shall, and thank you for pointing out that I should get back to the point at hand. I appreciate the assistance in that regard.

In any event, Mr. Chair, the point again is that we have to follow correct procedures in this place. Otherwise, the entire structure of Parliament will start to crumble. Quite clearly, Mr. Chair, by the rules and the protocols set by this very committee, proper procedures were not followed. Quite clearly stated, Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to quote—given appropriate time, perhaps I will later in my argument—the passages in which this committee determined their own fate.

As I believe the Honourable Mr. Godfrey stated, the committee is master of its own fate. In fact, when it comes to dealing with notices of motion, they agreed to a protocol that stated that all motions before this committee must be made, one, 24 hours in advance, and two, in a written form in both official languages. My understanding, Mr. Chair, is that those very protocols that this committee undertook and agreed upon were not met.

I'm quite sure, Mr. Chair, that this is an oversight. I believe it was merely an error made in haste at the conclusion of the last committee meeting, and that it was so made because the chair perhaps was not aware, in the confusion of t the time, that protocols were being breached. But that does not excuse the fact, Mr. Chair, that protocol was breached.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that if members are concerned about getting on with the discussion on Bill C-288, this could be dealt with very expeditiously. Quite frankly, that could be done if the committee were to recognize that an error was made and the committee unanimously agreed to allow Mr. Rodriguez to submit his motion by following proper protocol. That would require, of course, 24 hours' notice and a motion in written form in both official languages.

Should the committee agree to that, Mr. Chair, then Mr. Rodriguez could certainly give notice today, submit his motion in written form in both official languages, and then after the 24-hour period, Mr. Chair, probably at the start of next week's committee meeting, Mr. Rodriguez's motion could begin to undergo vigorous, I'm sure, and healthy discussion and debate.

That's all that is really required here, Mr. Chair: an adherence to protocol. But, Mr. Chair, I am frankly quite surprised that members of this committee do not agree that they should follow their own protocols, which they themselves established.

Again, Mr. Chair, I reiterate that I think it's a situation that could quite easily be rectified. Just in case some members did not hear my earlier suggestion, I state again that if the members of this committee, who are, as Mr. Godfrey indicated, masters of their own fate, unanimously determine that protocol had been breached but wish Mr. Rodriguez to resubmit his motion, giving due notice and following the proper protocol in terms of a written submission in both official languages, this matter, this point of order that I have raised—quite correctly, I must add, Mr. Chair, in my view—could be dealt with very expeditiously. I'm sure this matter would be dealt with in a matter of moments.

The motion that Mr. Rodriguez has made and the bill to which he is referring could certainly be dealt with at the start of next week's committee meeting, and I think everyone would be happy. But quite frankly, Mr. Chair, it seems certain members of this committee wish to continue with what has been quite clearly a breach of protocol by ignoring the proper rules, procedures, and practices of this place, of this committee, rules we are all bound to honour and to respect.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think we're setting a very dangerous precedent by ignoring those very protocols and procedures. I hope not to overstate the situation, but in my view, it could quite clearly be the start of a very slippery slope. If this committee sets a precedent by which they ignore protocols that have been set by all members just because some members of the committee feel it to be more convenient, Mr. Chair, I think it will have a ripple effect on all other standing committees in this place, and in fact in Parliament itself.

Now, Mr. Chair, I'm quite sure that if we were able to take my point of order to an even higher court, if one were available, my point of order would be found in complete order, because I'm not raising a frivolous point of order here. I'm raising a very significant and substantive point of order that deals with the procedures and practices of this place. It is dealing with the protocol established by this committee.

Once again, I will state quite clearly that the protocols set by this committee indicated that all motions to be entertained should be given due notice, 24 hours in advance. There's one caveat for exception, but there is no caveat for exception based on how that motion should be delivered. That protocol, Mr. Chair, quite clearly states that motions must be delivered in writing in both official languages, and that clearly was not done in this case.

Mr. Chair, I would submit that there really should be no argument on that case. Therefore, I was somewhat surprised, Mr. Chair, when you referred to the fact that the motion that was accepted at the conclusion of the last committee meeting was in order, because quite clearly it was not. I just don't think there's any argument about that.

Now, one might argue about why it is important that motions be delivered in both official languages. Well, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that it is a fundamental tenet of our democracy here in Canada. I have certainly been engaged in conversations and, frankly, some heated debates from time to time in other committees, Mr. Chair, in which a motion or perhaps even a piece of evidence given by a witness was not submitted in both official languages. In those instances, Mr. Chair, I can assure you that certain members of the opposition justifiably raised some very serious concerns.

We have an Official Languages Act in this country, Mr. Chair, and I know I can give you specific examples, dates, committee times, places, and the names of opposition members who have raised serious objections to the fact that, from time to time, documents have been delivered in only one language. Again, if members of the opposition justifiably raised concerns about the lack of submissions in both official languages at those times, we should be duly concerned—and rightfully so—about the lack of adherence to both official languages in submissions and motions at this committee. But it appears, Mr. Chair, that certain members of this committee wish to ignore that provision and attempt to move forward immediately with a motion that was made under, I would suggest, dubious circumstances at best.

Again I repeat myself, Mr. Chair, with something I said earlier. You can't have two sets of rules. For example, you can't allow opposition members to operate under a certain set of rules and procedures, and disallow other members, whether they be members of the government or other opposition parties, to operate or be forced to operate, I should suggest, under a separate set of rules. Rules are rules, Mr. Chair. They have been clearly articulated in Marleau and Montpetit and they should be observed, Mr. Chair, at all times.

Furthermore, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that if this committee chooses to ignore the very protocol and rules they themselves established, not only are they setting a very poor and I would suggest dangerous precedent for the rest of Parliament, but they would be setting a very poor example to members of the Canadian public.

The voters of this country, Mr. Chair, elected us as parliamentarians, elected us to observe proper rules and practices and procedures. Certainly they wanted to see us move forward and engage in meaningful debate and discussion on pieces of legislation or items of interest.

Members of the opposition, I am sure, would argue that the private member's bill Mr. Rodriguez has moved in the House, one which passed second reading in this Parliament, could be considered and perhaps should be considered one of those important pieces of legislation—in this case a private member's bill—and should be thoroughly discussed and debated. I have no argument with that, Mr. Chair.

My argument, Mr. Chair, is that this piece of legislation, or proposed legislation—it's a private member's bill, so clearly it is not legislation, or at least is not on the legislative agenda from the government—while it may be important for committee members and perhaps all parliamentarians to debate and to discuss, was not presented to this committee in a proper manner.

I have given this committee, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think a very reasonable opportunity to deal with it so that it would be dealt with in a proper manner, so that it could begin debate at this committee and allow all members of this committee the opportunity to express their views on Mr. Rodriguez's private member's bill.

Once again, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that, should members of this committee vote unanimously to follow the proper procedures and protocols, which would require Mr. Rodriguez to give 24 hours' notice in a written form, in both official languages, by the time this committee convened once again next Tuesday that motion, I would suggest, would be on the floor for discussion and debate.

Frankly, I think most committee members would welcome that debate, because at least it would have been undertaken in a manner that was consistent with the protocols they themselves established. Of that there can be no dispute.

I think, Mr. Chair, if you took a straw poll of every member of this committee and asked them quite sincerely whether they believe in following proper rules, I would like to think every single member of this committee would say yes.

I think rules are there for a reason and that it is important to follow rules. I have great respect for each and every one of these parliamentarians. I believe they would answer in the affirmative, that rules are to be respected, rules are to be followed, rules are to be honoured.

So, Mr. Chair, if we have unanimity from all members that rules should be followed, why, quite simply, don't we just follow them? Why don't we follow the rules that have been established for parliamentary procedure, as indicated in Marleau and Montpetit, but why also do we not simply follow the protocols and rules that have been established by members of this very committee?

I believe, Mr. Chair, that at the time the protocol for submitting motions was first discussed at this committee, all members had an opportunity to voice their opinions. My understanding is that at the conclusion of those discussions, all members--not just a majority, Mr. Chair, but all members--of this committee agreed that the protocol for submitting motions should be as follows: 24 hours' advance notice; written submissions, in both official languages.

Now, Mr. Chair, I see no disagreement on that very basic fact. So once again, it is confusing to me why, after having previously given their unanimous consent to follow a certain set of protocols and procedures, these same members now wish to ignore those very protocols that they themselves have established. It is, frankly, beyond my scope of comprehension why they would want to do that.

I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, as I have earlier, that I believe there was an error made by the chair of this committee at the conclusion of last week's meeting. But why compound that error by making another error? That's what this committee would be doing if we tried to move forward with Mr. Rodriguez's motion today.

We could quite simply correct the error that was originally made. We could rectify it in a heartbeat, Mr. Speaker, by having this committee recognize the fact that an error was made and agree to follow the proper protocols that were established by this committee.

Once again, I would suggest that if that were done, this committee could very quickly get on to debate and discussion of Mr. Rodriguez's private member's bill at the start of next week's committee session. That's all it would take. Yet it appears, Mr. Chair, that certain members of this committee do not wish to observe proper protocol.

I will not debate the merits of Mr. Rodriguez's private member's bill. I think that's worthy of debate within this committee. But I think without question there is indisputable proof that protocol, in this case, has been breached. And I would like to think, Mr. Chair, that all members of this committee, who I'm sure have taken either a private or public pledge to honour and respect the practices, conditions, and conventions of this place, would do so now. There's nothing more basic. There's no more fundamental tenet to this place and to the operations of this place than following the rules.

I'm sure, Mr. Chair, that in all walks of life all parliamentarians, in their former lives, whether in professions or trades or in business, recognized the need to follow the rules as established by the environment in which they worked. That's one of the basic tenets not only of this place, Mr. Chair, but also, I would suggest, of society, that rules have been set for very good reasons. Rules have been set to be observed. Rules have been set to make sure that there's some coherence and some sense, some place of order in our lives and in our workplace.

Well, Mr. Chair, in this place, which, frankly, I would suggest is a showcase for democracy...any parliament in western democracy, Mr. Chair, is a showcase not only for democracy, but also for rules and practices and for the ability of its members to provide the proper direction under a certain set of rules and practices.

I would humbly suggest, Mr. Chair, that if members of this committee find it convenient to ignore those very rules and practices that guide us in everything we do, they would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent, one that I don't think any member of this committee would want to set.

Frankly, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that I doubt that any member of this committee would want to be named as a member of a committee that ignored practices and protocols of this place. I would like to think that no member of this committee would want to be named in a document that said there was a breach of protocol and here were the members present who agreed to that very breach. Quite frankly, I think most members of this committee, if put in that position, would say no, I don't want my name to be placed in that regard.

I absolutely believe, Mr. Chair, that every member of this committee honours the procedures and practices that have been set down by Marleau and Montpetit. I also suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that members of this committee feel very strongly about the fact that the very protocols that they themselves set down should be respected to the highest degree. Again, it is something that baffles me, frankly, because of the integrity I believe members of this committee have for the procedures that govern their very actions. It puzzles me why they would now determine that they should ignore those very practices, those very protocols.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that what we need to do—and I would certainly cede my time should there be some show of unanimity on this—what this committee very clearly needs to do is recognize the fact that there was a breach of protocol. Unintended as it may have been, there was a breach of protocol. That is the first step to rectifying the situation that I think, Mr. Chair, needs to be rectified.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, it appears that no one on this committee, at least no one on the opposition side, seems to be willing to entertain what is in my view such a very simple solution, a solution that would accommodate the very wishes of Mr. Rodriguez, would accommodate the protocols of this committee, and would accommodate what I consider to be some ongoing spirited and meaningful debate on the merits of Mr. Rodriguez's private member's bill. But, Mr. Chair, again I have to reiterate that I do not believe that even Mr. Rodriguez would want to see his private member's bill entertained in a manner that some would suggest would be inappropriate in reference to protocol.

My understanding of private members' bills is that once they reach the committee stage after they have passed second reading, which this bill has done, they have 60 days in which they can be debated and discussed, so given that, frankly, I see that there is no mad rush to have this debate stated today when it could be started as early as next Tuesday. A breach of protocol then would be averted. It could be rectified, Mr. Chair. I'm sure that you, as vice-chair, and also the current sitting chair of this committee would agree that you would want to see, every time you are in the chair, that proper procedures and protocols are followed. That's one of the fundamental tenets of a chair, to ensure the proper dealings with committee in terms of protocol.

I would like to believe, Mr. Chair, that you and every other chair of any other standing committee in this place feel a great obligation to follow the procedures, practices, and protocols that have been previously established. I would not like to think that any chair would deliberately contravene accepted practices and protocols for partisan purposes. Certainly, I would not like to see any chair even engage in that discussion let alone action.

So with that in mind, I think it would be incumbent upon you to agree with my argument. Since a breach of protocol has been committed—and I have yet to hear a cogent case made to the contrary—the correct course of action is to rectify it.

We all make mistakes, Mr. Chair. I have great respect for the chair of this committee, Mr. Mills, who is not with us today. I have respect for his integrity and his judgment. Unfortunately, in this case, even though he's a colleague of mine, I believe he was guilty of a serious lapse of judgment when he entertained a motion that was not forwarded in a proper manner.

This is not a criticism of Mr. Mills, merely an statement that a mistake has been made. Mistakes, of course, are quite common. We're only human. But the best way to deal with a known mistake is to admit to it and then do whatever needs to be done to correct it.

I'm sure that all of us, in our upbringings, when we were going through school or just dealing with family matters, were taught by our parents, either directly or by example, that mistakes will invariably happen from time to time. But when mistakes happen, admit to them. Be an adult. Stand up to your mistake. Admit to it. Then, even more important, try to correct that mistake. This is the proper course of action.

I'm sure that members around this table could give us many examples of mistakes that, quite frankly, cannot be rectified. Some mistakes are serious, egregious even, to the point where a corrective course of action cannot be taken. But that is not the case in this instance.

There has been a clear violation, a clear breach of protocol. A mistake has been made. But all we need to do, really, is take corrective action. What is that corrective action? Again, it is quite simply this: allow this committee, Mr. Chair, or perhaps direct it in your capacity as chair, to take corrective action. Should you do so, you would be applauded by all those who watch this place in action, who read transcripts, and who study parliamentary procedure.

These people would applaud your actions, Mr. Chair, because they would know that you have done the right thing. You would have ensured that the protocols of this committee are being followed correctly and to the letter. Anything less would diminish your role as chair of this committee. Moreover, it would diminish the respect in which all chairs are held. However, to see a wrong and move to correct it is commendable. How could anyone argue with a course of action that corrects a mistake? That's all that really needs to be done, Mr. Chair.

There are more reasons for entering into a discussion on this matter than the mere fact that a mistake was made. Mr. Chair, there are always reasons for which rules are put in place. Never, at least in this place, have rules, practices, procedures, or protocols been established that did not have valid reasons behind them. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the protocols we're discussing in this point of order have those reasons behind them. Let's examine again what those reasons are.

Originally, Mr. Chair, as you well know, there was a 24-hour provision given when setting the protocol for submitting motions. Why was there a 24-hour notice, Mr. Chair?

I would suggest that during committee discussions you determined that 24 hours would be an adequate amount of time to allow committee members to duly consider the motion that was being presented. I think quite frankly, Mr. Chair, that was a wise decision of this committee. I know other committees have given or established protocols that suggest a 48-hour notice of motion be given, but I think that in any event, Mr. Chair, the rationale behind the advance notices is to allow committee members the opportunity to carefully consider the motion being presented.

I don't think, Mr. Chair, that it would be appropriate or fair for any committee member or any member of Parliament to be subjected to a motion on which they were purported to give intelligence discourse without due notice.

In other words, Mr. Chair, I think that the 24-hour notice is a very important part of the protocol established by this committee. It allows all committee members a 24-hour period in which to examine the motion, to consider the motion, perhaps to consult with other colleagues on the motion, and Mr. Chair, more importantly, it gives them the ability to return to the committee and engage in intelligent, productive, and fruitful discourse and debate on the motion.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that without the 24-hour advance notice provision, as contained in this particular protocol, members would be at a severe disadvantage. They would be expected to engage in debate, in discourse, and in discussion, and perhaps even ultimately to make decisions based on a motion which was, in effect, sprung upon them, that was given to them with no advance notice. So, Mr. Chair, I think, very frankly, that alone should be reason enough to recognize the fact that there is a breach of protocol.

Now, my understanding, Mr. Chair, is that there was a caveat attached to the protocol regarding submission of motions. That caveat basically stated--and I will paraphrase somewhat, Mr. Chair--that if the motion is considered to be on the agenda or is a current piece of business, advance notice need not be given.

I know there would be a point of debate, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, and that might be for another point of order on whether the chair ruled correctly that the motion that Mr. Rodriguez had submitted was actually a current piece of business.

I know that the argument that Mr. Rodriguez made is that since future business was on the committee agenda for discussion as an agenda point, and that since in fact Bill C-288, his private member's bill, had passed second reading and so could be considered, in effect, future business, it should be considered current, and advance notice of motion need not be given.

And I understand that was the argument presented by Mr. Rodriguez. That was the argument that was considered by the chair of this committee, and in fact, having given due consideration to that argument, my understanding is that the chair then concurred with the argument that was advanced by Mr. Rodriguez, and in fact made a ruling that advance 24-hour notice in this particular case need not be given.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that it again seems to be in some conflict with the spirit in which this provision was first made.

Mr. Chair, I suppose one could technically argue that if agenda items state that future business is up for discussion and the private member's bill under discussion is actually a part of future business, it could fall under this caveat that disallows or forgives the 24-hour notice period.

But I think it is important, Mr. Chair, to look back at the spirit in which the protocol was made.The spirit in which the 24-hour notice provision was agreed upon by all members of this committee was to allow committee members the opportunity to examine and consider the motion in question before engaging in debate. Well, if that is the spirit of the bill, or I should say the spirit of the protocol, Mr. Chair, then I would humbly suggest that spirit should be honoured and observed.

In this place, we understand there are sometimes nuances and sometimes grey areas. But I think the authors of Marleau and Montpetit did an exemplary job in crafting the procedures manual and eliminating most of what I would consider to be the vagaries of language. I think that in most cases, in most areas of the manual of Marleau and Montpetit, they have done an excellent job and a commendable job in clarifying even the most minute portion of that book in terms of black and white.

But I also think, Mr. Chair, there are always cracks in which certain things can fall between, and I think this is one of them. I think the technical argument made by Mr. Rodriguez with respect to bypassing the 24-hour notice provision in the protocol established by this committee is a bit of a grey area. I think it totally ignores the spirit of that protocol.

Once again, the spirit of the protocol was to give 24-hour notice to allow all committee members the opportunity to examine, to consider, and to consult. Mr. Chair, that was clearly not given.

Mr. Chair, once again, given the circumstances in which this private member's bill has been submitted, and given the circumstances in which we have a 60-day window to discuss and debate this private member's bill, I would go back to a suggestion that I forwarded earlier, which I think is an extremely simple solution.

I frankly think that as I have been debating this very important point of order, the member opposite, Mr. Rodriguez, could have been writing this motion and getting it translated in both official languages. This could have been submitted as I speak. Then, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, regardless of your ruling on my point of order, at the very least, Mr. Rodriguez's motion would be accommodated inasmuch as it would be debated at the start of next Tuesday's committee meeting.

Yet I see no activity on behalf of the member opposite to do that very thing and to observe the very protocol that he himself had agreed to. I find it puzzling, Mr. Chair. I don't understand that.

I understand that Mr. Rodriguez may disagree with my interpretation of the protocol, although for the life of me I don't know how he could find any dispute in the argument I'm raising, because it is quite clear and it's basically written in black and white. All members were here for the discussion when the protocol was established. I believe all members agreed to that protocol. Why Mr. Rodriguez would want to ignore the protocol, which he had a part in developing, is beyond me. Again, the very fundamental notice provision of that protocol has been ignored, and I can't understand why.

But there's more than just the notice provisions in that protocol, Mr. Chair, and I know you're fully aware of that. Again, while we can debate whether or not the 24-hour notice was excused for proper reasons—and I would suggest that proper reasons were not given and would argue, perhaps even in a second point of order, that this particular point of protocol should be corrected, or at least, Mr. Chair, should be clarified, to the point of this committee's engaging in debate as to what constitutes due and correct and proper notice....

In other words, Mr. Chair, if on the committee agenda, the sheet of paper that is handed out at the start of each committee, there is one line item that says “future business”, is that so broadly based and so all-encompassing that future business can really mean anything that might come before this committee?

If that is considered to be future business, then under the interpretation given by Mr. Rodriguez, this should mean that absolutely nothing requires a 24-hour notice. Well, I don't think that's the spirit of the protocol that was agreed. I don't think any member of this committee would agree that it is the spirit under which this protocol was entertained.

I think that's one item, Mr. Chair, that clearly this committee needs to discuss, and perhaps you, Mr. Chair, in your capacity as vice-chair could undertake those discussions and examinations, because I think it's, quite frankly, one of those grey areas I alluded to of which, while not many in Marleau and Montpetit, there are a few that we have, today at least, discovered which should be considered grey areas and should be clarified.

I think, quite frankly, that if this were clarified, then Mr. Rodriguez would have known in advance very clearly that he would not have been able to advance his argument that his motion would not require a 24-hour advance notice period.

So I think that quite clearly, Mr. Chair, this committee needs to examine that particular provision in the protocol they established and determine, at least to have some consensus if not unanimity on the question, whether the spirit of the protocol was to give members advance time to consider a motion. And if that spirit was in fact broken, then this gap should be filled in.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that the particular argument Mr. Rodriguez advanced, while a laudable one—and quite frankly, perhaps if I were in his position I would have advanced the same argument.... I know this is a private member's bill that holds a great amount of importance to Mr. Rodriguez and, I'm sure, to many other members of the opposition. Yet while I do not debate the merits of his bill and will not debate whether or not his bill in fact even should be debated, I will argue, Mr. Chair, that unless you follow proper protocol, everything else falls by the wayside.

There can be nothing else as important as following the rules, and I've yet to hear at any point in parliamentary debate, whether at committee or in the House of Commons, any member of this place stand in his place and argue that rules are meant to be broken.

Now, if someone could make an argument, a cogent argument, that persuades me that rules of this place are made to be broken, I would love to engage that member in debate, because I just do not believe that debate, quite frankly, is sustainable. Rules are there for a reason. They are meant to be observed. In this particular instance, clearly rules have been ignored, and protocols that have been established by this committee have been breached.

So, Mr. Chair, I honestly believe we cannot ignore the fact there has been a breach of protocol, and this committee should take it extremely seriously.

The 24-hour notice period, Mr. Chair, we discussed at some length, but there are more provisions to the same protocol that bear examination, because as I mentioned earlier, rules are always made for a reason, and usually very good reasons. I don't think the authors of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Messieurs Marleau and Montpetit, would have made any of their recommendations without a good rationale behind it.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that everything contained in that very august book, if I could call it that, those rules and Standing Orders and practices and procedures have been done for a reason. I would also suggest, as I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, that the practices this committee follows, the rules this committee follows, the protocols this committee established were also done for very good reasons. If there were reasons, Mr. Chair, why aren't the rules themselves being followed? And what motivated the protocol that was brought forward by this committee with respect to this particular provision of submitting motions?

One of the provisions of that protocol was that the motion should be in written form in both official languages. Why is that? Mr. Chair, one would ask why do motions have to be in written form and why do they have to be in both official languages? I have my own opinions on that. I would suggest that if you do not have a motion in a written form, there could be some area of dispute. Even though these committees have recorded transcripts, and one could argue that verbal motions are sufficient because the chair or other members could always consult with the recorded transcript, I would suggest that written motions are important because they leave absolutely no doubt as to the intent of the motion of the individual member who advanced that motion.

Clearly in this case, Mr. Chair, and Mr. Rodriguez would admit this, there was no written submission. There was a verbal submission, complete contravention of the protocol. I see Mr. Rodriguez is feeling poorly about that, and I know he wishes he could have done the submission correctly, and I empathize with Mr. Rodriguez, I truly do. But again, this could be rectified now. As I am speaking, Mr. Rodriguez could be writing this motion and getting it translated and having it submitted to the chair. And then, Mr. Chair, I would submit that Mr. Rodriguez' private member's bill would be ready for discussion and debate at the start of next week's meeting. I think, Mr. Chair, that would satisfy his concerns, because it would still give ample time for discussion and debate on his bill.

Mr. Chair, I see no evidence, nor do I think members on this side of the committee table see any evidence, that there is a written submission of this very motion. Therefore, Mr. Chair, I only have the word of Mr. Rodriguez, one whose words I have great regard for and great respect for, but I only have his word and transcripts of the previous committee in which, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, there was ample evidence to suggest that, due to the confusion of the time at the moment of that meeting, perhaps this motion should not have even been accepted for discussion.

Mr. Chair, I would submit to you quite respectfully that any motion brought forward to any committee by any member of Parliament is worthy of consideration. Although I could stand to be corrected on this or proven wrong, I do not believe that any member of Parliament would entertain or submit what I would consider to be frivolous motions. I have too much respect for the members of this place to suspect that would happen.

So I truly believe that Mr. Rodriguez's motion, which would see a fast track given to his private member's bill.... It was given, it was submitted in all due conscience....

While one could debate whether or not that particular private member's bill should be given a fast-track provision, I would submit there cannot be any debate on the fact that proper practices, proper protocols need to be observed. Yet clearly, Mr. Chair, that did not happen in this instance.

Now, Mr. Chair, not only were protocols breached in terms of advance notice not being given to this committee.... I was beginning to discuss why the written submission was so important, as opposed to a verbal submission, and I think that's apparent. I think, in order to avoid any confusion, written submissions are the proof positive that the intent, the spirit, the motion itself is being considered in its entirety...and without any discussion as to whether the member really meant this or perhaps meant something else. That's why motions are given in a written form.

Clearly, that protocol was breached in this case. There was no written submission from Mr. Rodriguez. I'm sure that was just an error. I'm sure in his exuberance to get his private member's bill before this committee for discussion and his desire to have a meaningful debate on his private member's bill, he merely forgot the very protocol in which he was a part of forming.

Again, a mistake made, Mr. Chair. I certainly have no problems with any individual making a mistake. It happens all the time. And I'm not being critical of Mr. Rodriguez for entertaining or submitting a submission or a motion that was basically done in error, in contravention of protocol. A simple mistake was made. And I'm quite sure that my colleague Mr. Rodriguez would be the first one to admit that a mistake was made.

Well, you have to give credit to any member who stands in his place or stands up and says, do you know something? I made a mistake, and in this case, I'm man enough to admit it.

Why don't we deal with the subsequent act, the consequential act? If a mistake was made, why don't we merely correct it? Why don't we merely correct it? I think not only would that satisfy members of this committee, Mr. Chair, it would certainly satisfy, I'm sure, the desires of our constituents, those people who elected us to represent them in this place.

Again, Mr. Chair, I underscore the importance of the integrity of this place and the ability for members to go back to their constituents and say, “I have followed the correct rules”. Some of these rules and procedures and practices may seem somewhat arcane to many members of the voting public, yet they are there for a reason. I can assure you, as a constituent, as someone who has voted for me, that I have followed them diligently, with respect.

In this case, Mr. Chair, unfortunately, members of this committee would not be able to make that conclusion, would not be able to make that statement to constituents when asked, “Why did you start debating that bill when I understand there was some dispute as to whether or not it was entertained, or at least submitted in proper form?”

In all good conscience, if they were being truthful to both themselves and their constituents, a member of this committee would have to admit that, well, do you know something? We just ignored a protocol that we ourselves established. In other words, we just thought it was more convenient to deal with this and to heck with the rules. We just thought in this one small instance it would be okay to ignore the rules.

I would again submit to you, Mr. Chair, that it is not okay to ignore rules, to disregard procedures and practices and protocols. Those are the very fundamental tenets, the underpinnings of this place and this committee.

I would strongly suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that in your capacity as chair, that in Mr. Mills' capacity as chair, you should absolutely observe all proper protocols and procedure, because it is easy at times in this place to become distracted, and I think that's what happened at the conclusion of the last committee meeting, that there was a distraction, there was some confusion, and an error was made. These things will happen. I'll be the first to admit it.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have made many mistakes in my past, and I certainly believe I'll be making many mistakes in my future, but I would hope, although I cannot absolutely confirm that I have corrected past indiscretions, that in the future I will have enough integrity and honour to stand in my place and say, you know something? I admit I made a mistake. I apologize. But even more important, Mr. Chair, I hope that I will be able to say I have found a corrective course of action to remedy the mistake that I myself have made.

My apologies, Mr. Chair, for referring to you as Mr. Speaker. I suppose I am used to the norm of speaking of issues and subjects in the House of Commons, but I will try to correct myself and refer to you as the chair as much as I can.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that in this particular case we have to, as a committee, admit that a mistake was made. I think it's incumbent upon all of us to recognize the fact that a protocol was breached, inadvertently perhaps, perhaps, as I say, from the perspective of Mr. Rodriguez. Perhaps from his perspective, because of his enthusiasm to bring his private member's bill before the committee, he didn't even know that he was breaching his own protocol, but I think there can be no dispute, Mr. Chair. I think there can be, frankly, no argument that there has been a breach of protocol, because it's there for everyone to observe. This was the committee that established the protocol.

So while it is not unusual for mistakes to be made, Mr. Chair, I think it is only proper that all members of this committee admit that a mistake was made and take corrective action. After all, Mr. Chair, if the committee, in its wisdom, determines that Mr. Rodriguez's bill is worthy of fast-tracking, if I can use that term, worthy of getting speedy passage and examination through this committee, if that is the determination of this committee, then that is their right to do so, and I have no argument with that.

I would suggest that no member of the government side of this committee would have any argument with that. The argument, quite clearly, Mr. Chair, is it has to be done in a proper form, full stop, period. You don't need to go any further than that, and that protocol was not observed. We did not, Mr. Speaker--and I say “we” in the royal sense--did not observe proper protocol.

I believe also, Mr. Chair, that it's important to note that not only was the motion submitted by Mr. Rodriguez not submitted in written form, it was not done so in both official languages.

And I can assure you, Mr. Chair, as I started to mention earlier, on other committees on which I have served as a proud member, when that oversight has occurred--and I refer to these things as oversights, because I don't think anyone has ever done a deliberate act to deliberately ignore one of our two official languages--I have seen members of the opposition become quite agitated and upset. They take that as a personal affront in some cases, particularly, Mr. Speaker, if they feel that this has come from a member who in the past, in their opinion, has not rightfully observed the linguistic dualism of this country.

So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that particularly given the fact that Mr. Rodriguez is fluently bilingual, that there would have been no problem for Mr. Rodriguez, obviously, to get his submission translated into both official languages. In fact, that is a service provided to us by officials of this Parliament. Mr. Chair, I would think that since Mr. Rodriguez is fluently bilingual, that he would be thinking first and foremost that any submission should be in both official languages.

Mr. Rodriguez, many times in the House, has presented questions or arguments or debates in both languages. He has done so very well. To forget, perhaps, that he needed to do so when submitting a motion of this importance in both official languages is something that I can only suspect would be an oversight. Yet again, it's somewhat puzzling to me why someone who is as fluently bilingual as Mr. Rodriguez wouldn't have that first and foremost in his mind when considering a submission of his motion.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair--and this, I guess, is the only thing I can think of--this was almost an afterthought for Mr. Rodriguez. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that if Mr. Rodriguez had planned to make a submission on his motion, he would have come prepared to this committee. He would have come with a written submission in both official languages.

So I can only surmise, Mr. Chair, that perhaps Mr. Rodriguez, during the course of the committee meeting in question, thought that this was an opportunity to make a motion to get his private member's bill discussed and on the agenda a little quicker than normal. Perhaps Mr. Rodriguez had an epiphany during the middle of that meeting, Mr. Chair, and thought that he could make a technical argument that would allow his private member's bill to come forward without following proper protocol. Why else, Mr. Chair, would his motion have been submitted in such a fashion? My understanding is that Mr. Rodriguez is fully knowledgeable about and conversant with the protocol that was established by this committee. My understanding is that Mr. Rodriguez was part of the discussion that took place in establishing the protocol.

If that was the case--and I would suspect, also, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Rodriguez has a very good memory, perhaps even an exemplary memory--and he can recall that a protocol was established by this committee, including him, that required advance notice of 24 hours and that a motion be submitted in written form in both official languages, then why, one has to ask, Mr. Speaker, did Mr. Rodriguez not follow the proper protocol?

It had to be an oversight or, as I mentioned a few moments ago, Mr. Chair, perhaps it was because Mr. Rodriguez had an epiphany. He had a thought. He had a brainstorm in the middle of the committee meeting, and he thought he might be able to advance his motion verbally and somehow get the committee to accept it.

I can draw no other conclusion as to why he would advance his motion in such a manner. It is quite clear by the very protocols established by this committee that all motions, not some motions but all motions, Mr. Chair, must be submitted in written form, in advance, and in both official languages.

So how in the world would Mr. Rodriguez, who I am sure is a very highly intelligent man, conclude that a motion that was so clearly out of order possibly be accepted by members of this committee? Not only was the motion accepted in a manner that I consider to be completely out order, Mr. Chair, but basic protocol would indicate that the discussion of his motion should have been ruled out of order.

Why do I say that, Mr. Chair? Well, as we determined at the outset of this meeting, points of order take precedence over all other committee business. The motion in question was presented at the committee and then a subsequent point of order was made by Mr. Warawa.

Mr. Warawa's point of order stated that Mr. Rodriguez submitted his motion in an inappropriate fashion. Mr. Warawa, in my estimation at least, had a very legitimate point. As I have illuminated this morning, the motion that was submitted was out of order. It did not follow proper protocol. This was the very point that Mr. Warawa was arguing at that committee.

However, Mr. Chair, I would point out, and the transcripts support my contention, that the chair overruled Mr. Warawa's point of order. He allowed the motion to be voted upon. Mr. Chair, quite clearly, as we have established in today's meeting, points of order take precedence over any other committee business. Mr. Warawa was within his right, and it was within his purview, to forward his point of order in a manner that he felt comfortable. Frankly, Mr. Chair, he should not have been restricted in his comments.

We have determined at this meeting that a point of order takes precedence. While I am sure it was in all good faith, Mr. Chair, that you tried to restrict the length of time in which I could present my argument on my point of order, it was finally determined that I frankly had as much time as necessary, as much time as I wanted, to present my point of order.

Well, Mr. Chair, it is quite apparent from the transcripts that with the point of order that Mr. Warawa was making at the committee meeting in question, he was not given proper time to advance his argument. In fact, the chair allowed a vote to be taken on Mr. Rodriguez's motion and that in itself is out of order.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chair, I would like to read the transcripts from that meeting that again underscores to what I am referring.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Okay, well, listen, we have to proceed with the meeting, whether we have a meeting or just raise points of order for the next two hours.

The reality--and you can take the Minutes of Proceedings--is that a motion was moved on Thursday, October 26, in relation to proceeding with Bill C-288. A question was put before the committee. Mr. Mills, who was the chair at that time, accepted it. It was adopted. We're meeting here based on the proceedings that took place in the meeting on October 26.

The motion is properly before us, and we will proceed in that fashion. Otherwise, we're just going to be debating about whether we should have the debate or not have the debate.

The fact of the matter is that the motion is properly placed before us. It has been voted on by the committee; it has been ruled on by the chair of the committee, and I'm also making the rule that it is properly before us, so we have to proceed.

Before you get to your point of order, the question is whether we are going to have a meeting just about points of order, or whether we will actually deal with the substance of the meeting. That's what I want to know.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

No, no, we didn't. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, originally you had said, in relation to discussion on the motion of Bill C-288, that there would be 10-minute rounds of discussion. That did not apply to a point of order.

Second, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that any point of order raised has to be ruled upon by the chair, which you have not done. The reason I would suggest you have not done that, Mr. Chair, is that I have not completed my point of order, and I would appreciate the chair's indulgence to allow me to continue making my argument in my original point of order, after which, ultimately, I would ask that the chair rule upon it.

This has been, in my respectful submission to you, Mr. Chair, a breach of protocol. I have not been allowed to complete my argument on my point of order, and we have not had a ruling from the chair, and I think that is a complete violation of procedures of this place.

With greatest respect, Mr. Chair, I would ask that I be allowed to continue my original point of order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that I have the floor and that I can speak to this point of order. I'm attempting to do that.

Marleau and Montpetit is the bible of this place. It is an extremely lengthy and well-researched document that all members from time to time refer to when disputes arise in the House and in committee. The Speaker of the House and chairs of standing committees refer to Marleau and Montpetit, because it is the principal reference on which dispute resolution is based. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that if we start ignoring proper procedure and protocol, we put the entire parliamentary system in jeopardy. Therefore, I firmly believe that the ruling made at the conclusion of the last meeting, though apparently made in good faith, was certainly incorrect.

I have attended and have been a member of several standing committees. I'm not as long-standing a member of Parliament as some of the other members of the committee, but in the two-plus years that I have been a member of Parliament I've learned a few things. I've learned to respect the rules of this place and to hold them in high esteem. Yet it appears that in this case the very rules we are bound by, the protocols we follow, have been ignored.

From time to time there will invariably be differences of opinion. That is the nature of politics. It's the very nature of this place. As has been evidenced in both the 39th Parliament and preceding Parliaments, from time to time these differences of opinion can get quite heated. That's why the rules of this place, our procedures and protocols, are so vitally important. They ensure decorum and a proper working environment for all parliamentarians.

I would point out that the procedures, protocols, and practices of this place may from time to time irritate—perhaps even infuriate—some members. But they are available to all members, because they are the rules by which we operate.

I want to give an example or two of what is happening here and now. We have noticed that over the course of the last week or two, certain members of the opposition have resorted to a series of procedures and procedural tactics that are completely within their rights to use—concurrence motions. In my opinion, these members have consistently used concurrence motions to delay the proper functioning of this government.

I found it interesting that just two days ago the chief opposition whip delivered a concurrence motion on a report submitted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In her introduction to this motion, the opposition whip stated...and as most members will remember, this was a concurrence motion dealing with a procedure and House affairs report on making the provisional Standing Orders, under which we had been operating, permanent.

In our introduction to this motion, the opposition whip stated that the Standing Orders are there for a very important reason. She illuminated a number of those reasons, but one of them, Mr. Chair, was that Standing Orders are there to allow the government to govern.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest that this is an extremely important provision of the Standing Orders because that's what Canadians do during elections. Whether it be a minority or a majority government, Canadians elect their representatives to this place to fulfill, among many other things, the campaign commitments made during the election process.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, even though this 39th Parliament is a minority government, that the people of Canada who elected a Conservative minority truly want to see, or at least have the opportunity to debate, many of the legislative initiatives this Conservative government wishes to put forward. One of those initiatives, Mr. Chair, and one of the major initiatives most Canadians are aware of, is the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chair, by listening to media interviews and panel discussions by members of the opposition, my understanding is that the opposition is not planning to allow the government to even introduce that legislation for debate at committee. I've heard many members, some of whom are sitting in this room, state unequivocally that they plan to kill this bill, not even let it pass second reading, to prevent the Clean Air Act being presented to committee.

Mr. Chair, I assume--and I can only assume--this is the motivation behind the motion in question to which I am speaking, on why the opposition members, particularly from the official opposition, are attempting to introduce Bill C-288, a private member's bill dealing with Kyoto--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to raise a point of order based on the ruling that was made at the last committee meeting to entertain this motion by Mr. Rodriguez today. Clearly, Mr. Chair, the protocol and procedures established by this committee more than suggested--confirmed--the fact that there is a series of protocols that must be followed to entertain, in this case Bill C-288.

This committee has determined, first of all, that motions should be given advance notice of 24 hours, although there is an exception to that, I understand. If the motion being presented could be considered business under review or current business, it could be entertained. But quite clearly, the protocol of this committee also suggests that motions must be given in writing in both official languages. This was not done.

Mr. Chair, if I may continue, I think it's quite clear that the protocol as established by this committee was not followed. From time to time rulings are made in committees that are in error, and I suggest this one was done in all good faith. There was quite a bit of confusion at the end of the meeting in which this motion was entertained. Another committee was trying to get into the room, and this committee was just trying to complete its business. But all that being said, Mr. Chair, the end result was that a ruling was made to entertain Mr. Rodriguez's motion to start discussions on Bill C-288 when in fact his motion is, in my opinion, out of order because he did not follow proper protocol.

Mr. Chair, one may argue that protocol isn't that important to follow. I would suggest that in this Parliament, in this place, protocol is extremely important to follow. There is a reason, Mr. Chair, that under Westminster parliamentary procedures we have procedures and rules that all parliamentarians are bound to follow. The bible on procedures and practices, Marleau and Montpetit, is an extremely lengthy document, as everyone here knows.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Mario Silva]

Good morning, everyone.

Before we start the meeting today, there are a few procedural things I'd like to suggest to members, if they are in agreement.

First of all, this meeting room was supposed to be televised. There's no need for us to televise this meeting, because it's mainly to deal with procedure. If members are okay with it, we'll have the cameras turned off.

Are members in agreement with that? I don't see any objections.

The second thing is that our meeting will terminate at 11 o'clock, given the fact that there's another committee meeting here. I wanted members to be aware of that. I do think we can manage to do things within an hour, at least I'm hoping to, since the only topic at hand is Bill C-288, and there are no witnesses before the committee.

As well, if the members are in agreement, I'd like to have ten minutes given to each individual, so that we don't go over the allotted time of two hours.

If members are in agreement with that, we'll proceed in that fashion. If there are any other questions, concerns, or motions, I'd like to entertain them. Otherwise, who would like to be the first to speak?

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

Mr. Chairman. I move that we begin consideration of Bill C-288 next week, perhaps not Tuesday, but Thursday at the latest. I would like this motion to be put to a vote.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since the House has already ruled on Bill C-288 and referred it to the committee, it would be important, I believe, to suspend our consideration of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Mr. Rodriguez has suggested starting next week, but we do not have to delve into it on Tuesday. I do, however, think that to respect the decision of parliamentarians in this House who want the bill to be considered by this committee, we should get to it as soon as possible.

I am convinced that if it were a government bill, we would already be considering it. I believe that Mr. Rodriguez's bill warrants our full attention. We must, as a committee, be diligent in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

It's unanimous, so we will try to set a date to look at the main estimates.

As you can understand, of course, we have witnesses scheduled for all of next week--they've all been arranged--but we'll look at some time in the couple of weeks after that.

The next item we need to deal with would be Bill C-288. What I would like to just mention to the committee is that the previous environment committee did a full report based around--and I know many of you weren't here--greenhouse gases, emission levels, the Kyoto Protocol, and so on. The committee did spend, literally, half a year on this. So that will fit in.

The second thing I would like to draw to the committee's attention is that the clean air act is going to be tabled this week, and obviously it will also fit into the discussion of this. So I think that should be under consideration as we look at this.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

Perhaps a little cold water for Mr. Rodriguez.

I'm going back to the transcripts from the committee with Madam Gélinas. My colleague to the right of me, Mr. Vellacott, made a very simple statement, and I'm going to quote it: “...whether the government changed, the new targets are needed.”

Madam Gélinas' reply was: "That's absolutely right.” It wasn't “kind of right”, “maybe”, or “no”; it was, “That's absolutely right.” Even had the previous government won the last election and continued to govern, Madam Gélinas makes it absolutely clear that new targets are needed.

Mr. Rodriguez brought forward a bill, Bill C-288. Unfortunately, it was passed, and it's going to shackle us to the failed approach of Kyoto with respect to the timeframe and target.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-288 under private members' business.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The House resumed from June 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. government House leader on June 16, 2006 in relation to the procedural issues relating to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. government House leader for having raised this matter and by thanking the hon. members for Mississauga South, Honoré-Mercier and Winnipeg Centre for having made contributions on this matter.

In his submission, the government House leader argued that this bill commits the government to significant expenditures and therefore requires a royal recommendation. In support of this fact, he referred to the spending which was included in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year by the previous government. Parliament was dissolved in November 2005 before the appropriation act emanating from those estimates could be voted on, and subsequently the moneys were authorized through Governor General special warrants. The House leader therefore concludes that it is evident that this bill entails considerable spending and so requires a royal recommendation.

In a ruling earlier this week on a similar matter, namely, C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord, the Chair made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us, the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be. If spending is required, as the government House leader contends, then a specific request for public monies would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill, as was the case in 2005, or through another legislative initiative containing an authorization for the spending of public money for a specific purpose.

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto protocol. Rather, the bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the government to implement the protocol. If such approval is given, then the government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

As Bill C-288 stands, however, the Chair must conclude that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this point of order relates to my private member's bill.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to respond to points raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning my private member's bill, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

On June 16, the Leader of the Government rose on a point of order concerning my bill, saying that it would require royal recommendation. He said:

I find it difficult to see how this bill can mandate the government to fully meet existing Kyoto targets without also committing the government to additional significant expenditures in the billions of dollars.

I would like to begin by reminding the hon. member about the contents of my bill. It would require the Minister of the Environment to prepare a yearly climate change plan that describes measures to be undertaken to ensure that Canada respects its obligations under paragraph 3(1) of the Kyoto protocol.

The bill would also require that the government make, amend or repeal the appropriate regulations, in order to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. It also calls on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit an evaluation of the government’s annual plans.

The bill also allows the government, in making, amending or repealing regulations, to “take into account any reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are reasonably expected to result from the implementation of other governmental measures, including spending and federal-provincial agreements”.

Thus, while Bill C-288allows the government to spend in order to meet the Canadian objectives in the Kyoto protocol, it does not require that it do so at all. In fact, it is the government’s option. The government alone would decide whether to spend in addition to making regulations. It is therefore up to the government to decide.

I would like to address the question of how Canada would meet its Kyoto objectives without government spending.

To start with, I would assure the House that it is perfectly possible that Canada will meet its Kyoto obligations by the regulatory route alone.

For example, consider the broadest practical domestic emissions trading system described in the 2002 Government of Canada discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change. The system would require all fossil fuel suppliers to hold permits equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions produced by burning the fossil fuels that they sell. Such a system would cover most emissions from industry, electricity generation, buildings and transportation.

In total, the report estimates that this regulated emissions trading system would cover in the order of 80% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions. Using this approach, the government could adopt regulations to obtain any desired amount of reductions from sources, making up 80% of Canada's emissions. Most or all of the remaining 20% of national emissions which come mainly from agriculture landfills and some industrial processes could also be reduced by granting offset credits that would be bought and sold by the private sectors.

Regulations to increase the energy efficiency of vehicles, equipment, appliances and other consumer products will round out the approach. Thus, Canada could certainly meet its Kyoto target through regulations alone.

The six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto protocol are already listed in Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which gives the government broad powers to regulate them.

CEPA also allows for a domestic emissions trading system under section 11.

In other words, the government already has everything it needs to regulate greenhouse gas pollution right now. Its powers are more than sufficient for Canada to be able to meet its Kyoto obligations without spending any new public funds.

The report I have just quoted sets out the results of economic modelling of the approach I described. According to that economic model, meeting our Kyoto objectives by relying essentially on an extended emissions rights trading system would mean that we could increase our GDP by more than if we just maintained the status quo. By achieving our Kyoto objectives in that way, we would create jobs and increase both real disposable personal income and real investment. We must therefore stop seeing the Kyoto protocol as a threat, and instead look at it as a business opportunity.

Despite these advantages, my bill would not require the government to take that approach. The government could choose, for a variety of reasons, to combine regulations and spending. The provisions of my bill leave the decision entirely up to the government.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in December 2002 after receiving support from the majority of members of Parliament. That support was affirmed in May when a motion in the House calling on the government to meet its Kyoto targets won overwhelming support from members of Parliament.

In spite of the failure of the present government to provide any leadership on emissions reduction, Canada is still a party to the Kyoto protocol. We are bound by it. Under international law, we are still required to meet our national objective.

As well, in the 2006 budget, the House also approved $2 billion in appropriations for measures relating to climate change. So even though my bill does not call for any spending by the government, there are substantial funds available to combat climate change.

To sum up, the Kyoto objective that Canada has agreed to meet still applies, and Canada has an obligation to the entire world to meet that commitment. I will say it again: Canada has the resources and the powers that it needs to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol simply by taking the regulatory route.

Consequently, my bill does not call for any recommendation to authorize new spending. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you consider this information you will come to the same conclusion.

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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr. Speaker, as you said, the purpose of this bill is to ensure that Canada meets its climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

This bill creates an obligation on the minister to establish annually a climate change plan and make regulations. It also creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations and submit a report to Parliament.

I hope that my colleagues from all parties will support this bill, which is vital to our future and to that of our children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)