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.

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.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation bill.

It is well established in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of this place and in past Speaker's rulings that bills resulting in the spending of money must be recommended to the House by a minister of the crown.

Enactment of this bill would necessitate the spending of public funds. Since there is no Governor General's recommendation with it, it is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to subclause 7(1) of this bill which reads:

Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act.

The referenced article in the Kyoto protocol sets out targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for signatory countries. Canada's target pursuant to the protocol is to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. In fact, our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.

When the former government announced its project green plan for honouring its Kyoto commitment in 2005, it estimated that $10 billion in government investments through 2012 were required to realize the anticipated reductions.

Speaking at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 14, 2005, one day after the release of this plan, the then minister of the environment referred to this $10 billion as the “Kyoto money”. The hon. member informed the committee that approximately $2 billion had been appropriated in previous budgets, but that the remainder would have to come from future budgets. Budget 2005 announced some additional spending projections. A fraction of that spending was identified in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year. But this money was never voted on by Parliament before dissolution last November, and this money was paid out through special warrants.

In any case, it is clear that Parliament has not authorized the extensive expenditures that would be required to “fully meet” Kyoto targets as Bill C-288 mandates.

Further, given the increase in emissions, it would seem that even the $10 billion projection was a vast underestimation of the spending required to meet the objective of this bill.

Erskine May at page 763 of the 22nd edition notes:

If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose, a money resolution will be required.

Similarly, on February 8, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled on Bill C-280 stating:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

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. Only the Crown can recommend the expenditure of funds from the public revenue and this bill does not have that royal recommendation.

I would submit that this bill requires a royal recommendation. Since it is clear that the government's policy differs from the provisions of this bill, the House should know that no recommendation will be forthcoming.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for repeating to the House what the Speaker of the House advised us the day before we started private members' business debate. He identified 10 of the 30 bills on the order of precedence that he had flagged as possibly requiring a royal recommendation.

This bill, the Kyoto bill, was not one of those flagged by the Speaker. Notwithstanding that, the member will know that even a private member's item that requires a royal recommendation, 100%, will still receive two hours of debate at second reading, a vote at second reading, committee hearings, report stage and third reading. The decision on whether a royal recommendation is required will not be taken by the Speaker, according to the Speaker's own words, until it is time for a vote at third reading. Therefore, we have much time to deal with this.

I would also remind the hon. House leader that even in the event he could argue that the climate change money available in the current appropriations of government would be exceeded by the requirements of this bill, the bill could be amended in committee or at report stage to say “to the extent but not exceeding the current appropriations for climate change”.

I thank the government House leader for repeating to us the rules of the game, as presented by the Speaker to the House. I know the government does not want Kyoto on the table and will not support Kyoto. We understand that and Canadians understand that. I know they will remember that. In the meantime, it would be useful for us to move on to the debate on this very important bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their comments on the point of order. If necessary, the Speaker will come back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just saw once more how much the Conservatives hate the Kyoto protocol and how they will try everything to get rid of it.

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate such an important bill. I take this opportunity to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Don Valley East and everyone who worked directly or indirectly on the bill.

This bill speaks primarily about the future. It is designed to make possible concrete acts today that will improve living conditions for the 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.

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, our children and our grandchildren.

The environment is certainly something on which we can act, starting right now, to improve living conditions for the generations that will succeed us.

Not only can we act, we must act. We can act in a multitude of ways. We can act as individuals, through simple daily actions, and we can also act collectively, by adopting measures or passing legislation that promotes positive and responsible environmental behaviour. That is what this bill seeks to do.

The bill is absolutely necessary for a very simple reason. The Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.

In reality, the conservatives have decided to surrender without even trying to fight. We cannot let them do this. That was what this Parliament tried to prevent when it adopted the Bloc Québécois' motion on May 16.

That motion, which received the support of a large majority of hon. members, was rejected out of hand by the Prime Minister. In this way he showed how little respect he has for this House, how little it matters to him.

His reaction to the motion simply highlights the importance of the bill now before us, since if passed it will force the government to respect the will of this House. It will mean that Canada will have to comply with its Kyoto protocol commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity, not solely from the environmental perspective but also from the perspectives of public health, security of the food supply, quality of life and economic prosperity. On this last point, I should point out that doing nothing about climate change today could lead to considerable economic costs in the future.

When we talk about climate change, we are not just talking about the environment, we are talking about individuals, we are talking about human beings. We are talking about direct consequences to the health and quality of life of millions of people all over the planet.

In Canada, let us think about the way our vast natural spaces could change—the melting of Arctic glaciers, the viability of our agriculture, the threat to the cultural survival of our northern communities.

The impact of climate change is felt more in certain regions that are already among the poorest in the world. Regions that are already grappling with problems of inadequate food supplies or chronic coastal flooding.

According to the best experts, if the average temperature at the earth's surface increases by 2 degrees above what it was during the pre-industrial era, dozens of millions of people by the year 2080—which is not that far—are likely to be confronted with coastal flooding and famines, hundreds of millions of people risk coming down with malaria, and billions of others may run short of water.

This is not to be alarmist, but rather to recognize that the effects of climate change have already been felt and that this situation will worsen if we do not take concrete action in Canada as well as elsewhere in the world. This is, therefore, a collective and global effort. Everyone must shoulder the responsibility. This is the case for others and this is the case for Canada. It is in this context that I have the honour to table a private member's bill which will ensure that Canada meets its commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

More concretely, the bill creates an obligation on the government to establish an annual plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to make the necessary regulations to ensure implementation of the plan.

The plan will have to include a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations.

This description will have to cover, first, regulated emission limits and performance standards; second, spending or fiscal measures or incentives provided for this purpose, if the government so wishes; third, market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets; and, fourth, cooperative measures or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments, where that applies, of course.

The government will have to set dates for the coming into effect of each of these measures, and the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions that have resulted or are expected to result for each year up to and including 2012.

When the bill comes into force, the government will have 180 days to make appropriate regulations to establish its action plan. Such regulations could for example limit the amount of greenhouse gases that can be released into the environment by the large industrial emitters. They could also provide for emissions trading, structured to achieve the targeted objectives.

Naturally, each annual climate change plan will have to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction and take into account the respective levels of greenhouse gas emissions in each province.

It is also important to note that the bill creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations, and to report to Parliament on them. His involvement will guarantee the plan's credibility and the aptness of the regulations, so that we can indeed achieve the targeted objectives.

I could continue to go into detail, but I feel it is more important to come back the spirit of the bill. Why is it necessary? Why is it so important to adopt it?

As I said a little earlier, climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity. That is why the international community saw fit to adopt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the well-known Rio Convention. The Convention, which has been ratified by Canada, came into force in 1994.

Realizing that the Convention’s scope and the tools it provided were insufficient, the international community decided to go further. That was the impetus for the Kyoto protocol.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol by a majority vote in Parliament in 2002, and it came into force in 2005.

The protocol may not be perfect but it represents the best weapon available to us for the urgent task of combating climate change. Various analyses have shown that if we do not start immediately, and decisively, we risk running out of time to prevent serious repercussions on our climate.

Canadians understand it, scientists understand it and all opposition parties understand it. Only the Conservatives do not understand it. In fact, they are trying to spread, without much success, various myths about Kyoto.

For example, they are trying to claim that most countries cannot achieve their Kyoto objectives, which is false. Most of the 36 signatory countries with specific objectives are well on the way to achieving them. Within the European Community some countries, including Great Britain and France, have not only achieved but even surpassed their objectives.

Even countries that are having difficulty, like Norway and Japan, are still striving to meet their targets and putting in place the measures that will enable them to do so.

The government is also telling us that the Asia-Pacific partnership, so enthusiastically touted by the Bush administration, will be just as good as Kyoto. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are two completely different things. The partnership is a formula that allows its members to exchange information. It has very little funding, sets no mandatory objectives or reductions, does not even have a timetable. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol has become international law, with detailed objectives and a precise schedule, along with obligations for emission reduction.

As for the defeatist myth that says our objectives may be unattainable, this is merely an excuse coming from people who lack even the courage to try.

My colleagues may be sure that we can achieve our objectives. One way we can do so is by exploiting the potential and seizing the extraordinary economic opportunity that the renewable energy sector offers. We can also do it through giant steps forward in energy efficiency.

Let us not forget that it is also possible to act positively by funding specific projects in certain less fortunate countries, projects that are also beneficial for our own environment because, as we know, the environment knows no borders. Greenhouse gases do not require a passport or a visa to enter or leave a country or a region.

Those are a few of the approaches we can take and there are others. There are always ways for those who want to find them.

Canada has always been able to find solutions. Not only has it been able to find solutions to its own challenges, it has also been able to take on leadership roles on the international stage.

We have only to think of the leading role played by Canada at the Montreal conference on climate change this past December. Canada's action was recognized and hailed around the world by foreign leaders, the international media, the scientific community and environmental groups.

But now all that is changing. Why? Simply because the Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.

This is a sad moment in our history, because by abandoning all this they are doing immense damage to Canada's image. But more important than that, they are hurting the generations to come.

On this very important issue, the government is out of touch with Canadians, out of touch with most of the international community, out of touch with this Parliament and even out of touch with provincial premiers.

As elected officials, as legislators, we have a duty, a moral obligation, to change this situation. We have the obligation to act right now. That is what this bill proposes to do.

When a government does not respect international law, or the will of its own citizens—when it does not shoulder its responsibilities for one of the most important challenges facing our planet—Parliament can and must force it to do so.

I therefore urge my colleagues of all parties to support this important bill. The environment is not a partisan issue, and cannot be approached in a partisan spirit.

Let us unite to work together, starting right now, for the benefit of future generations. Let us unite on concrete action to safeguard the environment. Let us do this together, for our own sakes, but above all for the sake of the generations to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier has laudable intentions, but once again, like most of the measures proposed by the Liberal government in the past 13 years, this one sadly misses the mark. It is rather pathetic to see a national party introduce a private member's bill on an issue as important as climate change.

I would like to reassure my colleague, because on January 23, there was a major change in this House. Canadians elected a responsible government, a government that keeps its promises. The throne speech states that our government will take tangible steps to effectively address climate change. Sadly, in the past 13 years the previous government failed to do this. We had 13 years of good intentions and fine words but no results.

In his speech, the hon. member said that one party had hurt generations to come. But it was the Liberal Party that hurt future generations with 13 years of inaction on the environment.

Let us talk about the Liberals' green plan. According to the same experts, this green plan was expensive and ineffective and passed the cost on to the taxpayers. This is totally unacceptable. Our government will take tangible measures.

I have a question for the member for Honoré-Mercier. What did the member and his party do for the past 13 years while greenhouse gas emission levels spiralled out of control? Does he support the measures that our government is putting in place to effectively fight climate change?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious reason why we have to introduce a private member's bill. It is because the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing. If there is one thing on which I agree with the hon. member, it is that they respect their commitments, since they promised to do nothing. That is exactly what they are doing: nothing.

As for the previous government, I will remind the House that we introduced the green plan and we reserved funds for partnerships with the provinces. I remind the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that $328 million had been reserved for the Quebec government's own measures. I take this opportunity to applaud the Quebec government for the plan it introduced yesterday, which constitutes a step in the right direction. We intended to give the Quebec government $328 million, but the Conservatives cut those funds. Not only do they do nothing, they even go backward. It is shameful. We did many things.

Maybe the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse thinks that we did not do enough, but that is no reason to do even less or absolutely nothing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very eloquent speech with regard to climate change, but I believe there is a moral obligation in this country and that moral obligation is to do what we say we will do. Quite frankly, people can tout until the sun goes down today and rises tomorrow how beneficial their plan might be, but actions speak louder than words.

There has been a 35% to 36% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the former government announced its grandiose plans. Feigned indignation and false accusations do not win the day. They do not make the air for our children cleaner to breathe and they do not make the climate change. What makes things happen is a plan that works.

We have tabled a bit of our plan and over the next short while much will be. However, I would like to ask the hon. member if it is fair to allow a new government at least five or six years to prove its record. If so, would he not want to work with that government in order for it to be able to show Canadians and the world that it will live up to its commitments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to work with the government. All the parties would like to work with the government if it only knew where it was going on the issue of climate change. The government should at least have a plan or a direction.

What have the Conservatives done so far? They have cut transfers and money allocated for the provinces. Look at the infamous $328 million that was earmarked for Quebec. They cut excellent programs such as the EnerGuide program and the program for developing wind energy. There are even hon. members who do not believe the science behind climate change. There are even hon. members of the government who claim that climate change does not exist.

The Speech from the Throne made no reference to the Kyoto protocol and the five priorities of the Conservative government make no reference to the environment. The Conservatives need to change their direction and give us something tangible to work on together. Since they have nothing, I invite them to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member speaking about his private member's bill. I serve on the environment committee with the member and I find it interesting and disappointing that we did not hear any reason from him for why he and his party did not speak up when, for the last 13 years, his government did absolutely nothing.

I find it very disappointing. The member spoke about a strong desire and a political and moral responsibility. I would agree that we have that political responsibility and that is why this government is committed to cleaning up the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We will not be supporting this private member's bill, Bill C-288.

Climate change is one of the most complex, cross-cutting issues facing the world today. It is a long term challenge that cannot be addressed without effective international cooperation. The international community has always understood that the Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but it is only a first step.

The protocol has both strengths and weaknesses. It was the first international instrument under which developed countries came to an agreement to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the protocol includes only short term national targets for a relatively small number of countries. It does not address a global solution to climate change over the longer term.

In the year 2000, the countries with targets under the Kyoto protocol accounted for only 28% of global greenhouse emissions. Indeed, a mandate review of the protocol was already started in Bonn this past May. Canada is playing an active role in this review, which will assess what has worked under the Kyoto protocol and what has not worked well, in order to better inform our discussions on the future.

Future actions on climate change must address the need for long term action with all global emitters. This is why all parties to the convention agreed to begin a new dialogue on long term cooperative action to address climate change with all parties, not just the countries under the protocol.

The first workshop of that dialogue took place in Bonn last month. Canada will continue to play an active role in this dialogue process as well.

Because the situation that each country faces is unique, there are many options, considerations and viewpoints about how the international community should move forward when the first commitment period of the protocol finishes. It is precisely because each country has its own unique national circumstances that many countries firmly believe the future approach will need to allow for different types of commitments.

In Bonn, consultations started on the Russian Federation proposal for allowing voluntary commitments to be made by countries that do not currently have targets under the protocol. This important issue is moving forward.

To be effective in addressing global climate change, international cooperation on climate change must meet a number of conditions.

First, it will need to be based on the principles of flexibility, cost effectiveness and national circumstances and recognize a broad range of approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, it will need broad participation by developed and developing countries alike, with an eye on long term objectives.

Third, addressing climate change in the face of rising global energy demand will require effective development and deployment of technologies within both developed and developing countries.

Finally, global action on climate change must integrate the additional co-benefits provided at the local level, such as improved air quality.

Canada is committed to working to ensure that future international cooperation satisfies those conditions. That is why we are playing a leadership role internationally on the two-track discussions under the UN framework convention on climate change new future dialogues that were launched in Bonn last May.

The dialogue on long term cooperation action is open to all 189 countries, including the United States, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and to examine innovative new future approaches to address climate change.

The dialogue is significant because it is not simply tied to the Kyoto style approach of national targets for developed countries. In addition, it can openly examine better ways of engaging countries in cooperative action on climate change. This dialogue includes participation by all major emitting developing countries, such as India and China, as well as the United States and Australia.

The United States emits approximately 20% of global greenhouse gases and India and China together account for approximately 20%. By comparison, Canada's share is approximately 2%. It is important that all countries participate in the dialogue. Climate change is a global problem and requires a real global solution.

The second vehicle is the ad hoc working group on further commitments for developed countries under the protocol beyond 2012. The ad hoc working group discussions will review and assist the implementation of the protocol to date and will discuss considering new types of commitments. These discussions should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation and opportunities for those countries that do not have Kyoto targets to participate in the future. At this point, this process is only a discussion of the items that will need to be assessed before developed countries can consider any new commitments.

These two processes are not proceeding in isolation, nor should they. They must inform each other. They must also recognize other multilateral approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is actively engaged internationally and will continue to do so, going forward in a way that is consistent with our national circumstances and that advances national interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, it give me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-288, concerning the Kyoto protocol, sponsored by the hon. member for Honoré—Mercier.

I want to begin by commending the hon. member on putting before the House for debate the bill before us today. From the outset, I announce that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this bill.

The bill deals with five issues: first, the importance for Canada to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol; second, the establishment of an annual plan to monitor progress on achieving the Kyoto objectives until 2013, and I stress the requirement for such a plan to be produced and submitted; third, the making of regulations in support of achieving the Kyoto objectives; fourth, the review by the environment commissioner of the plans received; and fifth, a report to Parliament.

It is important today to make it clear to the government that this bill follows logically from the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and passed on May 16 by the majority in this House. This motion called on the federal government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its objectives under the Kyoto protocol are met.

A moment ago, the parliamentary secretary talked about two vehicles, namely the working group on climate change and the Asia-Pacific partnership. This clearly shows that, in addressing climate change, the government does not give precedence to the Kyoto protocol. Clearly, as was just mentioned in this House, the government intends to be giving precedence to vehicles other than those provided under the Kyoto protocol, including the Asia-Pacific partnership.

As a logical next step to the May 16 motion, we in this House should pass this bill at second reading stage, or at least vote in support of the bill's principle.

Naturally, we have some concerns. The plan that the government would be required to present to Canadians annually until 2013 is one source of concern. We are wondering why, for instance, the time limit is set at 2013. Of course, the first phase under the Kyoto protocol calls for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. We believe that negotiations are already underway in the international arena concerning the second phase, known as Kyoto 2, of this effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We would like to see a provision in this bill for the submission of yearly plans not only during phase one of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but also after 2012, which is when phase two of greenhouse gas reduction begins. That would send a powerful message to the international community that Canada is concerned about reaching targets not only for the period from 2008 to 2012, but for the following phase, Kyoto 2.

This bill provides for enacting regulations to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. We wholeheartedly support this approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, especially for large industrial emitters. Until now, the preferred approach has been to sign voluntary agreements with industrial sectors to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets. Large industrial emitters will be responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Emissions are increasing rapidly, and there is no reason to believe that, even with a voluntary approach, large industrial sectors will reach the targets.

We will therefore have to consider a regulatory approach that aims to define clear targets for large industrial emitters.

This would help ensure that we reach the Kyoto protocol targets.

Third, any requirement to develop a yearly plan must take into account provincial areas of jurisdiction, in accordance with the very principle of the bill.

We would like to remind the House that we support a territorial approach based on bilateral agreements with the provinces. I am not talking about agreements like the ones we have seen in the past, which were signed with some provinces, including Ontario. While they certainly show willingness on the part of the provinces to fight climate change, we would prefer that these agreements be part of a partnership with the provinces—a financial partnership—and that they include recognized targets.

For example, yesterday Quebec released a greenhouse gas reduction plan that aims to reach two thirds of the target set out in the Kyoto protocol. However, we are still waiting for the $328 million to support reaching that goal.

Quebec could reach all of its goals if we could be certain of receiving the $328 million through a funding agreement with the province that would enable it to cut an additional four megatonnes, thereby reaching all of its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Here are the spirit and letter that we would like to include in the bill: that the agreements signed be bilateral, and that these financial agreements include a transfer of the sums needed to reach our Kyoto targets.

Another aspect of the bill before us is the environment commissioner's evaluation regarding the government's progress in terms of reaching our Kyoto targets.

I think we will have the perfect opportunity, beginning this fall, to become fully aware of the importance of the role of the environment commissioner in the evaluation and follow-up of measures taken by the federal government to enforce the Kyoto protocol. The commissioner will table a report on climate change this fall. In her report, we will certainly begin to see important benchmarks that will allow us to evaluate the government's progress in the fight against climate change.

The federal government has the means to contribute to the fight against climate change. For example, it could bring in manufacturing standards for automobiles equal to those of the state of California and ensure that all vehicles, both big and small, now on the market use less gasoline and produce less greenhouse gas per 100 km.

We must move closer to European standards, which demand that vehicles be more fuel efficient. This will help us reach our Kyoto targets.

Europe is on the right path to reaching its Kyoto targets. Why? Because they have taken concrete action, because agreements have been struck among the sovereign countries that are members of the EU, by enforcing a common strategy for the entire EU, yet a strategy that is distinct for each member country.

This is an interesting territorial approach that we would like to integrate, in a concrete way, into the bill presented by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

We would therefore support Bill C-288 at this stage, on the condition that our proposed modifications be adopted in parliamentary committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for using his private member's opportunity to bring such an important bill to the House of Commons. The short title of the bill is the Kyoto protocol implementation act. I can serve notice that the NDP is in support of Canada maintaining and fulfilling the obligations it stipulated itself to in ratifying the Kyoto accord. I can say categorically that this initiative has our support.

The first leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, was fond of quoting Alfred, Lord Tennyson by saying, “Courage, my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world”. Many of us have not lost faith that it is not too late to build a better world. We are still true believers in our international institutions. Even as some countries are turning their backs on the United Nations, many of us still have hope that internationalism is the way forward, whether we are dealing with overall development aid, fighting world poverty, or in fact this critical issue of climate change. Surely the world can come together and agree on a priority like saving our planet.

When Canada ratified the Kyoto accord, there was a wave of optimism throughout the land that the world was finally seized of this pressing issue. Finally those in the flat earth society who had been denying the science about climate change had come around and matured in their thinking. We were coming together as a global community, but now, one by one, even some of those countries that did stipulate themselves to putting in place a climate change action plan along the guidance of the Kyoto protocol are cooling off and backing out.

This is an opportunity for us to serve notice to the government of the day that the majority of the members of the House of Commons disagree with the minority ruling party in this 39th Parliament. We disagree profoundly and we are demanding that the government take action and fulfill its obligation.

It was not the Conservative Party of Canada that signed the Kyoto protocol; it was not the Conservative Party that ratified the Kyoto protocol; it was Parliament on behalf of the people of Canada. The majority of Parliament say that we want Kyoto implemented. We demand that Kyoto be implemented. The Conservatives seem to want to cut and run, as they are fond of saying.

When I was the head of the carpenters union, we did a lot of research on energy retrofitting, on the demand-side management of our precious energy resources. This is an area in which perhaps the Conservatives, even in the absence of a commitment to Kyoto, could take the opportunity to engage themselves.

The federal government has direction and control over 68,000 buildings. Many of those buildings are energy hogs. They were built in an era when energy conservation was not an issue.

A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through energy retrofitting or demand-side management is indistinguishable from a unit of energy generated at a hydroelectric station or a nuclear power plant, except for a number of key things. First of all, it is available at about one-third the cost. Second, it provides a cost saving to the building owner. Third, it creates seven times the number of person years of employment to harvest this energy through demand-side management versus supply-side management. As well, that unit of energy is online and available for resale immediately instead of the seven year lag time that would be the case if we needed to build a new nuclear power plant, like Ontario is contemplating today.

The federal government could show leadership to the private sector by embarking on a comprehensive demand-side management energy retrofit program of its own 68,000 buildings. I believe the estimate is that at 30% savings, it would be $1.5 billion a year in energy saved. Look at the jobs it would create. Look at the greenhouse gases that it would preclude from being generated through generating stations. This is an idea whose time has come. All of these things would be given life. They would come to fruition under the rubric of the Kyoto accord.

I am concerned that in the absence of any structured commitment, such as this international accord, none of these ideas will occur, or if they do, they will be done in a piecemeal fashion and random ad hoc little flare-ups. It will be just enough to keep the public quiet, but in actual fact there will be no real comprehensive strategy to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions and also, by this one simple initiative, to enjoy these many secondary benefits that I have outlined.

There is a secondary point. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues in the House that there is another national strategy which needs to be embraced in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that is the fact that my province of Manitoba has a net surplus of hydroelectricity. We produce and generate more electricity than we can use. We export it. We export it to the United States, whereas Ontario is on the verge of another brownout season for its want of electricity. We have no way of transmitting and selling it domestically. We end up selling it internationally. It is madness that we do not have a national energy strategy.

My colleague from B.C. will testify to this as well. British Columbia is also a net producer of hydroelectricity while parts of Canada are wanting. We need an east-west domestic electricity grid so that we can produce virtually environmentally friendly hydroelectric power. I am not trying to diminish that there is a footprint left behind in the generation of electricity, but it pales in comparison--it does not even compare--to that of nuclear energy, thermo-generated electricity, an appalling producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, I am concerned that it is difficult for us to raise the east-west power grid in isolation, but in the context of the Kyoto accord protocol, in the context of implementing our commitments under Kyoto, the east-west power grid would be a logical place to begin as a benefit to all Canadians and to bail out Ontario in this emergency the province is facing, which is a looming political problem if nothing else.

I am pleased that the 39th Parliament will in fact be dealing with and be seized of the issue of the Kyoto protocol. I am grateful to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for bringing this forward.

I should spend the last minute of my time in recognizing and also paying tribute to my colleague from the Liberals, the hon. member for Don Valley West. In the previous Parliament, he was the former secretary of state for municipal infrastructure and investment.

I would like to recognize him personally because in the last Parliament the Kyoto protocol had no greater champion. In fact, there was only one place where practical measures were not only being recognized and acknowledged but implemented. For some of the municipal infrastructure initiatives being put forward, my colleague from Don Valley West had the pleasure of going around the country signing and delivering the cheques to municipalities. We have to recognize that this was taking us in the right direction.

Again, this is the type of initiative that loses its momentum in the absence of a greater context, which the Kyoto protocol initiative offered.

If we can say anything to Canadians, we can say that they should be lobbying their members of Parliament, especially those on the government side, to make it known that Canadians expected Kyoto to be implemented. They approved it and they directed their Parliament and their House of Commons to ratify it. Now we are waiting for the action plan to implement it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for his very kind remarks at the end of his address.

As we move into the season of angry weather associated with climate change and global warning, I am here to support Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

I must also recognize the vital role played by my colleague, the member for Honoré—Mercier, in preparing this bill. It is truly very important.

I suggest that the current Minister of the Environment should also be advocating for this bill as it seems consistent and supportive of her views as recently expressed in a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. The remarks of the parliamentary secretary suggest that he too should support Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 in its preamble begins with the proposition that “global climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity and Canada” and then in turn it refers to the national science academies of Canada, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and states, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action”.

Happily, the Minister of the Environment has publicly accepted the science of climate change, unlike several of her backbench and cabinet colleagues.

Some unkind souls have suggested that the Minister of the Environment, despite the fact that she is the current president of the Kyoto process, is against Kyoto. How heartening it was therefore to hear her say, and I will quote what the minister said when she was speaking of the onerous targets of Kyoto, “Some environmental groups stated this was akin to a complete abandonment of Kyoto, which is ludicrous. It doesn't mean that all is lost or that we've given up the fight”. That is a relief. The minister is sticking to Kyoto. Who knew?

In her recent speech the minister asked several useful questions: What has worked and not worked in the first phase of Kyoto? What can we do to broaden our efforts? Those are her questions. The minister's objective will be greatly aided by the passage of Bill C-288, whose purpose “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”. This view was reinforced by the parliamentary secretary himself in his own speech.

To assist the minister in determining what has worked and not worked with the first phase of Kyoto, which was her question, Bill C-288 proposes that the minister prepare a climate change plan, as she said she shall, that sets out various measures, such as regulating emission limits and performance standards, market based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets, spending or fiscal measures or incentives, cooperative measures or agreements with the provinces, territories or other governments.

To help the minister even further, Bill C-288 proposes that for each measure outlined above, there be a careful accounting each year of the greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from the measure. In the words of the minister, what has worked and not worked?

All that, as proposed by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in accordance with the recommendations made last fall by the commissioner of the environment.

Some skeptics have suggested that the minister actually does not like Kyoto. She certainly has spent more time talking about what has not worked than about what has worked. In fact, some point to the fact that the government website seems to be scrubbed clean of any reference to the actual word “Kyoto”, which is curious.

But hearken to the words of the minister herself, “What many people miss is that what we do at home is Kyoto”. That is splendid. The minister also said, “By being transparent about the challenges Canada is facing we have the opportunity to put in place a domestic solution which will contribute to our international efforts”. How wisely the minister links our international obligations under Kyoto to our domestic plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We in the Liberal Party are here to help and support the Minister of the Environment every step of the way with Bill C-288.

A close reading of the minister's speech to the Canadian Club shows how badly misunderstood she has been. She accepts the science of climate change. She accepts Kyoto, but wishes to improve it. She links our international obligations under Kyoto with our domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We know how keen she is to have precise targets in her made in Canada plan.

By being so precise in her criticism of the previous government's failures to reach Kyoto emission targets, she has committed herself to be measured by the same precise, demanding, stringent, numerical standards. How many megatonnes of CO₂ are being emitted every year? Where precisely is Canada now in relation to its total emissions in 1990? By describing the previous government's targets as unreachable, the minister has clearly committed herself to targets which are both reachable and, by definition, measurable.

Finally, the minister, by her criticism of previous efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as being ineffective, has set herself the clear challenge of being more effective, of exceeding the anticipated results of the Liberal government's project green. Even the harshest critics of project green, such as Mark Jaccard in a recent C.D. Howe Institute study, recognized that the combined measures of project green would have reduced Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions by 175 megatonnes annually by 2010, achieving 80% of Canada's Kyoto commitment for that year.

The Minister of the Environment must now exceed that target. To help her do so, we put forward, in the spirit of constructive support, Bill C-288. She wants a made in Canada plan. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for a climate change plan and outlines precise measures. She wants to know what works and what does not work. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for an annual accounting of the precise reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by each measure.

Clearly, for the minister to prove that her plan is working better than previous plans and previous programs, she will need to set for herself precise, hard, reachable, measurable targets and be willing to be judged by the results. Bill C-288 is here to support the minister in her ambition and Bill C-288 deserves the wholehearted support of the Minister of the Environment in return.

I would like to turn briefly to the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. We agree with him on the importance of long term action and goals, which we call Kyoto II. We agree that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution but we also think Kyoto is the only game in town. No alternative scheme will take us there. This is it. We can make it better and we can move to a second phase but it will be Kyoto. That is the plan which has within the UN framework 189 countries.

If the government has a better international plan, it had better show us where the 189 countries will join up for that better plan.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a long term endeavour. It requires a framework that provides clear, long term direction and predictability. It cannot involve short term targets with constantly changing policies and incentives.

That is why the government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieving sustained reductions of emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We want to see real emission reductions and real progress in reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

While the hon. member should be commended for his concern about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the essence of his proposal that Canada achieve its Kyoto target simply cannot be done, and his overall approach to a workable climate change plan for Canada is seriously flawed.

Respected Canadian, Rex Murphy, remarks that the politics, means and value of Kyoto are a basket of uncertainties or insignificance.

There is a general acknowledgement on the science of air pollution and greenhouse gases. We know enough to realize that action is needed. The first Kyoto commitment period starts in 2008, which is only a year and a half from now. Our greenhouse gas emissions are 35% above our Kyoto target following the Liberal government. This is a huge number, representing more than the annual emissions from transportation in this country.

This brings me to a serious flaw in the conception of this proposed bill. The bill would require an annual climate change plan. That is pretty much what we have had over the past five or six years and it is just what we do not need. We need to lay out a path forward and get busy acting on it. Having a plan is always important but not when it is a substitute for action. Business needs certainty, not annual plans that lay out measures upon measures.

This government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieved sustained reductions in emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We will be working with the provinces, the territories, industry and other Canadians. We will be looking at engaging communities and individual Canadians to reduce not only greenhouse gases but other air pollutants.

This government supports international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is a global issue that requires global solutions. Our domestic policy will be our guide in future cooperative efforts to address climate change. We understand that climate change is a global issue and that we need a global solution, which is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations led climate change negotiations for longer term reductions well after the first Kyoto protocol reporting period.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

It being 2:37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:37 p.m.)

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join in the debate around something as important as climate change and our international agreements, and the promise that Canada made to actually abide by the signature we put on paper.

Before getting into the merits or demerits of this particular bill, I think for Canadians watching it is important to set the context of what has happened to the climate change file and what has happened in this country with respect to pollution over the last number of years.

As the Liberals were leaving office there was report after report condemning the actions of Canada in black and white. While the promises had been made by the previous Liberal government to do something about climate change, the numbers were in stark contrast to that promise. While there was a commitment to go 6% below our 1990 levels of greenhouse gas pollution, we have in fact risen 10%, 20%, 25% above those numbers.

The reason this has happened is not for a lack of promises and not for a lack of fanfare. The previous Liberal government was excellent at making announcements. It often had very beautiful crafted posters as a backdrop. It spent inordinate amounts of money on brochures and glossy pamphlets that I am sure ended up in landfills across this country. However, what it could not deliver on and what it could not accomplish was the basic ability to start to change the way Canadians do business and the way that Canadians conduct their economy and their lives.

When we boil the issue of climate change down and the issue of Kyoto down to its bare elements, most often we are talking about the use of energy. We are talking about the production of energy, whether it comes from so-called greener sources, new technologies or we are talking about energies that come from carbon-based sources which this country relies on quite heavily.

It varies from province to province and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is an important note to Canadians that those provinces that took up the call early on, that took strong and bold initiatives, and I would take British Columbia as an example where I reside, there was a strong and important investment in green energy many decades ago.

It is also important to note that these investments were made by both what we call Conservative and New Democrat governments throughout the province's history to ensure that the energy supply in British Columbia was consistent, stable and did not contribute to the planet's pollution.

Those investments allowed British Columbia to continue to grow and prosper while not contributing to the overall warming of the planet which finally we have established, from all parties in all corners of the House, a confirmed belief in what is known as anthropogenic climate change, that is climate change caused by human activity. This is a reality and it is a problem.

I hearken back to when many of my colleagues from the environment committee were at the committee the day that the forestry sector came before us during the Kyoto hearings and clearly made the connection between both the forest fires which had gone to unprecedented levels in British Columbia in particular and the pine beetle infestation which started in British Columbia and has now gone across the Rockies. These elements were directly linked to what was happening to our climate.

My riding is in northwestern British Columbia and it starts from the coast and moves into the interior. We are quite accustomed to cold winters, particularly in the interior portion of the riding. There are consistently cold winters and stretches of winter that go 30° below and 35° below. This is what would have offset the pine beetle infestation. It is a naturally occurring organism that would have died off if winters had been normal. However, we have been without one of these normal winters for so long that the pine beetle has been allowed to bloom, grow and start to cover areas of the forest that many people in the world would find hard to comprehend.

We have to look at the current government's initiatives and intentions when talking about climate change and importantly talking about the way that we produce and use our energy. I recall very clearly the member for Red Deer who last year, in a very similar debate to this one, talked about the Conservatives' climate change plan. I asked him directly when there was an opportunity: Does the Conservative Party of Canada have a climate change plan?

The New Democrats had taken an important stand more than a year and a half ago. It is two years now. We said that we were going to spend some time and our own money on developing a plan and we would cost it out. We were going to take it to the economists, the environmental groups, and work through what a plan would actually look like for Canada to implement and achieve our Kyoto targets. We laid that out for all to see, a challenge to the then Liberal government to react and actually do something rather than just continue to make those glossy brochures and lovely posters, and also a challenge to the other parties in the House to get serious about this.

I remember the member for Red Deer's answer. I know he is extremely committed to the environment and the issue of waste in particular. He said that yes in fact the Conservative Party of Canada had a plan for climate change.

Well, it has been a year and a half or more. We are waiting and we are still waiting. We know that there is a green plan coming. It is important to understand that every day, every week and every month is lost without a plan, and without things that Canadians can actually look to in the true sense of leadership.

Canadians, when polled across the country, are ready to do something about this issue. They are making the choices every day for a better environment, but there has been an absolute lack of leadership on this file at the federal government level in particular.

The provinces have started to react, Quebec in particular and Manitoba. They have said that if the feds are not going to show up, at least they will. This is very similar to what we have seen in the United States where the presidency of George Bush has decided to not follow into the Kyoto regime, or any regime really, when it comes to climate change. Some states that have seen this as a significant issue have gone out and taken the lead.

While this is sometimes necessary, it is a bit unfortunate because the amount of taxation, money collected by the federal government, and the amount of legislative powers that the government has clearly puts us in the driver's seat if we choose to take that leadership role and that has not happened.

We hear recent announcements of the federal government preparing to offer up more than a billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money for a pipeline across our north to feed natural gas. Before the Conservatives get too excited and frothing at the mouth about this concept, let us take it from an energy perspective for a moment.

The concept is to take liquefied natural gas from some other far region of the world, liquefy it, put it into tankers, ship it across, put in another pipeline, and then ship that down. Natural gas, for everyone watching and as people know it, is one of our cleanest burning carbon-based fuels. It would then be put into the tar sands where it takes a barrel and a half to three barrels depending on the use of energy to produce one single barrel of oil, which then gets put into another pipe and then sent down to the United States.

Somehow this equation is a good so-called investment of tax dollars. It is bizarre. At the same the companies are now making substantial profits. Even when oil is at $40 a barrel, $50 a barrel or $60 a barrel, they are doing quite well.

This government follows in the footsteps of the previous government insisting on handing over a cheque from Canadian taxpayers of $1.5 billion every year into some of the companies that are enjoying record profits. As one company executive in Calgary a few weeks ago noted, they were obscene.

I have seen those profits and that is all well and good, they are making their money, but I cannot understand for the life of me, and many Canadians get confused by this, why we would also support them with taxpayer dollars while they are doing okay, while they are doing not just okay, they are doing spectacularly well?

Why would we have a corporate welfare cheque cut year in, year out, for companies that are doing fine? We have lots of ideas for the government where true investment can happen, the type of investment Canadians are looking for when it comes to the energy file.

Companies that exist within the tar sands have talked about making them carbon neutral within 20 years. We know the technology is coming forward in this country and in other countries. Rather than be a laggard, rather than simply follow in the wake of other jurisdictions when they take a leadership role in this, there is a real opportunity for Canada to make bold initiatives and plans. We can actually enact those plans and not be handcuffed as the previous government was by being unable to square circles or show a vision and leadership for which Canadians are looking.

When we look to other jurisdictions that have been able to maintain their economies, the Scandinavian countries clearly stand out. Some of the strongest economies in the free world have been able to both achieve significant reductions in their greenhouse gas output while achieving some of the best performing economies anywhere on the planet.

The economy versus the environment debate is as dead as the dinosaurs. We simply cannot refer to it anymore in any serious way.

When Canadians are asked whether they would rather pick up a car at the lot that costs them $50 to fill up or one that costs them $10, clearly, particularly Canadians, who do not have a lot of money to throw around, are going to take the option, if it is presented to them in a reasonable way, to allow them to fill up with a little bit less and have money for other things in their lives.

Energy has become such an absolute essential for Canadians that home heating costs, and we have watched the spike in prices, particularly hurt those households that are in the most vulnerable of categories. We can create the economy. The bill goes a small way toward forcing the government to actually abide by international agreements.

I know Mr. Harper said in his speech on September 11 that we are a country that always accepted its responsibilities--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that we do not refer to members of Parliament by name but by riding or title.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that correction. I thank the member from Windsor for his diligence in listening.

On September 11, the Prime Minister said, “Because we are a country that has always accepted its responsibilities in the world...Canada has acted when the United Nations has asked”. The United Nations is the body in which our Kyoto signature actually stands. Clearly, if the Prime Minister is true to his word, then abiding by that signature on that document is what we need to do.

We are supportive of this bill and we will leave it to the Conservatives to answer the inherent ironies that exist within its action.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Honoré-Mercier on his excellent bill.

It is very much a pleasure for me to stand and speak to this issue. In fact, I cannot think of a more pressing or important issue, not only for this nation but for this world.

The fact of the matter is that we are at a tipping point. It is evident not only in our own country, in places like the Arctic, where oral traditions are being rendered useless by a landscape that is dramatically changing, but we also see it in extreme weather, in rapidly receding glaciers and in so many other ways. Mountains that have been snow-capped for incredibly long periods of time, thousands of years, are no longer.

In fact, just yesterday, I believe, a study pointed out that the earth is at its warmest point in 12,000 years. The Conservatives do not want to acknowledge this, but the reality is that climate change is real, it is impacting us today, and action is absolutely a necessity.

When we talk about Canada's role, we know that Canada actually uses more energy than the entire continent of Africa. We know that North America as a whole uses more energy than Africa, Asia and South America combined. When we look at this, it could not be clearer that Kyoto is needed, needed not just in our own context but in the world.

There is only one path to answering the problem of climate change. That path, without a doubt, is international agreements. Kyoto was an opportunity for all countries to come together and try to hash out the first agreement on climate change. If anybody doubts the effectiveness of Kyoto, they need only ask where the issue of climate change was before Kyoto came into effect. It was in the wilderness. The naysayers were dismissing it. People were pretending it was not a reality. Kyoto forced it onto the international stage, and for those who refused to take action and be signatories, there was domestic pressure, as in the case of the United States with states coming forward and taking action.

The previous federal government signed on to Kyoto. We put forward a series of recommendations to reduce our emissions and meet our Kyoto objectives. In the wake of all of this, when Canada's new government, as it calls itself, came into being, what action did it take? The reality is that it stepped back. Instead of moving forward with Kyoto and the recommendations, the government began slashing money.

The Conservatives took programs like the EnerGuide program, which allowed families to get subsidies to retrofit their homes to reduce the amount of energy they needed, and they scrapped them. Across the board, they scrapped environmental and climate change programs.

Worse than that, they walked away from their responsibilities in COP 11. COP 11 was an opportunity and a chance for Canada to lead the successor agreements that would follow Kyoto, to make sure that those nations that did not join on would join on. It was an opportunity for Canada to take a leadership role and the minister was missing in action.

The minister, whenever she is asked a question in the House about the Conservatives' environmental plan, will talk about what? Mercury. This could not be more evidence of how they do not understand this issue. Mercury has nothing to do with climate change. Zero. The minister of mercury talks about mercury every single time they are asked about climate change, when it does nothing. If she does not talk about mercury, the minister talks about smog, which also has nothing to do with climate change. Both are important issues. Of course it is important to reduce mercury and of course it is important to deal with smog, but neither of them have anything to do with climate change.

If that were all, it would be bad enough. Just simply slashing funding and ignoring the issue would be bad enough, but I fear there is a far greater menace afoot. I will read a quote for members, if I may. This is from U.S. pollster Frank Luntz, who recently met with the Prime Minister and gave him advice on how he should proceed. Mr. Luntz said:

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate....

This is who the Prime Minister decided to spend his time with and to take advice from, an individual who says to distort the facts. The reality is that the scientific evidence on climate change is irrefutable. We can see it in our day to day lives, but scientists have also proven it through their research. We know that no credible paper published in the last number of years has in any way disputed the fact that climate change is a reality.

The government set Mr. Luntz's words into action. The Conservatives made sure they took action. They started by removing the climate change website, a Government of Canada site that had been set up for information for teachers, students and Canadians about how they could reduce their emissions. The government killed this site. I received a call from a teacher who had been using this site in her class to talk to students about how they could reduce their emissions. She tried it one day and found out that it had been deleted.

The government went through the website and cleansed and erased any references to climate change. It tried to pretend climate change does not exist. The Conservative government listened to its Republican advisers and tried to hide the issue from reality.

What Harper had called previously a controversial--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that we do not use people's proper names but their titles or ridings.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

You are quite right, Mr. Speaker.

What the Prime Minister had called a controversial hypothesis and his former critic called a great socialist plot is in fact the greatest menace to this planet, something the government is turning its back on and systematically trying to pretend does not exist.

It gets worse.

Then we find out about the Friends of Science, a group much like the tobacco industry group formed to try to pretend that tobacco is not bad for us. When all the scientific evidence said that tobacco could kill us, Friends of Tobacco came forward and purported to have scientific evidence indicating that it was not bad for us.

In a similar fashion, this group, Friends of Science, was formed. Where did this group get its funding? The funding was set up by an individual by the name of Barry Cooper, a very close associate of the Prime Minister. The objective was to funnel oil money through a system of hiding where it came from to allow it to get to Friends of Science so they could try to create doubt among the population that climate change is real.

It does not end there.

This Friends of Science group has all kinds of connections to the Conservative Party of Canada, from Barry Cooper to Morten Paulsen, Tom Harris, and others. The Conservative Party and Friends of Science are one and the same. This group, which seeks to sell our planet down the river, which seeks to confuse and distort the facts, is closely tied to the Conservatives.

We have to look at what action we must take going forward. It struck me when David Suzuki made a statement saying that the planet does not care whether we continue to exist or we eradicate ourselves. The reality is that we are making our own decisions about whether or not we stay on this planet. It is up to us to find balance. It is up to us to lead the way and ensure that we strike a balance with our planet at a time when, within a generation, our oceans and our trees will be saturated with CO₂ emissions, at a time when permafrost is lifting at an unbelievable pace and releasing more and more CO₂ into the atmosphere, at a time when ice, which is 90% reflective of energy, is turning into water, which is 90% absorbent of energy, and at a time when Asia is booming and its CO₂ emissions are increasing day after day.

We do not have a lot of time. We certainly do not have time for a government that distorts the facts, tries to mislead Canadians and does not take action on the issue.

It is imperative that this motion pass. I would say it is imperative that we lead the way and ensure that we deal with the issue of climate change. Our very invitation to stay on this earth depends upon it.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having listened to that from a Liberal is really quite amazing considering the 13 years that I have been here listening to the promises.

Climate change was identified in 1992. Nothing was done.

In 1997, we signed on to Kyoto. Nothing was done.

In 2002, in Johannesburg, again we identified the problem. Nothing was done.

Here we are in 2006 and that member has the nerve to stand and lecture about what the Liberals have done, when in fact we are 35% above 1990 levels and Canada had agreed to be 6% below 1990 levels. What he cannot possibly imagine is how we could ever achieve that. If he looked at reality, he would see that this is 195 megatonnes of carbon that we would have to remove from the environment. It is not achievable. What does he not understand? We had to start in 1993 and we had to have an aggressive plan to deal with this climate change problem. The previous government did nothing.

Fortunately, at least there are countries that are trying to come up with solutions. I have attended the COP meetings, the meetings of the Conference of the Parties to Kyoto. Those meetings consist of 190 countries. Each of those countries has its own problems, its own social problems, climate problems, et cetera, and we are supposed to come to some sort of agreement on how to solve climate change. It is not happening. It is a dream. It is just a dream.

Fortunately, the G-8 plus five, consisting of the G-8 members plus India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, are coming up with solutions. Fortunately, the Asia-Pacific partnership is looking at solutions. At least, hopefully, someone is going to deal with climate change, but certainly 190 countries are not going to come up with consensus in time and they are not going to achieve their targets.

Why do we have to oppose this bill? We have a number of reasons.

Obviously, this bill would place a huge drain on the administrative part of the government without allowing the government to focus on the actual reductions that are necessary. This bill would oblige the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual climate change plan and to make regulations and would also oblige the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations and submit a report to Parliament.

Obviously the previous government did not do any of those things. There were no reports. There was no record. Nothing ever happened. There was just a lot of talk.

While this bill would be totally cumbersome and would obviously take a huge amount of resources of the government, we should spend the money on an actual plan, on actually doing things, not dreaming about buying credits from some foreign country and sending them off. No one has been able to explain to me how buying credits from a foreign country is in fact going to help the global environment.

What they do not seem to understand is that air is shared by everyone and that the 556 coal-fired power plants being built in China using soft coal are a huge environmental problem. Let us help them with the technology so they can change. That would make a difference. That would really have some impact. Let us develop that gasification technology here in Canada and then transfer that technology to the developing countries where we could really make a difference. That is positive. That is the sort of positive thing we can do.

We have a bill in front of us that wants us to have more regulations, more government reports and more government planning. I do not have that much faith in government. I have a lot more faith in working with the provinces, in working with industry and in looking to the future and having a long term vision for where we want to go and how we want to deal with the climate change problem. I think that is obviously what Canadians expect us to do.

We need to reduce by 195 megatonnes to get to our target. Most people do not understand what a megatonne is, but basically, as the minister has said in the House, it would mean shutting down transportation, shutting off the lights and stopping everything if we were to achieve that target. It is not possible. Canadians do not want that.

Canadians want a plan from us. They want a plan that will deal with pollution and climate change and with the soil, the water, the land and everything that we do. That is the direction in which we need to go.

We hear from the other side of the House that we need to go after the oil and gas industry but that is not true. We need to rely on the capture and sequestering of CO₂. We need to get into the gasification of everything from garbage to coal, and it is already happening. In some countries they have been doing that for a long time. Norway has been sequestering CO₂ in the caverns underneath the North Sea for 10 years. This is not new technology. It does not need to be developed further. We just need to do it.

The former government did not do it when it was in power. It did not listen to advisers. It finally got down to the desperation $10 billion, which probably could have been $80 billion, and said that it would buy foreign carbon credits. Maybe that made the previous government feel better but it is like talking to the city council which says that it recycles plastic, which is wonderful, but where does the plastic go? It gets bundled, sent by ships through the Panama Canal and ends up going to a landfill in China. How does that make everyone feel? That is not really recycling. That is phony and it is not telling Canadians the truth. Let us get on with telling Canadians truthfully how we can deal with this.

We should be pretty excited about the green plan that is coming and that we will be able to implement. In some of the research Mark Jaccard has done, he says that it could cost Canadians up to $80 billion to start right now to try to achieve those targets. That is not feasible. It cannot be done so let us get on with the green plan. We do not need to be lectured about what should have happened because, again, we have sat here and watched but nothing has happened.

I was embarrassed at COP 10 in Argentina when the former minister of the environment stood and reported for this country and said that we had the one tonne challenge and that we would hit our targets. The one tonne challenge was designed to take care of 20 megatonnes if it worked. That was all we had to brag about. It was embarrassing when we were listening to other countries say that they were developing wind technology, alternate energies of different kinds, looking at wave technology and so on. We are not leaders in those areas and we should be. The jobs that are related, what we can do for our environment and for the global environment, it is pretty phenomenal.

As a Canadian and a member of Parliament in 2006, the legacy I want to leave is that we took action and we did something about the air, the water and the land. We can do it. Whether it is sequestering or whatever we want to do, we can be leaders and that is what we should aim for.

What we will be getting in the House is a real plan and we will carry it out. It will happen and Canadians will understand that, rather than buying carbon credits from some foreign country, we will be doing things here in Canada that will make a difference and will be transferable to other parts of the world.

We cannot support the bill. We do not think that more regulation and more planning is necessary. We need to take action and that is what we plan to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill tabled on May 17 by the member for Honoré-Mercier would force the government to respect Canada's Kyoto protocol obligations.

It creates an obligation on the department to establish annually a climate change plan that respects shared jurisdictions and proposes regulations to fulfill the Kyoto protocol goals.

It also creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment to review the annual climate change plan and submit a report to Parliament.

We support the principle underlying this bill. In fact, the essence of this bill resembles the motion the Bloc introduced on May 11, which was adopted by a majority of members of the House of Commons. We will present our suggestions for improving the bill during committee.

Clause 5 of the bill states that the federal government must table a climate change plan not later than May 31 of every year until 2013. The annual plan must respect provincial jurisdiction and include the following five elements: measures to be taken to reduce greenhouse gases; performance standards and market-based mechanisms; a description of spending or fiscal measures or incentives; bilateral agreements; and a report on overall results of the previous year's plan.

Why does the bill not require these climate change action plans to be tabled beyond 2013? Would it not be more appropriate to say that Canada will participate in phase II of the Kyoto protocol, and that the annual report will therefore be an important tool for following through with the fight against climate change?

Clearly, the bill will have to specify that bilateral agreements should be financial agreements that enable provinces wishing to implement the Kyoto protocol to accomplish these goals.

The fight against climate change will be one of the most important global issues in the coming decades. The Kyoto protocol is the product of many years’ work and collaboration within the international community, and is the most effective and most complete tool for fighting climate change.

With its recent opposition motion on May 11, the Bloc Québécois sent an unequivocal message to the Conservative government that the government must make a commitment to respect the Kyoto protocol, an international accord to which Canada is legally bound and to which 90% of Quebeckers lend their support. It if does not do so, it will cause Canada to lose any credibility it has internationally. Its reputation is at stake. This member’s bill bears the same message as the motion put forward by the Bloc in the hope that the Conservatives might understand.

The basic principles underlying the Bloc’s position, from the time study of the climate change file began, are based on respect for international commitments, on equity and on respect for Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois is asking Ottawa for a plan to implement the Kyoto protocol, enabling the reduction of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions by 6% over 1990 levels and providing a series of measures within its areas of jurisdiction.

The Bloc is seeking concrete measures in five major areas.

First, we are asking for stricter standards in the manufacture of vehicles with a view to improving the energy efficiency of passenger vehicles and trucks, following the example set by California.

Second, we are asking for discounts on purchases of ecological vehicles, such as hybrid, electric and hydrogen vehicles. Incentives are key.

Third, we also want financial support for the development of renewable energy and we do not want cuts to the incentives for the windmill project.

Fourth, we want the abolition of the advantageous tax system for the oil companies.

Fifth, we are asking for grants to be given to agencies that are contributing to the effort to achieve the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and are helping to educate the public.

Furthermore, the Bloc Québécois wants the plan to include a system of emission objectives for large emitters, along with an exchange of emission rights, since by 2010 these industries, particularly the oil companies, will be responsible for more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. An equitable approach, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois, necessarily implies that large emitters be called to contribute according to their emissions.

An equitable approach for the provinces means that those that have made efforts in the past should be recognized accordingly. For example, there is the choice that Quebec made concerning hydro-electricity or the choice certain industries made to reduce their contributions to greenhouse gases, even before the Kyoto protocol.

At this point, it would be good to repeat the content of the Bloc Québécois motion passed in a majority vote—169 to 125—during our opposition day on May 11, 2006. The motion read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol, in an equitable manner while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces; and (b) publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that includes a system of emission objectives for large emitters along with an exchange of emission rights accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec-—

The Conservative position regarding the Kyoto protocol is worrisome. So far, they have made it clear that they do not intend to try to reach the target of a 6% reduction compared to 1990. They say that this target is unrealistic and unachievable. I feel this is irresponsible. The Conservative government has been a vocal opponent of Kyoto on the international scene.

To not respect the targets of the Kyoto protocol is to renounce it. The position taken by the Conservatives not only weakens Canada's credibility internationally, but it also runs the risk of raising doubt about the viability and pertinence of negotiating and signing multilateral agreements.

Responsible government means moving beyond a political agenda that is only a few months old. It means creating the necessary conditions to ensure the safety, health and prosperity of citizens for years to come.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank the member for Honoré-Mercier for bringing this very important bill before the House. He has done an extraordinary job to bring the issue in clarity. He has argued in the House of the need for a royal recommendation. The member has amplified further on the ways in which we could meet our Kyoto commitments on the reduction of greenhouse gas levels, without the kind of spending the previous Conservative speaker seemed to indicate was absolutely necessary.

Let us have some background.

After millions of years of remaining constant, greenhouse gas levels, particularly CO₂, started to climb sharply at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Greenhouses gas levels are now almost certainly higher than they have been in 20 million years. This is not a natural fluctuation. It is a side effect of the greenhouse gases being trapped in the atmosphere, much like a giant greenhouse. The heating is called global warming, and we are talking about that.

Global warming has already reduced the depth of the winter polar ice caps since the 1970s by 40%. Polar bears will become extinct if the ice retreat continues, and 90% of all glaciers on the planet have retreated significantly in the last 50 years. As the white reflective snow melts, which is even more efficient at absorbing solar energy, this causes acceleration of the heat effect.

“So what”, some people would say. “Who likes snow and ice?” Let us consider some facts.

The computer models show that up to a metre sea level rise over the next 100 years. More heat means more energy in the atmosphere. That means more turbulent weather. Have we seen more turbulent weather? Already I think we can agree. Super hurricanes will cause millions if not billions of dollars in property damage. Witness what happened in New Orleans.

More heat means a redistribution of rain patterns. We are now seeing freakish storms all over the world, which may dump many feet of water in a single day. We have seen many examples of that already. Does this have something to do with global warming? Probably.

This also means drought in places that previously had abundant rainfall. Does anyone realize what happened in B.C.? The province went for something like almost a month without rain in the Vancouver area. I was there for about a week and everything was dry. Stanley Park was dry. It has never been like that. Something is happening. We may deny the science, but we cannot deny the reality.

Because of these freakish storms, we have droughts in certain places. At a prime time in our history, Canada had to actually import grain because of droughts. For the first time in our history, rainy Vancouver's drinking water reservoirs are almost empty.

Would it not be nice to live in a warmer climate? What is wrong with that? There are at least three drawbacks.

First, we may find that we have to run our air conditioners all year round. We will be using all the extra electricity to run air conditioners. By the law of supply and demand, electricity prices will go through the roof and we may find ourselves unable to afford or run an air conditioner.

With higher temperatures, water evaporates more quickly. Global warming disrupts rainfall patterns, bringing extra rain to some places and drought in others. For those in the drought, tap water will have to be brought in. That means higher water bills. It also means skyrocketing food costs, since farmers need huge amounts of water for irrigation. Every degree rise in temperature requires 10% more water.

If people live in Alberta or Saskatchewan or if they live in the Ganges River valley, their tap water comes from glacier melt water. Those regions will experience summer water shortages. It is absolutely a fact.

The trees cannot pack up and move either to a cooler climate. We lost many of our grand fir trees in the summer of 2002 due to heat and drought. We pretty well had to cut them down and replant a new heat tolerant species to deal with it. It will take at least a generation for the newly planted forest to mature.

The Kyoto protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to what we had in 1990. Note that compared to the emission levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut. The goal is lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphurhexafloride, HFCs and PFCs calculated as an average over the five year period 2008 and 2012.

National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to permit increases of 8% in places like Australia. Not everybody has the same problem. Other countries like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement for certain particular reasons, which I will not go into. However, the objective of the overall protocol is the stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with our climate system. It is all about that.

The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998 and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005. As of April 2006, a total of 163 countries have ratified the agreement, representing over 61.6% of emissions.

On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. While numerous polls have shown support for the Kyoto protocol, somewhere around 70%, there is still some opposition, and I know where it is. It is in the Conservative caucus.

If we think about it, there are some business groups and non-governmental clients with energy concerns using similar arguments to those being used in the United States, which has not signed on to the Kyoto protocol. I think it has something to do with its tremendous reliance on coal-fired plants, particularly in the Ohio Valley.

The United States is not prepared to make that commitment and it has not made any plans to deal with Kyoto. It seems to me that the American administration on the other side here feels it is better to go with George Bush than it is to deal with this matter in Canada.

In 2005 the result was limited to an ongoing war of words, primarily between the government and Alberta, which is Canada's primary oil and gas producer. I must admit that the Conservatives, in opposing Kyoto, talked about a made in Canada solution. However, we have to ask ourselves this. Can we find anywhere in the record any mention of how they will address the high emitters such as the petroleum gas industry and the oil sands? They have not mentioned it. This is where their key support is, and I understand it. That is politics.

However, we are the Parliament of Canada. This is the Government of Canada. It has to speak on behalf of the interests of all Canadians, not simply the supporters of the Conservatives, which is exactly what they did in terms of the funding cuts they just made.

We should look at it. When we look at it line by line, there is no question about it. It was who were unlikely to be Conservative supporters and they were zapped. It is all tied in with this whole meanspirited government that has no interest whatsoever in good policy. It is an ideological government that has absolutely no interest whatsoever in what makes good public policy on behalf of Canadians.

After the January election, the Conservative minority government expressed opposition to Kyoto and announced that Canada would have no chance of meeting its targets under it. However, when we signed this deal, we knew we were already behind. We signed it knowing that, because we still knew it was possible to meet our target under Kyoto.

I could go on in this matter, but the Kyoto protocol, which is supported by the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, is there. It has nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with our serious concerns and our understanding of the science, that climate change is a risk to humanity and we must take action. The Conservative government has refused to do that and is dismantling everything that has been done so far in dealing with greenhouse gases. Shame on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a new member in the House and I represent the riding of Louis-Hébert.

Since my arrival, I have tried to remain objective in my work and to leave partisan politics aside. Today, we heard the Liberal presentation. They managed to increase greenhouse gas emissions by 35%. We were told of the extinction of polar bears. We were told about the problems out West and about insects that eat pine trees. We have been in power for six months. My colleague has given an account of the Liberal legacy.

To achieve the Kyoto targets, we have to reduce gases by 195 megatonnes. That means 195 million tonnes which, even at $10 per tonne, works out to about $19 billion sent abroad. What should be understood is that the Kyoto protocol does not reduce greenhouse gases, but allows us to purchase abroad the right to pollute. That changes nothing in my neighbourhood. It does not prevent individuals from developing emphysema, or seniors and youth from suffering from asthma. They continue to be affected by these gases and smog. That is the Liberals' legacy and we are trying to address the situation.

Earlier, we heard a statement that was almost scientific. This summer, I was in Chicoutimi, at the Monts-Valin interpretation centre. The staff of the centre explained to me that 10,000 years ago, 1,000 feet of ice covered the place where I was walking. That ice did not melt away in the past 100 years. It melted over the course of thousands of years; long before industrial activity could influence the melting of that ice. There are cycles of glaciation and cycles of melting. What stage are we at now? I met with some scientists and even their opinions are divided. Some think one way, others have a different opinion.

Our government is proposing today—or rather will be proposing over the next few days—a new green plan that will really seek to improve the situation. It will not be window dressing in the style of the Liberals. It will not be more posturing. It will be real action.

There is something that I would like my Liberal friends to explain. The former Liberal Minister of the Environment claims that it is impossible to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. How is it that the Liberals continue to support a program whose objectives are impossible to meet, as the former minister says?

We hear it said that to be in favour of the Kyoto protocol means to be in favour of the environment. That is completely false. The Kyoto protocol is a protocol for the purchase and transfer of carbon credits. That is what we have to understand. It is unhealthy. It is soapbox oratory to try to make people believe that the Kyoto protocol is the solution to environmental problems in Quebec and across Canada. The purchase of carbon credits from Cameroon will make no difference to young people with respiratory problems or to older persons. To say otherwise is mere posturing.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier has a five minute right of reply.

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

Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives did not like Kyoto, that they hated Kyoto. It has been proved that they have absolutely no understanding of Kyoto—not like you, of course, Mr. Speaker. I mean the people who spoke here today. They do not understand Kyoto.

My first words are to thank my hon. colleagues who spoke or expressed their support in one way or another for this important bill. I thank my hon. colleagues in the Liberal Party as well as in the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

The support from all the opposition parties shows in the clearest possible way that protecting the environment and fighting climate change cannot and must not become a partisan issue.

All the parties are forming a common front to face the major challenges posed by climate change—all the parties except the Conservative Party.

For ideological reasons, the Conservative government is doing everything in its power to derail Kyoto. That is why the government tried to kill this bill using procedural questions. It tried to say that the bill would need a royal recommendation, which is obviously false. You confirmed that today, Mr. Speaker.

Allow me to provide a brief reminder about this important bill. Its objective is simple, very simple: to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Its purpose is therefore to ensure that Canada complies with international law in this area.

In short, the bill would require the Minister of the Environment to prepare a climate change plan every year containing in particular a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations under clause 3(1) of the Kyoto protocol.

The bill would also require the government to make, amend or repeal the necessary regulations in order to meet its obligations. In so doing, it may take into account the implementation of other governmental measures, including spending and federal-provincial agreements.

All of this can be done, if there is political will to do so, of course. However, this very political will is so desperately lacking within this government.

In the short time left, I would like to stress that more than anything else, this bill is about the future. It calls on the government to act responsibly and to act now. It calls for concrete action to improve the lives of future generations.

The environment is certainly an area in which we can act immediately, in order to improve the living conditions for future generations.

Not only can we act, but we must act. We cannot follow the Conservative lead and say that it is impossible, that it is too complicated, too difficult.

In fact, the government decided to give up before it had even started trying and this is simply unacceptable.

Climate change is one of the most important challenges facing humanity, not only from an environmental perspective, but also in terms of public health, food security, quality of life and economic prosperity.

As I have already clearly stated, when a government does not respect international law or the will of its own citizens, when it fails to assume its responsibilities regarding one of the most important challenges facing our planet, Parliament has the ability and the obligation to force the government to do so.

I therefore encourage all of my colleagues to vote in favour of this important bill. We must do it for our future, but above all, for the future of our children.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It being 7:07 p.m., the time for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 4, immediately before the time provided for 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 Acting Speaker, 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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #38

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)