Bill C-30 (Historical)

Canada's Clean Air Act

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to promote the reduction of air pollution and the quality of outdoor and indoor air. It enables the Government of Canada to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases, including establishing emission-trading programs, and expands its authority to collect information about substances that contribute or are capable of contributing to air pollution. Part 1 also enacts requirements that the Ministers of the Environment and Health establish air quality objectives and publicly report on the attainment of those objectives and on the effectiveness of the measures taken to achieve them.
Part 2 of this enactment amends the Energy Efficiency Act to
(a) clarify that classes of energy-using products may be established based on their common energy-consuming characteristics, the intended use of the products or the conditions under which the products are normally used;
(b) require that all interprovincial shipments of energy-using products meet the requirements of that Act;
(c) require dealers to provide prescribed information respecting the shipment or importation of energy-using products to the Minister responsible for that Act;
(d) provide for the authority to prescribe as energy-using products manufactured products, or classes of manufactured products, that affect or control energy consumption; and
(e) broaden the scope of the labelling provisions.
Part 3 of this enactment amends the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to clarify its regulation-making powers with respect to the establishment of standards for the fuel consumption of new motor vehicles sold in Canada and to modernize certain aspects of that Act.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are all seized with solutions when it comes to the issue of climate change. The debate on whether the science is valid and whether climate change is caused by human activity is now over and now we are looking for solutions. I am glad about that. There are still doubters out there who deny that there is credible science for climate change, and that is fine, we are in a democracy and people have different points of view, but I think the consensus is that climate change and what we see happening is the result of human activity and human behaviour.

What is incumbent upon us as legislators is to look at solutions. I will be supporting the bill. The essence of it is to have cap and trade as one of those solutions. It is no surprise that I and my party are supporting the bill. In fact, central to our platform in the last election was to set up a cap and trade system.

It is important to look around the globe right now. Often people talk about globalization and the need for more trade. I would say that we have fallen behind on the cap and trade issue. When we look at global markets and their approach to climate change, there is a consensus among many countries that a price needs to be put on carbon. However, there might be a debate about how to do it.

If we look at Europe, at what is happening in the United States and what is happening among provinces here in Canada, the consensus is that there should be a carbon market. We need to have a price on carbon that is dealt with through an exchange.

When we look back to the previous Parliament, Bill C-30, the clean air act, was brought forward by the government. The government at the time allowed it to go to a legislative committee to be amended. One of the things in that bill was to have a cap and trade system, among other changes to ensure we dealt with climate change. Sadly, in a most bizarre outcome, the bill was returned to the House amended but the government would not bring it forward again. That was a missed opportunity.

What is happening in Europe, in the United States and in the provinces in Canada is that people are establishing carbon markets and they are doing it through a cap and trade system.

For those who do not quite understand the essence of this, I would simply point to another environmental irritant that we had to deal with, a catastrophic environmental phenomena known as acid rain, which devastated producers in the fishing industry and the maple syrup industry back in the eighties.

At that time, many people, including myself, were pushing governments of the day to come up with a solution to solve the acid rain problem. It was dealt with through a similar kind of approach and that was to set limits on industry as to how much it could pollute and to put scrubbers on its factories to ensure the amount of sulphur and other irritants going into the air would be capped.

We were able to deal with acid rain by having a strong regulatory framework, by having what I call big sticks and good carrots. If companies did not comply, they would be fined and they did comply, they would be rewarded.

Cap and trade is similar. If members may recall, there actually was an agreement, which the Conservative government brought forward, to have an acid rain agreement with the United States. We need to do that now. We are losing time. The United States is now moving toward a cap and trade system.

We removed the phenomena of acid rain by bringing in a strong regulatory framework, by ensuring the big polluters paid and ensuring there were rewards for those making the transition.

That is exactly what cap and trade is. It is to ensure that there is a coherent market. Those who produce excess amounts of carbon have to pay a price. Those who reduce it are rewarded. There is a exchange for this and that is why there has to be a carbon market.

It is that simple, but it requires leadership and legislation. At the national level, it requires a government that believes in this and goes forward. I am very troubled by the fact that we are so far behind.

The foreign affairs committee was recently in Washington. The U.S. is moving ahead. Copenhagen will be in the fall and that will be a follow-up to Kyoto. Where is Canada when it comes to cap and trade? Are we going to be following behind? Are the Americans going to have the leg up? Are we going to come to the table too late to be able to take advantage of this emerging opportunity?

Some provinces have gone ahead with the cap and trade model, such as Ontario and Quebec. The western provinces are looking at getting together as well.

We need a coherent approach at the national level, a national voice for cap and trade to meet where the Americans are going, but we also we need to be coherent. As we know, greenhouse gas does not know borders. It does not have a passport. It is a shared interest with the Americans. In fact, if we go back to the acid rain treaty, it was Canadian leadership.

I recently talked to Joe Clark and I asked how that happened. He said that MPs pushed it and that they had some leadership. He was the external affairs minister of the day. He pushed it and he was allowed to do that. He was given the power to negotiate with the Americans.

Sadly, we are not seeing that with the government. We heard nice things when President Obama was here. We heard about an arrangement was made, but we have not seen the details.

We are about to find ourselves going into the summer without a coherent plan on cap and trade. If we pick up the paper any day, there is a debate about how the Americans will define their cap and trade system.

When we look south of the border, it is worthy to note President Obama's nomination of Steven Chu as his secretary of energy, which is no coincidence. If we look at his approach, he wants to push the cap and trade framework further ahead. That is why President Obama nominated him.

For those who think this is some left-wing conspiracy, there is a consensus on this. People from the business community and people who are entrepreneurial see this as the way to go because it puts a price on carbon that is determined by a market. The last time I checked, I thought the Conservatives were in favour of that. They claim to be, but we have not seen evidence of action.

Cap and trade, simply put, would finally get us to the point where we could start looking at changing and transitioning our economy from one that is based on carbon, which is having negative effects on our economy, and transitioning to an economy that will be based on new solutions that are viable and sustainable.

The first step in any journey is an important one. The first step in this journey to deal with catastrophic climate change is at the national level to have a cap and trade system. That is why we will support the motion.

Energy Efficiency Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act. Earlier, my colleague from Halifax West spoke extensively on the bill and made a number of valid points on energy efficiency. I would refer people to those comments. He talked especially about wasted energy. When politicians are out on a political campaign, we walk into houses and see little lights flashing here and there, on VCRs, computers and telephones that are not in use. All those units are using energy unnecessarily. It is a lot of wasted energy.

The bill makes a series of changes to the Energy Efficiency Act to broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate consumer products that use energy. We can certainly go the regulatory way with encouragement in that area, but as citizens of the country, we also need to do a lot of individual things to save energy in terms of shutting down computers and so on when we may be gone for more than a day. There are all kinds of things we could do.

The bill is rooted in old Bill C-30 from a former Parliament, which was a plan to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. Bill S-3 goes back to some of those points that were made in Bill C-30. After the House committee made wholesale amendments to the climate change provisions in Bill C-30, the government chose not to bring the bill back to the House for further debate. When the first session of the 39th Parliament prorogued, Bill C-30 died. Instead of bringing back the bill in its entirety, the government decided instead to carve off the Energy Efficiency Act provisions and introduce them as a separate bill in the Senate. The bill did not receive second reading in the Senate before the election was called in August, 2008.

The provisions of the bill are not controversial. In fact, it is widely expected that most MPs and most parties will support the bill in the House of Commons because the spirit and the intent of former Bill C-30, what opposition parties mainly drove for, is encompassed in this bill.

An effective regulation of energy-using products is one of a suite of tools the government will have to fight global warming. As my colleague said earlier, there are a lot of global warming deniers on the government side of the House. A lot of points have been raised by previous speakers as to that being the fact. Through this bill we hope the Conservatives will take, not a big challenge, but a small challenge to do a number of small things that can make a difference in terms of energy use itself.

On this point, Canadians know what we should be doing each and every day to improve energy efficiency in many small ways, but sometimes it takes a little encouragement. Although none of us really likes regulations, sometimes it takes a little push with regulations to encourage us to do the right thing on the environment.

Another important area for us to do the right things on the environment and to increase our energy efficiency is a stronger education process. Sometimes we do not realize how the small points on energy efficiency can add up in the global context to big savings on energy.

Let us look at what little things can do. We can go back to Christmastime, when many people light up their houses with Christmas light bulbs and so on. In my province, Christmas was the peak energy period of the year because of the lights on Christmas trees, houses, floodlights and so on. When the LED lights came in, they created such energy efficiencies that the energy use at that time went down substantially.

Therefore, it shows what can be done by both an education campaign and any regulatory campaign. It is one example of many.

It is unbelievable the gains in energy efficiency that have been made in the agricultural industry over the last 15 to 20 years, and there is a lot more we can do. There is a lot more the government can do to assist us in getting there.

It would be really helpful if the government, in its programming, used some of its available resources. We know it has clearly failed the agricultural industry to date, especially the primary producers, but it is not that difficult for it to develop the programs. Whether it is through tax incentives, grants, regional development agencies, Industry Canada or Environment Canada could come up with funding programs that would assist primary producers in purchasing equipment and technology that would reduce the amount of energy used on primary production units on our farms.

Although the government fails to admit it, we know that the agriculture, fisheries, mining and forestry sectors in rural Canada are the generators of economic wealth in the country. Anything that can be done to assist those hard pressed industries in this time of recession would be valuable in moving our country forward.

There is an opportunity, at a time when a so-called economic stimulus is being made available, if the Government of Canada would develop the programming to assist all those industries in reducing their energy use and improving their bottom line. The government seems to have failed to seize that opportunity.

I want to provide some examples in the farming sector. On the equipment side, the tractors we use today are much more energy efficient. Cultivators do a better job with less use of energy on a per acre basis. One of the big areas is the use of GPS equipment, whether it is on equipment used for cultivating potatoes and row crops or whether it is on sprayers where one can do a better job of going over the ground just once. Instead of going over a field or a crop two or three times, one can go over it with a single pass, saving a tremendous amount of energy and greater efficiency. Therefore, less greenhouse gases are put into air for each production unit that is produced on farms.

Many Canadians, especially people who live in urban centres who do not understand the farm community that well, have a strange picture or perception of farmers. Primary producers, farmers, have always been at the cutting edge of technological change. Whether it is energy efficiency, more production per acre, whatever it may be, they have always been at that edge of technological change. This is a great opportunity where we could assist the farm community in making its operations more efficient.

Another example that I could give would be dairy operations. I was a dairy producer, and I have been on many of these operations. More people should see this efficient use of energy. It is an area where expenditures could be made to get more producers on those kinds of efficient uses of energy systems.

To draw a picture, when milk is produced, it is a warm product that has to be cooled by what almost looks like the old type of radiators. The milk is produced by the cows, comes out of the milking system and goes through that radiator unit. The heat is taken out and used to heat water for sanitizing and cleaning up the system and, in some cases, for heating barns. There is great efficiency.

Instead of losing the heat and putting it into a cooler that expends energy to cool the milk so it keeps and can be trucked to the processing plant in a high quality state, the new systems are used to take the heat out of the milk and use it for other purposes, whether it is heating water for sanitizing or whatever. The temperature of that milk is reduced and then when it gets into the cooler, it is already partially cooled. Therefore, it takes less energy to cool the milk product to the proper temperature so it stores safely until it can be shipped to a processing plant for bottling, or for cheese or for whatever its use may be.

From my own experience in the past, I know that originally there were grants from provincial governments at that time to encourage people to move into the earlier concept of bulk milk coolers. This is an area that the government could be assisting the production sector, with stimulus packages and creating energy efficiency as well. I know that goes beyond the concept of this bill, but it is an example of where government action, beyond the regulatory regime, could be a huge help to the farming community.

The same applies in the design of farms. Rather than using the fans, which are used in so many places, there are new concepts where we use natural movement of air.

As another example, this morning I had a great meeting with the greenhouse industry. The Canadian greenhouse industry is one of the most innovative industries in our country. In Ontario alone there are about 1,800 acres under glass. In B.C. there are about 700 acres. I believe it is something like 60 acres or 80 acres in Quebec.

I was in one operation that had 52 acres of tomato and cucumber plants under glass, growing year round. One of the highest costs is the use of hydro. Therefore, farmers have been moving to new concepts. Again, it is an area where the government could assist. In fact, I believe it costs close to $6 million to put the new system in for one of these operations.

Beyond the solar efforts of the sun, using natural gas to heat that generates a byproduct containing CO₂, which plants need to produce the cucumbers and tomatoes. A recycling effect is created and it will pay off over the long term tremendously. Again, it is another case of using greater energy efficiency to have greater economic and energy efficiencies in the operation and less greenhouse gases as a result at the end of the day.

There are so many opportunities available to us in terms of energy efficiency. This bill will move us a little farther along that line. It significantly broadens the government's ability to regulate products that affect the use of energy and we support that. It does not have to be an obtrusive regulation. As I mentioned in the very beginning, to a great extent, it can be more of an education campaign to have people understand what is available out there. The regulations can encourage better use of products, whether it is shutting down equipment or buying more efficient equipment or machinery on the industrial operations, on farms, on fishing boats, in the forestry industry or whatever.

We support these amendments, since they are substantially identical to the proposed amendments to the clean air act, Bill C-30, which the Liberal Party supported. For some reason the Government of Canada wanted to make that disappear. Maybe it was too forward-looking a bill for the current government to grasp, take hold of and put Canada in the lead in terms of environmental change.

If we had moved forward with that act, instead of being a follower, we would have been a leader. In this recession, we see more followers than leaders from the government side. Maybe that makes the point as to why the government abandoned the clean air act. Now we have to at least try to encourage it to move a little step forward with the Energy Efficiency Act.

We look forward to seeing regulations, but it will be necessary to ensure that the impact of these amendments are fully felt in Canadian society.

I want to make one quick point about my own province. One initiative of Premier Robert Ghiz and the Liberal government in P.E.I. is on energy. We are increasingly using wind energy to meet our energy needs. The province has laid out a master plan of how we can use the production of energy and hydro from windmills to meet a greater and greater share of the electricity needs of Prince Edward Island. The Canadian wind test site is on Prince Edward Island. I think it shows that a little province is leading the way in this country in terms of using wind energy to meet Canadians' needs and reduce greenhouse gases.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill S-3, a bill that would amend the Energy Efficiency Act.

The basic premise of this bill is to broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate energy-using consumer products. We can all think of a whole range of consumer products that people have in their homes, whether it be washing machines, dryers, fridges or so many others. The government already does regulate many of these under the existing act, through standards, through labelling, and through the promotion of energy-efficient products.

Indeed, this is something that needs to be broadened, because there are so many new appliances and new electronic gadgets these days.

So many of us in this House, of course, use the BlackBerry, which is a great Canadian-made product from my wife's home area of Kitchener—Waterloo. I must say, of course, that I am proud that Research in Motion also has a building in my riding of Halifax West. That is an interesting connection that my wife and I have with our hometowns.

There are so many items we have in our homes that use power, and there are programs when one is shopping for these things. One can look for the EnerGuide label or the Energy Star label to find out how, for example, one fridge compares to other fridges in its energy consumption, or whether a computer monitor falls within the group that is low enough in terms of energy use to have received the Energy Star. Those are good programs that have been around for a while.

The issue of standby power is an important one. That is one of the things this bill purports to regulate. That is to say, we all know of things in our homes that use power all the time. It may be only a little power, but they are still using power. Anything that has a light on all the time is using power. Often our televisions, even though they are turned off, are still using some power unless they are unplugged.

I can think of things like the new digital video recorders that use quite a bit of power, I gather, particularly if they are recording. Even if they are not recording, there is still a light on. The VCR has a light on, the stereo system has a little light on, and all these things use power.

Even an intercom system is often on all the time. These things are using power.

What this bill will allow the government to do by regulation is limit the amount of standby power that these products can use. Many of these products today use in the range of six to eight watts. At the same time, some of the new products are able to use as little as one watt of power per product. That would be a much better standard to apply to all of them. In fact, that is part of the plan, from what I hear of the government, and that is a good thing.

There are so many things: computers, battery chargers, adapters, stereos, TVs, and microwaves. If a charger for a cellphone is left plugged into the wall, it will become warm. The adapter will become warm. It becomes warm for a reason. That is because it is using power.

One thing that is worthwhile to mention during the debate on this bill is that it is a good opportunity to remind people to unplug these things. It is costing money and it is using power unnecessarily. We all know there are many good reasons not to do that, notably to save money and to help the environment.

In fact, Natural Resources Canada has an office of energy efficiency that has looked into this. They say that as much as 10% of household electrical consumption in Canada comes from this standby power issue. In other words, we could each theoretically reduce as much as 10% of our electrical bills by unplugging these things.

They say that if we did this and dealt with this issue, it could be the equivalent of turning off the power in 300,000 homes. In other words, 300,000 homes worth of electricity per year could be saved across the country. When we are looking at issues like blackouts in Ontario and problems when there are peak energy uses in the summer in particular, we can all see the importance of having that kind of room in the electrical grid.

However, as many have pointed out before, it is not simply what is in this bill that is of concern here and that we ought to be looking at. In fact, what is not in the bill is of major concern.

The measures in this bill were originally in Bill C-30 in the previous Parliament, the government's so-called clean air act which purported to deal with climate change. A special committee of the House was set aside to deal with the bill. Once it actually got hold of it and made a variety of amendments, it did become what could realistically be called a clean air act, but it certainly was not that when it was proposed by the government. It was the opposition amendments that put it in a form that would have actually achieved something.

What did we see? Did that bill go forward? No, it did not go forward. In fact, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament and called an election. We have not seen the bill come back from the government. We have had lots of comments from the government about dealing with climate change which that bill purported to do, but no action.

In June 2005 the previous government actually listed in the Canada Gazette the six major greenhouse gases. That is the beginning of the 18 month process of regulating those greenhouse gases.

There is no reason why the following Conservative government that took over in February 2006 could not have regulated to limit the production, the emission, of those various greenhouse gases within that 18 month period.

Now it is more than three and a half years since those were listed, and we still see no regulations from the government in relation to the limiting of greenhouse gases. We have heard the government talk about cap and trade, we heard that it has a so called “Turning the Corner” plan, but we do not see any corner being turned. We do not see any actual regulations, any real action to deal with greenhouse gases or climate change. That is a concern.

The total lack of trust Canadians have in the government is also a concern. The kind of thing I have talked about is one of the reasons they have so little trust in the government. When it actually comes to bringing forth regulations to ensure the impact of amendments outlined in this bill are actually felt, we do not know what the government will do. This bill does allow the government to regulate in a whole variety of areas.

One of the questions we have heard during debate, both in the Senate and here, is this question of whether or not this bill could be used, this law could be used, to regulate automobile emissions. Well, the wording is very broad. I had a look at the law that exists now and it says in section 200, the definition section, “'energy-using product' means a prescribed product”.

Actually, that means that the government can set out in regulation what products are included as energy using products that fall within the scope of this bill. In other words, it could certainly regulate automobiles, as they do use an energy product: gasoline obviously, ethanol, even hydrogen these days or electricity. All these things are using energy. In theory, then, the government could certainly regulate automobiles through this bill, although we would expect it to use other legislation that is on the books to do that. It is interesting that that is one of the options.

The point I am making is that we do not know what the government will do with these regulations. We do not know if it will take any action at all. Its record so far in regulating on the environment is so weak that it is hard for Canadians to have any confidence that this bill will actually be used to do anything worthwhile.

The idea of the bill is a fine idea, but it is how it is used. The bill is all about giving that power to regulate to the government. That is an important point.

There are also concerns about the Conservative government's complete failure to understand that energy efficiency is a fundamental issue not just for the environment but for the economy. Dealing with these things is important in terms of where we go in the economy. What was lacking, for example, in the budget was an understanding of the importance of that.

In the U.S. we have seen the Obama administration's package for economic stimulus. We have seen six times as much spending per capita on the energy efficiency side of things and renewable energies as here in the Conservative government package. That was disappointing. I think the government ought to consider that, reconsider its position, and recognize that it is important for the economy that we become efficient. It can save us in many ways. It can help us with the strains in terms of our electrical grids and in many other areas.

I suspect that the fact that many government members are still climate change deniers is a factor here. I have witnessed that in this House. I witnessed it on Monday during debate on this same bill. My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was speaking. He was talking about Antarctica and how we have seen ice shelves, such as the Larsen ice shelf, collapse there and what a concern that is for situations like that around the globe. He gave examples of global warming, examples that are alarming scientists around the globe, and some of the reasons why scientists tell us the evidence is overwhelming that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity.

However, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt was in the chamber and he said that Antarctica is growing. I do not know what planet he is talking about. Maybe there is another Antarctica on another planet somewhere that is growing, but I think it is pretty clear that the opposite is happening here.

In fact we understand, and I think most people do, that the ice in Antarctica does not just freeze every winter. With the ice in Antarctica, or on the Greenland glacier or Arctic ice cap, we are talking primarily about ice that has been formed with snow falling and then more the following year and so much over centuries that it pushes down, compacts and turns into very hard and very old ice.

When we see something that is thousands of years old collapse and fall into the ocean, and a colleague thinks that Antarctica is actually growing, I think he ought to give his head a shake.

It is a bit like those who suggest that there is no link between HIV and AIDS. All the science is in the other direction. It is overwhelmingly clear that there is a link between HIV and AIDS. Or it is like the techniques that were used for years by those people who said there was no link between tobacco and cancer. We hear the same kinds of things from the other side.

It seems to me the Conservatives have not gotten the message. It seems to me that they forget the poll that came out in January 2007 which said that the number one concern of Canadians was the environment. This was about six or eight months after Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth came into the theatres and people started to become much more concerned about these issues. The media started to talk about this. People got more and more concerned, but it was only after that, that the government suddenly and totally changed direction and started to admit that there was a concern about climate change, or at least it wanted us to believe that it was reformed, that it actually had bought into the idea that this was a real problem.

Yet, it seems that many members on that side did not get the memo, that they have not gotten the message that in fact they are supposed to believe now in climate change, because we hear them say things like the notion that Antarctica is still growing. We hear them say things that are utterly ridiculous and that fly in the face of the overwhelming science that tells us that climate change is real and is the result of human activity.

Maybe they should work on their messaging over there and get the message out. Maybe they need another memo for more of the members on that side to get this clear. Most of them do not say very much normally without the office of the Prime Minister giving the approval, so one would think that maybe they need clearer direction from the PMO on that. Perhaps it is the fact that they are climate change deniers that accounts for their dismal failure to grasp what really are the larger implications that are at play with this bill and the issues of climate change, to which Bill C-30 in the last Parliament was tied.

When this bill was debated in the other place, that red chamber down the hall on the east side of this building, my colleague from Alberta, Senator Grant Mitchell, raised many important questions about this bill. In fact, while this bill was introduced in the Senate by the government leader there, it was Senator Mitchell who has been the driving force behind this idea for some time, pushing for energy efficiency improvements and pushing for changes, so that the government can regulate classes of products, not just certain products. That is a good thing, there is no question.

He was right, in the Senate, when he noted that perhaps one of the biggest questions was the lack of trust Canadians have that the Conservative government will do anything it promises. I have heard from many Canadians that they do not trust the government. They simply do not trust the government to actually implement this or any significant environmental policy because its record is so dismal.

While the Liberal Party supports a broadening of the government's ability to regulate products that use energy, this does not disguise the fact that these changes are in isolation to create the false impression the Conservatives are actually doing something on this file.

Well, they are not, really. We know that. That is why Canadians do not trust the Prime Minister or the government on the environment any more than they trust them to properly manage our country's finances or our economy.

This is the same government that told us last fall that there were no problems. The Prime Minister said that if it was going to get bad, it would already have been bad. We heard that during the election: if the economy is going to be in recession, we would have already had it here.

Well, things got a lot worse. In September he said it was good time to buy stocks. Not only was that insensitive but it was incredibly bad advice, when we consider what has happened since. For a guy who claims to be an economist, that is a pretty scary bit of prognostication. I think most people would have to recognize that.

Why the lack of trust? That is the result when the Conservatives deny climate change in the face of the kind of overwhelming scientific evidence that exists, or when they deny there is a recession in the midst of a global economic meltdown as we have been seeing over the past number of months, or when they say they will balance the books when they have been in deficit for months, as we heard last fall in the fiscal update, which was clearly absolute nonsense and from which the government retreated.

That is the question. Will the Conservatives actually implement these amendments in this bill and act on the regulatory power that this gives them?

We all saw what the Conservatives did with the Kyoto protocol. We saw an announcement related to cap and trade two years ago, and nothing has happened. We saw what they did with Bill C-30 in a previous Parliament, which is where this initiative first saw the light of day.

And did we not have a bill related to fixed term elections? That seems to be something I can recall; something that evaporated in the mind of the Prime Minister around about last September.

Did we not have a promise not to tax income trusts? Did we not have a signed offshore accord with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that the Prime Minister said would not be abandoned? I think we did.

On the environment, in general, the trust factor is non-existent for the Conservative government. It announced a $1 billion clean energy fund, which sounded great. But how much of that is going toward things like solar power, wind power, tidal power or geothermal power? When the deputy minister appeared before the natural resources committee, she was asked about this fund and she told the committee that $850 million was targeted toward carbon capture and sequestration. Now, that is an important technology and it is of great concern to the oil sands, certainly. However, it is not the only issue. What is concerning is that the Conservatives want to give the impression they have this wonderful clean energy fund for a whole range of clean energies. We really see it is almost all going to one particular area.

Aside from this fundamental issue of trust, there are also concerns of what is not in the bill that raises other questions. For instance, what kind of consultation took place in relation to the second section which talks about interprovincial trade? Did the government consult the provinces? We do not know.

There are a variety of other concerns. The questions and comments that I hope will follow will give me an opportunity to talk about them more.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this bill replicates for all practical purposes the now defunct Bill C-30 on air quality introduced by the government. It caused considerable debate, especially at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The second part of Bill C-30 aimed to modernize and improve the Energy Efficiency Act. Of course, that legislation needed to be renewed, updated and improved. For that reason, among others, we will support Bill S-3.

However, the fact remains that it is clearly not enough and more needs to be done. It is clear from many of the comments made by stakeholders in the industrial and business sectors, as well as the environmental community, that the industry proposed these regulations with a shrug of their shoulders. That says it all. It is a step in the right direction, since the amendments presented in these regulations were necessary, but it is not nearly enough to address the problem and improve energy efficiency. We simply must go even further on this issue, because it constitutes one of the most important pillars in a real policy to fight climate change.

A climate change policy must have two basic components. The first is the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at their source and changing our industrial processes and lifestyles in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One way this can be accomplished is by changing how we produce energy. In the next few years, we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, whether coal, gas or oil. We must develop new sources of energy in order to reduce our dependency on oil, for instance, which strains the budgets of individuals as well as of businesses and government. When we reduce our dependency on oil, we create conditions conducive to protecting the environment and improving the economy of our society.

This bill amends regulations to reflect advances in energy efficiency, especially with respect to standby power. That is significant. We must encourage such changes, suited to each type of appliance, especially in our homes. For example, an energy-efficient television will use 1 watt compared to 12 watts for a conventional television set. That is the case for certain appliances. If we really want to eliminate consumption, we should just pull the plug However, quite often we cannot because some devices have a memory and we would lose all the information.

It is important to update these technologies, to introduce regulations and to force businesses to change the manufacture of appliances especially when the technology is available. It is estimated that the implementation of new technologies for standby power alone could save families $35 a year and result in electricity savings equivalent to consumption by 300,000 households.

That part of the bill is good for the economy and for people's budgets.

This bill would also give the minister more power when it comes to labelling products that consume energy, and it would standardize the process, broadening the range of products to which labelling applies. That is important, but we feel that the government should go much farther. This kind of energy use labelling should not be restricted to appliances, such as dishwashers and televisions, or to light bulbs. It should also bring in a vehicle energy use labelling system like the one in Switzerland and elsewhere. In 2002, the Swiss implemented mandatory energy use labelling for new vehicles. That is the kind of energy use labelling we need.

Our proposed measure would require those who make and sell cars to affix a label containing information about fuel consumption, CO₂ emissions and energy efficiency to all new and used vehicles for sale. We think that this information should also appear on brochures and all advertising material. Labelling would raise awareness among individuals and companies about vehicle efficiency by providing information about fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions. People need that information to make responsible, well-informed choices.

We think that the government should go further than this bill and implement mandatory energy use labelling for new vehicles offered for sale, something along the lines of the Swiss system. I really want to emphasize that because we believe that energy efficiency is about more than the environment and environmental protection. It is also about saving money and creating jobs. This is an opportunity for businesses, states, nations and countries to create jobs based on energy efficiency.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in today's debate on Bill S-3 to modernize the Energy Efficiency Act. This bill was introduced in the Senate on January 29, 2009 by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

This bill represents and replicates, for all practical purposes, part 2 of Bill C-30.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill S-3. This bill would enable the government to regulate products that use energy, as we have heard before, and my party is going to support it in order to move it forward.

Elements of this bill came out of the former Bill C-30, which had the misnomer being called the clean air act, which did a little for the reduction of pollution but missed the central challenge of our times in terms of the environment, and that is how to deal with global warming. The government has essentially been missing in action on this global challenge, which is going to require all countries to move forward.

We heard from the previous speaker about what is happening this year. We are at a fork in the road because later on this year in Copenhagen world leaders will meet to wrestle with and develop a mechanism to effectively reduce greenhouse gases against the backdrop of some new scientific data which, at the very least, should be keeping those tasked with this challenge awake at night.

It should keep all of us awake at night because when we compare the evidence from two years ago, sea levels are rising at twice the speed of what was anticipated. That is shocking. We have seen how the Arctic ice cap, the Antarctic ice cap and glaciers are shrinking at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Part of the reason is that global warming is actually causing rifts and crevices within the glaciers, which is causing water to seep through and big chunks to fall off. These areas which reflect sun back into the atmosphere are being removed and it is contributing to the problem in terms of global warming.

It is part of a nasty feedback loop that ties into something I will talk about a little later with respect to the warming of the oceans, but it also has an impact upon how the currents work in the north Atlantic. If that current system changes, we are going to have a catastrophic feedback loop that we have no idea how to address. This is a much more serious problem than scientists even thought.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to put a price on carbon. There is no two ways about that. There is no better system. We are going to have to put a price on carbon. We will have to find a way to develop a carbon trading system so the private sector can trade credits. This will enable us to bring down emissions.

We also have to deal with supporting initiatives that work. We need to encourage the use of solar power, geothermal power and wind power. Many of the technological challenges that have existed around wave and tidal power have been overcome, and I might say proudly that many of those have been overcome by Canadian scientists who have been working very hard to do it. That is an inexhaustible source of energy.

We can also look at some new technologies in terms of rotating buildings. There are new initiatives in the UAE and other countries where buildings can rotate to follow the sun and absorb energy, thereby reducing the amount of energy that is required to heat buildings.

The other issue, which is a new change on an old idea, is electric cars. There have been some new discoveries in electric cars. Lithium phosphate batteries are able to store enough energy but also release the energy quickly. Previously, we never had an effective battery that was able to store energy as well as release it quickly, which is what electric cars require. I would suggest the government invest in and encourage scientists working in these areas. A full court press must be done to support these initiatives.

Unfortunately, what has happened, quite shockingly I might add, is that in the last budget the government actually cut moneys to some key monitoring areas for global warming. Canada was a leader in terms of building a network across the world to address climate change. Unfortunately, as a leader in this, these groups are going to have those moneys eviscerated by the government. That would be a tragedy for our country and for the world.

At the end of the day, we also have to look at how we can educate the public to use inputs that are going to dramatically reduce their use of fossil-based fuels. It is interesting that we can dramatically reduce our utilization of fossil fuels by how we build our buildings. We can reduce the use of fossil fuels by 70% or more if we change how we build our buildings. The member who spoke last gave the very good suggestion that we should work toward a national building code that will set standards on how buildings can be built. That is one of the most effective ways to reduce our consumption of greenhouse gases.

A couple of years ago, Scientific American really did a fabulous job. It devoted a month to climate change. In that, it showcased a number of very effective solutions that have been done around the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deal with climate change. One of the great articles in that journal was about how we can change the way we build our buildings.

In my last speech, I also spoke about the issue of forests. We know that deforestation is occurring at an unprecedented rate. As our population grows exponentially, our demand for products is also growing, so we are seeing an unprecedented level of deforestation. Madam Speaker, you and I know that our world cannot exist without forests. Forests have a value when they are cut down. Yet, suppose those forests had a value as they stand. In fact, they do because forests are, in effect, public utilities. They function as public utilities because they absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis. That has a value.

If we put a price on carbon at $10 a tonne and we know that a hectare of jungle in the Congo River Basin or Amazonia can absorb about 200 tonnes of carbon a year, that is $2000 a year per hectare. Previously, when Kyoto was put together, countries with large tropical forests like Malaysia, Indonesia and Brazil were leery of this and did not want to pursue it because they thought it might mitigate and affect their development. However, they have come around because they recognize that those moneys can be used for the development of the country in a sustainable way. In the case of Indonesia, that could be a net benefit of about $2 billion.

The catch in all this is that the people who live around and near these forests have to benefit. Where these programs have been tried, the failure, as it is in many development projects, is that the moneys do not get down to the people who need it the most. That is the central failure. The people who need to benefit, who are frequently the poorest people in the world, do not benefit from this. We need to enable ourselves to have a system with accountability to make sure that the people around those areas get a value for that forest and therefore do not cut it down.

If we do not do that, the system is doomed for failure. Putting a value on our forests, which are the lungs of the planet, is an intelligent way to preserve them. Our country has massive resources in terms of forests and we need to do a much better job of managing those forests. As I said earlier, we have rules and regulations that are governed by the provinces in terms of forestry code practices. However, speaking for my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and from having worked up north in B.C., we have found that in many cases those forestry practices are simply not adhered to because the companies doing it know that there is no effective enforcement mechanism.

We are seeing forests cut down right to the edge of rivers and where salmon-bearing streams occur. As a result, we are seeing that it is partially responsible for a massive depletion of our salmon stocks on the west coast. This is not an inevitable situation. This does not have to occur. If we are smart about how we develop and enforce our forestry practices, it will go a long way to ensuring that we have stable fisheries on the west coast as well as a forest that will be there in the future.

Biofuels are the coal of the renewable energy sector. Biofuels, in particular corn ethanol, is a disaster. Corn ethanol is the coal of the biofuel industry. We are subsidizing land to be wiped out and reseeded with corn which has a downstream effect that has been opposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Food Programme and others. By taking land and planting corn for biofuels, the energy that goes into processing that corn is much larger than what we get out of it. In other words, we are burning more fossil fuels to get a unit of energy out of corn. Also, we are removing areas that were previously acting as major carbon sinks and replanting with corn.

This is a lose-lose-lose proposition. I would strongly encourage the government to wrap its head around this. Corn biofuels are bad. It needs to stop subsidizing corn biofuels and start looking at alternative energies that actually work, such as solar, wind, tidal power, wave power with geo-thermal.

Some biofuels might work in terms of the detritus from forestry practices, and a few others, but, for heaven's sake, to take land and encourage the planting of corn to warp, twist and distort the system, that is actually causing incredible damage.

Another interesting thing that has happened concerns carbon scrubbers. We now know that there are proposals and developments that enable us to actually scrub the air of carbon dioxide, transferring that into a situation where the carbon is being pulled out of the atmosphere. I would submit that is something we need to consider and need to look at and I would encourage the government to do this.

Something the Liberal Party railed against In the previous budget was the government's failure to support research and development. We know that research and development will be the cornerstone of our country's ability to be competitive in the changing economy that will come out of the economic tsunami that has rolled across our planet and destroyed so many people's finances, so many countries' economies and has hurt so many people here in Canada and around the world.

The government must stop its antipathy toward science and research and understand clearly that research and development is one of the key cornerstones of the future of our country. The failure to invest in this will cause huge economic damage to our people and our country and it will result in the egress of a loss of some of our best and brightest minds.

Back in the late 1990s the then Liberal government saw this as a priority. After the deficits were slayed, the then government of Jean Chrétien put moneys into research and development dramatically. As a result of that, we were able to attract some of the best and brightest scientists from around the world. We have started to actually get to the forefront of science and research in many fields, whether it is medicine, physics, chemistry, proteomics or genomics.

In our neck of the woods, adaptive optics is being done at the Hertzberg Institute of Astrophysics. In fact, we are the third leader in the world in astronomy

What is happening now, whether it is in the Hertzberg Institute of Astrophysics, in Genome Canada, the Canadian Institute for Health Research or NSERC, the sudden cut of moneys by the government at a time when an economic stimulus demands that it invests in research and development, will negatively and profoundly affect the ability of our country to be economically competitive in the future.

What the government is doing is harming the future of our children and of our grandchildren and we cannot allow that to occur.

I know that my party, the Liberal Party, has told the government, loud and clear, to get smart and understand the importance of research and development and understand that it is a cornerstone of our economy. We cannot divorce publicly funded research and development from the future of our economy or our nation. It is critically important.

It also speaks to the critical importance of the government to invest in scientific research and climate change. We know there is a great deal of skepticism on the other side that this is even occurring. We know the government thinks this is simply a natural ebb and flow of temperature changes over time. However, that ignores 99% of the scientists who have made a clear, compelling and provocative argument to say that this is not simply the normal variance of temperature over time, that this is a fact. Unless the government deals with this now and works with other countries, the future of our nation and our world will be compromised. It is a very serious problem because we are dealing with the extinction of a lot of species. I do not want to be alarmist about it but we are one of those species. It is critically important that the government do this.

The government also needs to look at best practices. One of the singular failures that we have seen, for some strange reason, is the inability of the government to say that it does not need to necessarily reinvent the wheel, but as a first step we should look at best practices within our country and around the world. We should draw them together to ensure those best practices are moved out from the bench, from theory, from small practices and into a much larger acceptance and involvement by a greater number of people. This can and has to be done and it is simple to do.

Why not create a centre for best practices at the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and all of the different scientific areas, whether it is NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC? We can take best practices in all those areas and do a good job of trying to share them with others in our country and with those around the world.

When the world comes to Copenhagen at the end of this year, Canada will be sitting there but we cannot be a second rate player in this. We cannot sit on the sidelines and simply see where this goes. What is required, before the world comes to Copenhagen, is that we start to develop and begin to lead. We develop a coalition of the willing, and there is no reason the government cannot do that.

We know that President Obama is trying. I believe 10% of the $783 billion stimulus package is devoted to climate change. The Americans are trying to find ways to bring down the utilization of fossil fuels and utilize new tools and new technologies to address that. The president also knows that there will be a global demand for this.

We all know that China and India are producing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases. We also know that as their demand increases, and it will increase geometrically, the impact upon our environment will be huge.

The previous president of the United States and our current Prime Minister have made the fallacious argument that these countries need to grasp onto this themselves and come to the table or we will not play ball. That is not leadership. What the government could do is sit down and engage both of these countries. At the end of the day, they will be impacted by global change just like everybody else. That is not something any government wants to do.

With the diaspora that we have here and have come from Asia, why do we not utilize those folks here and engage both China and India in a way that few other countries can?

We have an opportunity to cease the day and engage other countries. We can use best practices and tackle this beast called climate change once and for all. Failure to do that is not an option.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the issues of energy efficiency and we recall Bill C-30 from the previous Parliament, the so-called clean air act which contained some of these provisions, we can also recall the government talked about how it wanted to have a made in Canada plan. That was its position when it took government. Now it seems it is no longer interested in that. It has dropped that kind of phrasing. Now what it looks like is it is waiting and we are going to have a made in the U.S.A. plan.

Could she comment on what the government is doing in this regard?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to speak to Bill S-3. It is a very important concept, but as hon. members will see from my remarks today, the bill does not go anywhere near far enough. A number of my colleagues in the House have said it is nice that we are taking some measures, but if we are to get serious about addressing pollution control and climate change, there is far more that needs to be done.

Why is energy efficiency important? Why would we even bother to bring forward amendments like this? We need to reduce our energy use. Why do we need to reduce energy use? Because most of our energy generation in Canada at this point in time, except for hydroelectricity, is fossil fuel based. Fossil fuel based power is the largest source of greenhouse gases that are emitted in Canada, and also the largest source of a number of pollutants.

Coal-fired power, which happens to be the largest source of greenhouse gases being emitted in Canada right now, is also the largest source of industrial mercury in Canada. It has been designated by the Government of Canada as being the priority substance for reduction. By getting more effective with energy use, we can reduce pollution and neurotoxins.

It provides cost savings. By reducing energy use, we save a lot of money not only to individual homeowners and business owners, but also to the Government of Canada. In this time of economic crisis when programs that should be supported are being cut left, right and centre, we could make a lot more revenue available to good programs if we cut energy use.

We can also save a lot of money, if people cut down their energy use, by building new generation facilities and transmission lines. The costs that individual homeowners, businesses and the government pay for electricity are based on the development of new generation and transmission lines, some of those transmission lines being built for export.

There is also the environmental impacts associated with the generation of electricity: the coal mines, the cooling ponds and so forth. Overall, it is a laudatory objective. The preamble of Bill S-3 states:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring sustained improvement in the efficient use of energy in all sectors of the Canadian economy;

I will speak to that in a minute and talk about the inadequacies of the bill in dealing with what the preamble states.

Now more than ever the federal government needs to assert its powers to trigger energy efficient measures. We can do that through environmental protection measures. By having strict environmental controls, we encourage industry to be more efficient in how it generates power and to look for ways where it can actually encourage people to retrofit their homes.

One concrete example of that is in California where Pacific Gas and Electric Company determined it made more sense rather than build a new, big, expensive generation facility, to pay people to retrofit their homes and businesses. It has been a very successful program. The end result was that they got a higher rate, but people used less power.

The Government of Canada could also use its fiscal powers. It could impose fees, a higher cost on non-energy-efficient appliances and so forth. There is a lot of market measures we could use that we are simply not using. We could use our spending power. We could put conditions on the transfer of money.

For example, we are sending billions of dollars to provincial governments and to the private sector to test carbon sequestration. We could be putting conditions on that money by saying to industry that if it agreed to phase out some of its coal-fired power plants, we would help pay for its testing of technology.

This bill, as the Conservatives' plan to tackle climate change, is a pretty small baby step in the right direction, but it falls short. The amendments mirror the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act in Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change bill, which was approved by the environment committee in the 39th Parliament but has not been acted upon. That bill would have added a preamble to the Energy Efficiency Act to support setting continuous economy-wide improvement targets in energy efficiency in Canada, with two sections added to the Energy Efficiency Act.

The first change that would have been made would require the governor in council to prescribe energy efficient standards for all energy-using products, not just a handful, this list of five, but all energy-using products that are responsible for significant or growing energy consumption in Canada.

Second, the cabinet would be required to review all energy efficient standards within three years after they were introduced or amended in after third year thereafter. Through this review, every energy efficiency standard would have had to meet or exceed the most stringent levels found in North America.

Regrettably the bill is not that far-reaching. It is extremely limited.

The bill would delete that second requirement. There is no guarantee that the standards made would be as good as any other North American jurisdiction. This could mean that, once again, Canada could be outstripped by the United States on energy efficiency and ultimately on climate change, including setting standards for the manufacture of equipment. If we do not set higher energy standards, there is a possibility that we could not even ship our goods or sell them to the United States if it has higher standards, which President Obama is moving toward.

President Obama has directed higher efficiency standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and so forth. He has directed quick, clear progress on energy efficiency. The final rules are to be in place by this August, requiring energy efficiency standards for a very lengthy list of products, three times the list offered up in Bill S-3. I will not go through the entire review, but is a very comprehensive list.

His directive also asks for his department of energy to meet all deadlines in setting energy standards and evaluate them in priority order and finish some ahead of schedule if possible.

Bill S-3 will subject a limited list of products to new energy efficiency regulations for only commercial clothes washers, dishwashers, incandescent fluorescent lamps, battery chargers and satellite set top boxes. There is no indication whether the standards released will be as stringent as those in the United States and whether there will be any mechanism to ensure Canada is a leader in energy efficiency rather than a follower.

Instead of this minimalist approach, why are we not allowing Canadians to buy the best possible energy efficient appliances? Why are we continuing to allow the sale and the manufacturing in Canada of products that are not serving Canadians? Canadians will be best served by the most efficient possible appliance. Why do we not then only enable the sale of the most efficient energy appliances or ban the sale of outdated ones that burn energy and put up costs for all Canadians?

Why not pursue innovative approaches such as what the Pembina Institute has talked about and that some American states have adopted, for example, the innovative electricity conservation option called “virtual power”. If any kind of mechanism, building or part of a building or appliance is not in use, the computer automatically shuts off that equipment. It is an incredibly innovative approach and it is time for our country to move ahead into these more innovative approaches.

Bill S-3 professes to ensure the sustained improvement in the efficient use of energy in all sectors. If we are serious about addressing energy efficiency and energy conservation in Canada, we need to tackle the single largest source of greenhouse gases. Incidentally it is also the single largest remaining source of industrial mercury emissions in Canada and across North America. That is coal-fired power plants.

Canada is criticizing the United States and China for their proposals for the expansion of the coal-fired power plants. The federal government is doing nothing in the exercise of its available powers and mandate to foster the closure of these plants at the end of their operating life. The federal government should take this action if we are really serious about energy efficiency in Canada.

The majority of coal-fired power plants have a 30% energy efficiency. Even the most efficient operate a 40% efficiency. That is a super critical plant. As far as I am aware, there is only one such plant in Canada, and that is in Alberta.

To run pollution control equipment, which we hope these plants will clean up their act and add on more pollution control equipment, they need to burn more coal. We get into this perverse cycle where in order to have energy efficiency and cost savings for the coal-fired generators, we burn more coal.

I want to offer up to the House as well some information that has come to my attention. I sought information from the government on the energy efficiency of public buildings. That is a sector where President Obama is leading. In his new stimulus package he has directed a massive energy efficiency program for all public buildings across the United States of America. We do not have that kind of stimulus package in our budget.

The information provided to me is most invaluable to the House. I have discovered that of the more than 26,000 buildings held by the Government of Canada, only 10 buildings are in the process of doing any energy efficient work whatsoever toward a LEED standard. That is reprehensible. If we are to expect the private sector, or households, or small businesses to move in the direction of energy efficiency, to turn in their older appliances and recyclables and buy more energy efficient equipment, surely the government should set the stage by example.

Environment Canada, alone, owns more than 5,000 buildings, yet only one of those buildings is in the process of being retrofitted. If we retrofitted the public buildings and saved only 1% energy use in our public facilities, we would save $3.5 million a year. If we improved the energy efficiency of our public buildings by 5%, we would save more than $18 million a year. Think of the programs for child care, for education, for seniors, for affordable housing, for environmental protection that we could benefit with $18 million a year. Essentially Canadian money is going out the stack in these government facilities.

I commend the government for bringing the bill forward. It is a nice tiny baby step forward. However, if we are to live up to what the bill says, which is improving energy efficiency in all sectors of the Canadian economy, then it is incumbent upon the government to table legislation forthwith to move us forward into this century and take real action on climate change, pollution reduction and protect Canadian health and save Canadians money.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member took part in the study in a previous Parliament of Bill C-30 which included some of the measures that are proposed in this bill on energy efficiency. However, what I would like to ask him about are the things that we do not see in this bill.

I know he worked with other opposition parties and members on the committee to make considerable improvements to what the Conservatives called the so-called clean air act, which it clearly was not when it started but by the time it had been amended and revised considerably by the committee, it was actually beginning to look not so bad.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on what has been left out here, what we do not see here.

He talked a bit about ecoENERGY which was gutted in the recent budget. Perhaps he would like to comment again on what is missing in the budget in relation to energy efficiency.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.

It is interesting to follow the parliamentary secretary after his remarks and his responses to questions with a couple of fundamental facts for Canadians to understand. First, this bill is actually being sponsored by the leader of the government in the Senate, but of course the critic there is hon. Grant Mitchell, a Liberal senator who has been driving this through the Senate for some time now.

It is a bill that will make, as the parliamentary secretary has said, a number of changes to the existing Energy Efficiency Act here in Canada. It will, in effect, broaden the scope of the government's ability to regulate consumer products that use energy, which in and of itself is a good thing.

The fundamental challenge, the theme I am going to come back to, about this bill and the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act is that they are now being presented completely and utterly in isolation. They are presented in isolation of a climate change plan for the country. They are presented in isolation from fiscal structures in the country that may or may not be driving energy efficiency because we all know that energy efficiency and a carbon constrained future, with the reduction of greenhouse gases, is a major and massive competitive factor that Canada is now pursuing.

We are in a globally highly sought after race which many jurisdictions want to win, and that is the race to better and higher energy efficiency standards for our production processes, for the services we render, and for the way in which the government procures its goods and services.

There is yet another missing link in this package. How do these energy efficiency measures connect with a comprehensive innovative strategy for the future of Canada? How do they connect to the existing fiscal measures that are in place? How do they connect to the government's overall program expenditures? How do they connect to the government's own procurement system, having watched the green procurement regime of the previous government disappear under this government?

How is it connected to the government's own energy efficient audit system for Canadian homeowners which has been seriously undermined and weakened? How does it connect to the government's new short-term funding for the building of decks and patios to try to stimulate the economy? How does it connect to the standards by which stimulus money is being invested in Canadian society? What is the matrix here that the government is bringing to bear on billions of dollars of necessary stimulus spending? How do these connect?

It is all so passing strange that the government has been mounting for months, now a campaign, the publicity and communications campaign, to tell Canadians that it is a red tape buster or, in the case of energy efficiency and climate change, a green tape buster. The Minister of Transport, for example, regularly talks about being the accountability guy, the efficiency guy.

Why is it, surreptitiously, that just last Friday afternoon the Government of Canada, the Conservatives, tabled an outrageous document which lists hundreds of exceptions for environmental assessment provisions in this country claiming that these have to be removed, these standards for environmental assessment have to be removed because, of course, they will impede, the government suggests, stimulus investment in the Canadian economy.

How do we square this? On the one hand, we have one document that says we have to do away with environmental assessment, and yet now we have a new series of amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act which say that businesses are going to have to abide by a whole new suite of energy efficiency standards.

Is not this suite of energy efficiency amendments yet more red tape being tabled by the Conservative Party, or really is the Conservative Party being disingenuous, being deliberately misleading with the Canadian people about whether environmental assessment is in fact an impediment to getting important stimulus investment out the door?

However, it is worse than that. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities told us there already exists over $13 billion of so-called shovel-ready projects that have been environmentally assessed. So why is it that the government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth? Which story are Canadians supposed to believe?

I think what we are seeing here is the end result of three and a half years of non-stop lurching by the Conservative Party when it comes to energy efficiency and the climate change crisis. It is jumping literally from ice floe to ice floe as the Arctic thaws at breakneck speed.

There is no climate change plan in this country. There is no more Turning the Corner plan. Everything has evaporated into thin air. Instead of actually stopping the nonsense, stopping the lurching from one communications campaign to another over the past three and a half years on the climate change crisis, the government is introducing these minor but important changes to the Energy Efficiency Act and expecting Canadians to believe these amendments constitute a climate change plan. They do not.

There is absolutely no doubt now; it is conclusive. Canada has abandoned the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, although the government does not have the guts to stand up and say it.

It is the only international treaty in existence on the planet today to deal with atmospheric carrying capacity and the climate change crisis. There is no other. For any government that unilaterally changes the baseline year, for example, from 1990 to 2006, which is also part of the government's communications campaign, the universe only started in 2006. In terms of everything that came before, such as Prime Minister Mulroney's work, Mr. Stanfield's work, Mr. Trudeau's work, the work of successive governments, in the communications campaign none of that existed before.

Therefore, in 2006, the government came and unilaterally changed the terms of conditions of our climate change obligations, and instead of coming clean and telling the world, the international community and Canadians, that it was abandoning the only international agreement there is, it bobbed, weaved, lurched and did what it did best. It communicated with shock and awe. It tried to stop the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act by sending a minister into a committee of the other place, making a fool of himself by actually putting up fictitious numbers and then getting caught. Like the schoolchild who gets caught cheating on the exam, the minister was really reminiscent of a child who has an answer for everything except for the fact that he got cheating on the exam.

Therefore, we have a situation now where this is completely incoherent. It attaches to nothing. Eleven independent groups have examined the government's previous Turning the Corner environmental climate change plan. Each and every single group that has examined the government's plan has said it is not real. It cannot possibly achieve the targets that the government says it will achieve.

Is that why, for example, we have heard no talk of this Turning the Corner plan in months since the last election campaign?

Is that why the only thing the Government of Canada can put in the window on climate change is a so-called dialogue with the United States, a dialogue I described as a dialogue of the deaf?

Canada is now apparently entering dialogue and negotiation with the United States on an appropriate so-called continental climate change response, but we have no plan.

Who in their right mind, in any organization—and I defy the Conservatives to name one organization in any sector of Canadian society, business, non-governmental, civil society, government, anywhere—would purport to be entering into negotiations with a sovereign state like the United States that excels at negotiations, and have no plan?

I think the only group that is purporting to foist this on the Canadian people is the Conservative Party of Canada. How can one enter into negotiations without a plan? One cannot.

We now have a situation where these amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act are being put in the window as window dressing, just like the government's environmental enforcement provisions in another act, in order to masquerade or to cover the fact that there is no climate change plan for this country, over and over again. I do not know what it is going to take.

Even the government cloaking itself in the flag of Obama is not working, because Canadians know they should not be taking their climate change strategy and their plan out of Washington. We should not be taking the design for a cap and trade system out of Washington. We should not be taking the price of a tonne of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in carbon dioxide equivalent measurement out of Washington.

We should not be abandoning the more than 174 countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and wait for Washington. We should not be waiting for 535 congressmen and congresswomen in Washington who have the extremely difficult task of delivering up a cap and trade system and a renewable energy system to President Obama.

This bill to amend the Energy Efficiency Act does not a climate change plan make. It is a simple series of obvious amendments to deal with the fact that the government has no plan.

One of the important provisions of the bill, I will say, is this: It will require that the minister compare Canada's energy efficiency standards to those of the United States and Mexico and report to Parliament here every three years. That is important because of the preponderance of white goods that are now being manufactured in a continental perspective in Mexico.

That is important. It does increase the scope and flexibility of the authority the government can bring for more effective regulation to govern energy consumption. That is a good thing.

We have had this debate. It was at the Canada's Clean Air Act hearings, the hearings of the special legislative committee. We spent hours, for months, sitting until midnight, working and working harder yet again to achieve a proper outcome for the country.

What was the end result? The Prime Minister took his soccer ball and went home with it. He prorogued Parliament. He did not like the outcome of the work of parliamentarians. He was not prepared to abide by the majority wishes of this House and took his ball and went home with it.

We have now been set back at least three and a half years, probably five years, in dealing with the climate change crisis. Once again, Energy Efficiency Act amendments do not a climate change plan make.

Why is the government unable to tell us how the knee bone connects to the thigh bone, or the hip bone connects to the thigh bone? It is incapable of telling us because it has not done its homework.

When it came into power in 2006, it set loose a series of ministers who were two- and three-men wrecking crews. They disassembled the climate change programming that was in place. They cut over $5 billion from climate change programming.

Here are some of the ironic aspects of those changes.

Just a month ago, the Prime Minister's own National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy said that we need a commercial energy efficiency investment program. In 2006, the government killed a program called the commercial building retrofit program because it was brought in by a former government. How could it possibly be good if it was not aligned to the speak-think of the Conservative Party?

The wind power production incentive, the WPPI, as it was called, brought in and providing good fiscal stimulus for our transition to a carbon-constrained future, is gone. The government did not like it. It did not belong to the Conservatives. It could not be Conservative speak-think. The Conservatives could not sell it as theirs. Everything that came before was bad.

The renewable power production incentive, important for solar panels, wave technology, tidal energy sources, biomass and other potentials, is effectively gone. It does not exist anymore.

There is yet another one. All Canadians can see the government's silly ads on television right now about tax credits and picking which one applies to oneself, as if that makes a climate change policy. Forewarned by the official opposition and its own officials at Environment Canada and Finance Canada, the government of tax credits brought in a tax-deductible transit pass.

Just a month ago, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development chided the government, or worse than chided, I think, took the government to serious task about the fact that it claimed it would reduce tens of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. It cost $637 million, and in the words of the commissioner, had no effect on reducing greenhouse gases. Worse, it had no effect on driving up ridership in our public transit systems. Instead of taking the $637 million and investing it as it should have in the capital needs, the infrastructure needs of public transit systems across this country, it chose to use yet another tax credit to try to convince Canadians it was the right thing to do.

It is no wonder that our allies and countries with whom we have been doing business for 50 years on energy and environmental issues are scratching their heads and wondering in disbelief what has happened to the country of Canada when it comes to environment, energy and economic opportunities.

The government brought in a $1.5 billion ecotrust. Canadians remember that one. It was during the last Parliament.

We had the Minister of the Environment at the committee and we asked him to tell us why the government put $1.5 billion into a trust fund. He said provinces were drawing it down and it was being used for greenhouse gas emission reductions. We asked him if he could illustrate just one project where the money was spent. The minister could not. We then asked him how many tonnes of greenhouse gases have been reduced as a result of that fund, or what metrics were forced on the provinces, what standards he told the provinces they ought to abide by in spending the money. It turns out that there are no metrics or standards.

It is no surprise that this bill on amending the Energy Efficiency Act cannot be seen in isolation. It is being presented in isolation, but it cannot be seen in isolation. It is no surprise that it does not connect to programmatic spending or fiscal stimuli. It does not connect at all to our climate change plan because we do not have one.

Now we are drifting and waiting for Washington. I think it is a shameful thing for Canada to abandon its sovereignty in preparing a climate change strategy for this country such that we can be good international citizens and come to the negotiating table in Copenhagen with clean hands, something that will be very important as we seek the cooperation of the world to achieve an implementable climate change agreement for 2012 and beyond.

World Environment Day

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are celebrating World Environment Day . This year's theme is “Kick the habit! Towards a low carbon economy”.

The Liberal Party, along with the other opposition parties, worked on Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, to ensure that the Conservative government would take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Conservatives have refused to bring the bill back to parliament for debate.

The government does not believe in imposing hard targets for large final emitters. It does not believe in higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks. It does not believe in allowing Canadian companies to trade emission credits internationally.

The environment will be celebrated throughout the world today. It is time for this government to take concrete action. The first step would be to reintroduce the Clean Air Act.This would be supported by the three opposition parties, who have worked hard to ensure that the government implements real measures.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Let us make it clear right at the start that the purpose of this government bill, which in itself contains no standards whatsoever, is to authorize the government to enact regulations governing the Canadian production of biofuels. In other words, the bill would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline.

In order to have a better understanding of legislative developments in the biofuels file, let us begin by reminding hon. members that the proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 from the previous session. I would remind the House that this bill, known as the clean air act, was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appeared in the amended version of the bill.

It would be a good thing to remind hon. members at this point that the government had already announced that an amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations to require an average of 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations would also require an average of 2% renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

I would point out that the Bloc Québécois has been concerned since the beginning about the environmental and social consequences of the use of corn ethanol. It therefore submitted amendments in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food specifically intended to better monitor biofuel regulation. These amendments would, for instance, have enabled committee members to keep abreast of technological advances in the field of renewable biofuels and also to evaluate the appropriateness of the measures proposed by the government.

Renewable fuels are one way for us to reduce greenhouse gases, but not the only way. Such fuels can also help us reduce our dependence on oil. However, not all renewable fuels are equal. That is very important to realize. A study by the committee of the federal government's regulations could have looked further into biofuels, their sources and their potential consequences. Unfortunately, the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were all rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

In light of this, the Bloc Québécois then moved, in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a motion that asked:

That the Committee recommend that the government ensure that the implementation of regulations resulting from the eventual adoption of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, not result in an increase in the proportion of Canadian corn production currently used to produce ethanol and that it be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

The adoption of this motion would have kept the current proportion of land seeded with corn for use in ethanol production. For example, if 15% of Canadian corn production is currently being used to produce ethanol, the motion would have ensured that 15% of that production continued to be used to produce ethanol.

Unfortunately, by rejecting the motion, the Conservatives have sent a clear message: they have no intention of developing the biofuel industry in a balanced manner. The regulation that will result from Bill C-33 may be conducive to excess. I cannot stress that enough.

We are in favour of renewable fuels but, in our opinion, this bill, which allows the federal government to regulate the level of biofuel in gasoline, diesel and fuel oil, must be passed in order to ensure sustainable development.

The federal government cannot try to find a measure that reduces both greenhouse gas emissions and our dependency on oil while at the same time it risks bringing about social and environmental consequences by increasing the proportion of corn production currently dedicated to ethanol production. If it adopts this contradictory approach, it risks completely eliminating any of the benefits it is trying to create through this bill. The Bloc Québécois cannot endorse such action.

This is one of the reasons that we are in favour of the amendment we are debating today, which asks that Bill C-33 be sent back to committee to be further studied in the context of the most recent scientific, environmental, agricultural and international developments.

For us, in terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This technique, still in its experimental stage, uses an inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground.

Research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose, that is, fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses.

Iogen Corporation has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years.

A pilot plant in Sweden, for example, is producing ethanol from wood chips. The process produces three co-products that can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide gas and ethanol.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec has already asked the federal government for assistance to conduct a market study to determine whether constructing a biodiesel plant would be feasible. A very profitable market could be developed in which animal oils and animal product residues could eventually be turned into biofuel.

We think that ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste, and other types of fuels still in the experimental stage look like a very interesting possibility.

In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec. In fact, during my tour of the Varennes facilities over six months ago, the CEO, a particularly visionary leader, told me that future development of his plant would be based on second generation ethanol production using household waste.

Before the regulations are implemented, the Bloc Québécois wants to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. We must not lose sight of the fact that the original intention of this bill was to try to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our oil dependency.

If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, including a plan to reduce dependency on oil, among other things, rather than trying to go against the current and scuttling Quebec's efforts with its inaction in the fight against greenhouse gases.

It could also, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois, require automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada, like the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

However, we know the Conservative government's position on this matter: rather than adopting a standard supported by those who have shown leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases, it chose to go with that of the Bush administration, which is less stringent and seems to be designed specifically to spare American auto manufacturers.

However, although there is no consensus on the environmental record of an alternate fuel, it is definitely responsible to have some reservations about it. Thus, in a letter last May about Bill C-33, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec wrote:

The federation agrees with the objective of the bill. However, this objective cannot be attained unless certain conditions are fulfilled. On the one hand, the industry cannot develop fully without adequate government support in terms of human and financial resources. On the other hand, we have to ensure that the life cycle of the renewable fuels chosen offers true environmental and energy benefits compared to oil products.

Furthermore, if it potentially worsens troubling social and environmental problems, elected members must make the responsible and appropriate decision, must refuse to continue in that direction and must attempt to propose alternative solutions.

That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois is doing. Although we initially supported the principle of the bill, we proposed significant amendments, which sought, among other things, to shed light on the environmental record and to ensure oversight of the potential negative effects of choosing one type of replacement fuel over another. I would remind members that these amendments and motions were defeated in two separate committees by the Conservative government with the support of the Liberal Party. This point is central to our position.

When the government commits more than $2 billion of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money to a bill of this scope, it is important to ensure that all the objectives of this bill will be reached and that the medium- and long-term negative effects are balanced and reasonable.

In closing, I would like to say that this is a complex bill. As an MP, I have had a number of calls and letters from producers urging my colleagues and I to vote in favour of this bill, while a number of citizens have called on us to vote against it. This bill concerns me ethically, personally and emotionally, since I represent an agricultural riding. I am very familiar with the situation facing many farmers who are trying to make ends meet, who are fighting to develop new markets, who are trying to build a better life and who want to keep doing their share to protect the environment.

After our discussions, a vast majority of the people I spoke with understand our position and admit that it is balanced, reasonable and responsible, and that it is important to make the right choices and reach one's objectives as well as possible. I will conclude by saying that it is important to pursue ethanol development from a variety of sources. In this sense, the Bloc Québécois motion, which was rejected by the Conservatives, and from which the Liberals abstained, was a step in the right direction. It is important to make informed decisions that take different parameters into account and that meet the environmental, social and economic objectives.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was here to listen to the presentation by the member for Nunavut and I must say that she has been a champion on behalf of the interests of first nations, Inuit and Métis.

In a prior session of Parliament, on government Bill C-30 dealing with climate change, I can recall that there actually was a point of order raised with regard to the release of a draft bill to the public prior to it being tabled in the House. The government argued that the presentation of that draft bill to stakeholders, being environmental groups, et cetera, was necessary for full consultation to ensure there was an understanding and to ensure we had the best possible bill come forward.

I use that as a parallel, as with the urging of those who are participating in this debate, that there should have been broader consultation even before this bill came in. Now the members are arguing, very forcefully, that we need to have the input of the grassroots, as the member for Nunavut said, so that women and children can live safer and healthier lives, and that we need to do it the right way and we do need to consult fully.

However, I am concerned, and I do not know whether the member shares my concern, that the government has simply dismissed the requests and the urgings to have full consultations during the committee process and is urging members simply to pass the bill because it is a good bill. I do not agree with that approach and I wonder if the member has some comments to add.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that good presentation on the nature of our concerns. Our concerns lie with the enabling nature of this bill on this very important topic. We tried very diligently in the agriculture committee to put forward conditions that should be attached to the kinds of directions we are to take. If we are trying to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country, then the bill should make that part of the solution.

This particular work on biofuels was also part of Bill C-30. Within the larger bill there were opportunities to set the conditions within the industry for the direction that we are taking. This bill, without Bill C-30, has none of that. This is a piece of work that was stripped bare and rammed through the committee against the good advice of many people who support the biofuel industry, and now we are ramming it through Parliament and we do not have a chance to take a look at the meat, the regulations.

I can support this bill if we have the opportunity to make sure that we do a good job for Canadians. I would ask my colleague to give me some of the reasons why the Liberals and the Conservatives might not want to support this simple effort to make sure that we do the right thing here.

Business of the House

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question with regard to the Thursday question.

Having looked over the House calendar very carefully, the first thing that is obvious is that there is a real dearth of new legislation, which leads one to the conclusion that the government certainly seems to have run out of steam and ideas. There is really nothing there. In fact, some pieces of legislation that the government did introduce are actually provisions that were previously approved but did not get through, so they are just a reintroduction.

I would like to ask about two bills that have gone through the House but have yet to come back. Bill C-21, deals with human rights for aboriginal people. From the first session of this Parliament, there is Bill C-30, the climate change bill. Both of these bills have been through committee. We are waiting for both of them to come back into the House. I think the government should give us an explanation as to why these bills are not coming back to the House.

I also wonder if the government House leader would illuminate us as to whether or not there are other opposition days. We know that there will be one when we get back, but I wonder if he would tell us if he is allotting the other oppositions days and what days they will be.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day. To begin, I would like to reread the motion put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government.

At the outset, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this non-confidence motion because the Conservatives have clearly reneged on Canada's promise concerning the Kyoto accord. I expect that all over the world, governments that signed the Kyoto accord are wondering why the Conservatives have chosen to do this to Canada. Why did the Conservatives go back on our country's word, tarnishing Canada's reputation and, unfortunately, that of Quebec, on the international stage? More specifically, the Conservatives chose to ignore the fact that Quebeckers want Ottawa to comply with the Kyoto accord.

Even worse, since they came to power, the Conservatives have done nothing to step up federal efforts to fight against greenhouse gases. They should perhaps acknowledge this. They have been in power for nearly two years now. Yet they are constantly blaming the previous government, which, it is true, did not live up to expectations. However, the Conservatives are responsible for dealing with this issue now, and they have had more than two years to put in place a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they have not done so.

As I mentioned, since they came to power, the Conservatives have stubbornly delayed coming up with a credible plan, for example, by not bringing Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act before this House for final debate. The government is dragging its feet on developing a credible plan and implementing real, effective measures. Even worse, the Conservatives cut the few environmental programs the previous government had put in place. As I mentioned, these programs were relatively weak, but they were still a step in the right direction. In most cases, the government realized its mistake and reintroduced watered-down versions of the programs.

The budget provides fresh evidence of the Conservatives' approach, which is to cut a program, then realize their mistake a few months later and try to bring back a watered-down version of the program. For example, in the previous budget the government introduced a rebate program for purchases of hybrid vehicles, which are more compatible with our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Consumers were extremely frustrated with this program. I know that every member of this House must have received letters and comments about how long it took to set up the program. It was announced with great fanfare, but there was still no money, and there were no regulations in place so that consumers who bought hybrid cars could receive the rebate the Conservative government had promised.

This measure is slowly being implemented, but it is not yet as effective as it could be. Last week, it was announced in the budget that the measure will be withdrawn next December 31. It is just unbelievable and I am convinced that Quebec and Canadian consumers are wondering why the Conservatives are acting this way. What was useful last year is no longer applicable. We just laid the foundation for this program which, I am convinced, will be re-established by this or the next government.

We need these types of incentives. Many believe that the reason the Conservative government cut this program has more to do with the fact that North American manufacturers find it quite difficult to compete with Japanese auto makers in particular. I am convinced that that also applies to European car manufacturers and that this measure benefits Japanese car dealers.

I noted when Parliament resumed that most ministers who drive hybrids—and I congratulate them—own Toyotas.

This leads us to believe that the elimination of this program was prompted by the demands of North American car manufacturers. Once again, the government gave in rather than trying to have North American car manufacturers do the right thing and adapt to the new demands of consumers, who are aware of the effects of greenhouse gases produced by individual transportation. We know that we have to reduce greenhouse gases and support public transportation. When we buy a vehicle, if we decide to buy a green vehicle, the government should acknowledge that effort—particularly since these cars are relatively expensive—and recognize that state assistance is not at all inappropriate.

Even worse, as I mentioned, the government cut programs and then brought them back. As if that were not enough, the Conservative government tabled a so-called green plan designed to spare the major western oil companies, which is clearly not the objective of the Kyoto protocol. In short, the Conservative government completely ignored the clear will of Quebeckers, 75% of whom, as we know from poll after poll, support the Kyoto targets and Canada's commitments in that regard.

For that reason alone this motion deserves to be adopted and this government no longer deserves the confidence of the House.

I am thinking about the Conservatives' extremely ideological decisions that respond to the interests of certain industry sectors. Obviously I am referring to the oil industry. As soon as it was elected, the minority Conservative government showed its disregard for the Kyoto protocol, even though it was trying to say out of one side of its mouth that it would not renounce the government's signature. From the other side of its mouth it seemed to being saying—and we understood this quite well—that the Kyoto protocol targets were not at all on the government's radar.

This government's actions contradict Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol. Hon. members will remember that the Conservative election platform did not mention the word Kyoto once. That was already an indication for the entire population of Quebec and Canada that this government—and many of us are not surprised—prefers to meet the financial needs and appetite for profit of the major oil companies in western Canada rather than the environmental and economic needs of Quebec. This is also true for a number of regions in Canada. I am thinking of Ontario, among others, which is currently going through a major manufacturing crisis.

On October 19, 2006, after pushing back the presentation of its plan to fight greenhouse gases a number of times, the Conservative government finally delivered Bill C-30, presented as the Clean Air Act, to address the smog phenomenon, but it did not contain any fixed targets to reduce greenhouse gases or any timeline consistent with the Kyoto protocol.

Worse yet, in the notice of intent introduced at the same time to indicate the path the government intended to take in the application of Bill C-30, the Conservatives mentioned that they would hold consultations in three phases to determine the reduction targets with the provinces and industry, effective fall 2006. This would be staggered through to 2010, giving a clear signal that nothing would come into effect before the end of 2010. The first Kyoto targets are set for 2012.

Just in the way the government announced its very clear timetable in its notice of intent, it was already reneging on Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol.

As for long-term targets, the government said that it was determined to ask for advice on the feasibility of reducing Canadian emissions by 45% to 65% based on 2003 levels—not by 2015, not by 2020, but by 2050. This is a perfect example of how the Conservatives do not take this seriously, and these targets are much lower than the Kyoto proposals. This does not bode well for the future of the Conservative government's position in international negotiations.

Since the bill was completely unacceptable, in terms of targets, timetable and methods, and had no chance of being passed in its original state, on December 4, 2006, the Conservatives authorized Bill C-30 to be sent to a special parliamentary committee for amendment. However, it categorically refused to improve the bill and include the Kyoto targets, which clearly showed that the government was repudiating its international commitment and heading off on its own.

This time, it was not the international community or consumers, but all the members in opposition who wondered how the Conservatives could—based solely on ideology—go against the democratic will of this Parliament and of all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We must remember that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers voted for parties other than the Conservative Party. It is practically a coincidence that the Conservatives are currently in power.

This kind of stubbornness is very questionable. It not only shows an undemocratic tendency and the clear intention not to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but also represents an ideological straitjacket that will be very difficult to get out of, unless, as we hope, there is an election very soon.

The Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties had to reshape Bill C-30 in order to include reduction targets that comply with the Kyoto protocol and the territorial approach. It is extremely important to remember that we need the territorial approach, which Europe has been taking since 2005 with its carbon exchange. This approach would allow us to reward the efforts of Quebec's manufacturing sector and penalize companies that have been making no effort and have continued to pollute since 1990, the reference year for the 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Canada, with Australia, is one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. We need to ask these corporate polluters to increase their efforts.

I often refer to the following example, and the members of this House will understand. In a fundraising campaign, the first dollars are always the easiest to bring in. It is when we have nearly reached our goal that it becomes more difficult.

In Quebec, manufacturing companies have been able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20% to 25%. They have nearly reached their targets. Now they are being asked to make an effort as though they had done nothing already, and this will be the hardest part. The effort the oil industry is being asked to make, however, will not only scarcely or not at all make up for its lack of effort over the last two decades, but will also be the easiest action it could take. Not only is this completely unacceptable from an environmental standpoint, it is also completely unfair to Quebec and the sectors that have been making an effort since 1990, particularly Quebec's manufacturing sector.

Still stubbornly refusing to join the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government refused to proceed with further study of the bill. Finally, after months of waiting, countless delays and a campaign presenting Kyoto compliance as the economic apocalypse, earlier, during the last speech by a Conservative member talking along those lines, we heard a complete lack of credibility.

Only the American Republicans are falling for it—and at least they are more subtle. President Bush issued a directive stating that federal institutions should not purchase oil derived from methods that emit more than the world average of greenhouse gas emissions. This worries several of our oil companies in western Canada, and rightly so, since our oil sands extraction methods produce a great deal of pollution. Sure, this concerns only a very small part of the American market. But it sends the message that even Bush's Republicans are more progressive than this Conservative government and this Prime Minister.

The government has made the Kyoto protocol out to be the apocalypse. On April 26, 2007, it reproduced an action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution, but the plan is tailored to be gentle on the oil companies. As part of this plan based on reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, companies will have to reduce the intensity of their emissions based on the 2006 levels.

There are two problems here. First, the date they have chosen is 2006, and not 1990 as set out in the Kyoto protocol. Choosing 1990 as the date would honour the efforts made by the manufacturing sector.

This means that all that was accomplished in Quebec between 1990 and 2006 will not be taken into account, which is completely unfair, once again. Second, intensity is a measure of the reduction per tonne of emissions produced. But if a company produces five times more, it will contribute even more pollution than it does now. We need absolute reduction targets, and not intensity targets.

Even if the Conservatives like to believe that their plan will stabilize Canada's emissions between 2010 and 2012 and reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 relative to 2006 levels, we have to say, quite frankly, that this is not enough. Just as in a number of other issues dealt with this week and last week, whether it be the Cadman affair, the NAFTA leak or the Soudas affair, the government's explanations always come up short. In this case, it is very clear that with the plan presented to us on April 26, 2007, greenhouse gases will not be reduced in Canada and these emissions will continue to increase. Even if the Conservatives' most optimistic forecast is realized, that would allow Canada to achieve the level required under the Kyoto protocol by 2024, or 12 years after the deadline. Again, that is the most optimistic forecast. It will very likely be some decades later.

I want to reiterate that the Clean Air Act, as reshaped by the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, responds to the Kyoto protocol targets, the needs of Quebec's economy and a good portion of Canada's economy, and to Canada's and Quebec's environmental needs.

This legislation includes fixed targets for greenhouse gas reduction that are consistent with the Kyoto protocol. In other words, it calls for a 6% reduction of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions for each year from 2008 to 2012, with respect to 1990 levels. As I said, these are fixed targets, but this time for the post-Kyoto period. They include the creation of a carbon tax,which is extremely important for establishing a carbon exchange that would allow market forces to support government regulations; the creation of an independent agency to monitor and govern the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrial emitters, not only to ensure that we achieve the targets, but also to be able to establish this carbon exchange with the necessary credits that will be sold by those who perform well to those who perform less well; and finally, the fact that the territorial approach is recognized. This bill corresponds to the democratically expressed will of the Canadian and Quebec public, and responds to the needs of the public and to our international commitments. We therefore have no problem with the NDP motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that you are allowing me to continue my speech for another two minutes. I still have a lot of information that I would like to share with my colleagues, those from the Conservative Party in particular.

Galbraith, the Canadian-born economist who lived in the United States and served as an advisor to Kennedy, said something like “Democrats read only other Democrats; Republicans do not read at all”.

I think we have the same situation here in this House. Perhaps the opposition parties read only what the opposition parties produce, but the Conservatives do not read. This forces the opposition parties in the House to present documents that do not reach the Conservative members, documents that those members would likely be unable to read. I would therefore remind the House that the environment commissioner issued a report yesterday, a report that is extremely critical of the Conservative government's actions. The report contains 14 chapters and describes any progress made as quite mixed. Nine out of 14 sectors are completely inadequate. I will discuss at least one or perhaps two of them, if time allows. I will begin with the federal contaminated sites.

In Shannon, Quebec, a site was contaminated by the Canadian army and the Department of National Defence stubbornly refuses to decontaminate this land, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for years.

The strategic environmental assessment process is also the topic of one of the chapters on which the commissioner worked the hardest. We are told that it makes no sense at all. I hope to have the opportunity to quote part of this report during question period.

In closing, everyone in this House, in Quebec and in Canada is wondering what the Conservatives think they are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was here listening to the New Democrat speeches that started this debate and , therefore, heard the history that it was 17 months ago that the government introduced the bill. It went to a special committee which the leader of the New Democrats asked for. There was reluctance at first but then we as parliamentarians gathered round the table, brought ideas from all sides and rewrote the legislation from top to bottom, All parties, I remind my colleague, moved amendments.

A number of months ago, the NDP brought forward a motion to the House calling upon the government to bring the legislation back. The motion carried because the majority of members in this place, including those in the member's caucus, voted to bring it back.

We all put our best efforts forward, our best ideas and our best work, to make the legislation work in order to take on the issue of climate change, which many of us talk about, and this was the action in which we could back up our talk. This is what Canadians were looking for.

What is my colleague's opinion on the government's agenda in the absence of bringing Bill C-30 back? What has the government put in its place? Has it put something better that the member feels more comfortable with? Is there any sign of hope in the government's current agenda to deal with climate change in juxtaposition to what we were able to accomplish as parliamentarians together and that was the clean air and climate change act?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, and I thank you for your lenience. I would put to my hon. colleague that if he would like a copy of the report, it is available on our website.

We have a plan to move forward. We have devised a carbon budget plan that brings in the 700 largest polluters responsible for 50% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, a plan with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party for that matter, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We had to rewrite the feeble Bill C-30, the clean air act, but as I mentioned, the Prime Minister in his wisdom killed that when he prorogued the House and refused to bring the bill back.

We are going to continue by bringing in our new power production incentive to expand renewable power to 12,000 megawatts by 2015, instead of the 4,000 megawatts the Conservatives are planning. We want incentives for onshore wind, offshore wind, small hydro, geothermal, wave and tidal, solar and biomass energy. We want 10% of Canada's total electricity output from low impact renewable sources by 2015. That is enough for three million homes.

We are going to create a $1 billion advance manufacturing prosperity fund to help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. We are going to remain committed to the Kyoto protocol process and the UN negotiations that will set targets for the second commitment period post-2012. The fact is good environmental policy is very good for our economy, encouraging research and development, new technologies and lots of jobs.

In conclusion, it is no wonder that Matthew Bramley, the president of the Pembina Institute has called our carbon budget available on our website, “the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada”.

With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves. As we move forward, I look forward to working on behalf of Canadians to deal with the climate change crisis.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the NDP's motion today.

Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.

First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government.

In particular, this minority government has taken some effort to cover up what are now four raging fires out of its control: first, the in and out election advertising scandal; second, the Ian Brodie affair now spiraling out of control in the United States of America fed, in my view, by the leader of the NDP going on CNN international news just last night and telling the world about Mr. Brodie's conduct; third, the Cadman affair, where the Prime Minister refuses to refute what is clearly irrefutable, that is, his voice on tape speaking about offers to a tragically sick member of Parliament at the time; and fourth, the O'Brien affair, where the Minister of the Environment is now involved in having to defend himself repeatedly from all kinds of negative coverage involving his interference in municipal affairs.

There are other issues that are ongoing here that the government does not want Canadians to know about. Why is that? Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party.

So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts.

Let me turn now to the substance of the issue which is in the motion.

The motion is right in this respect: the reformed Conservatives cannot be trusted to do the right thing, either domestically or internationally, to fight the climate change crisis. They simply cannot be trusted.

We know the scientific evidence is overwhelming. This at a time when the government refuses to renew the funding of the climate change and atmospheric research foundation's programs and at a time when, last spring, the government cancelled the largest single university-based research initiative and effort in climate change science.

The world's leading scientists told us again in Bali that an increase in the earth's temperature of just 2° to 4° would lead to a catastrophic disruption of life as we know it today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that a 1° Celsius increase could lead to 10% of land species facing extinction and 80% destruction of our coral reefs. This is now very serious business, business that should not be couched, in my view, in partisanship, as has happened here through this NDP motion.

The IPCC's fourth report in May 2007 says it is possible to limit temperature increases to 2° to 2.4° but only if we stabilize within 15 years our worldwide emissions and we move to cut those in half by 2050. Here is the kicker: We know that the economic costs of taking action now, today, aggressively are much less than the costs in the future if we fail to act.

The former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, conducted a review on the economics of climate change for the planet. He concluded that the costs of ignoring climate change could be 5% to 20% of GDP, more than the costs of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined.

In contrast, the cost of tackling the problem can be limited to 1% of global GDP today if we act now. There are many effective low cost options already available: financial incentives to develop and deploy existing technologies; tradeable permits and carbon credits; renewable power investments; and voluntary programs, of course, which have been used around the world.

In 2007 the world's largest and leading management consulting firm, McKinsey and Company, showed that a great deal could be achieved in the fight against climate change without placing an undue burden on our economy, if governments provide incentives for the development and deployment of green technologies. It concludes that the annual worldwide cost for making the needed emission reductions to avoid worst climate change in 2030 is only .6% of that year's projected GDP.

We agreed to the Kyoto protocol in this country in 1997 and despite all of the desperate misinformation from the Conservative Party, it became international law in this country only in 2005, when enough countries had ratified the protocol. It set targets, yes. It also created a mandatory international trading system, one now abandoned by the government because it has unilaterally abandoned Canada, the only country of over 170 to abandon the Kyoto treaty. We have been completely isolated, as we saw in Bali, when we came together with the world to negotiate a framework for the second phase of the Kyoto protocol.

The Minister of the Environment went there and in the last two hours of a seven day meeting, he finally folded because he was under so much pressure to sign on to an international declaration calling for a 25% to 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. He was the only minister to hold out, working in partnership with the Republican administration which was not even part of the official negotiating sessions, but under pressure he finally folded.

Here is the problem with signing on to such a declaration. The government's own “Turning the Corner” plan runs completely in the opposite direction of that commitment.

Study after study, including the Conservatives' own advisory body, have shown that the Conservatives will not even meet their own modest targets and will allow our emissions to continue to rise until 2050 and beyond.

The Conservatives talk about regulations. We just heard one of their members say that they have the toughest regulations in Canadian history. Check the facts: There are no regulations. The government has tabled no regulations yet. Nothing has been brought into force on clean air. There are no regulations on climate change greenhouse gases. They have exempted new facilities by giving them a three year grace period. They are pricing carbon at a $15 a tonne payment into a technology fund which is grossly less than what it should be.

It has been a pattern that we have seen south of the border about denying, delaying and ultimately deceiving one's own people about taking action on climate change when in fact that is not happening.

First the Conservatives came into power in 2006 and killed all of the Liberal measures that were in play, but then they brought them back in a re-gifted fashion in half measure. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the National Energy Board and many others, their plan cannot meet their weak targets, and emissions will continue to rise.

The claim that emissions will peak in 2010 in their plan is baseless. The claim that it will meet its target of 20% below 2006 by 2020 is baseless. There are so many exemptions, loopholes, bogus compliance options and such lack of detail that there is no way to conclude that this framework will have any positive effect at all.

In fact, because of the overall weakness, Tom d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, representing 150 of some of the largest companies in Canada, came to committee just two weeks ago and said that the government's, I think negligence using my words, in this respect is actually harming Canadian industry by perpetuating policy uncertainty that hinders rational investment decisions so we can continue the transition that we started years ago to a carbon constrained future and carbon constrained economy.

Those are the facts about the domestic plan and our international performance. It is not even worth getting into the details of the minister's performance in Bali because that action speaks for itself.

What happened previous to the Conservative government arriving? While the Prime Minister was denying even the existence of climate change--he said that he did not believe in greenhouse gases--we brought in four increasingly aggressive climate change plans during the two previous governments, culminating in project green launched by our leader of the official opposition in 2005.

The Pembina Institute said at the time that project green was “over six times more effective” than what the Conservative government has offered today. We offered large scale funding for alternative energy. It was cut. We invested in biofuels. It was cut. We conducted a highly successful public awareness campaign to teach Canadians about the dangers of the climate change crisis. It was cut. We introduced energy efficient retrofit programs for Canadian homes and buildings. It was cut, particularly for the poorest in Canadian society who need the most help. That is the track record of the government since 2006.

Let us talk about where we want to go now. Let us talk about how we intend to deal as an official opposition with the climate change crisis.

First, we are going to have a comprehensive plan using the full range of tools to fight global warming. We are going to do that first and foremost by putting a price on carbon so the polluter pays. We are going to provide serious support for renewable energy and other ways to reduce emissions. There will be help for Canadians to conserve energy.

Here is a twist: We are going to work in partnership with our provincial governments on both mitigation and adaptation. We will not dispatch in this case our Minister of Finance or the Minister of the Environment to pick fights. Canadians are sick of the tawdry games. They are sick of the intergovernmental bickering. They want their governments cooperating not just on economic plans, but of course, on environmental plans, and we will do so.

That is why approximately a year ago our party, the official opposition, produced the “Balancing our Carbon Budget” plan. This plan is the backbone of the reworked and reformulated clean air and climate change act, Bill C-30, which the government killed. In fact, it is my theory the Conservatives prorogued Parliament in order to prevent that bill from coming back to the floor of the House of Commons to be debated openly. That has been raised by the leader of the official opposition several times. This--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As a Canadian, I am very proud and always will be proud to be Canadian. I believe, unlike the member from the NDP seems to indicate, that we live in the greatest country in the world and I am very proud of that and have never been ashamed of my country, nor my flag.

The motion presented by the member for Toronto—Danforth calls into question the House's confidence in the government on the environment. Let me reassure the House, however, that the government is committed on delivering real results, real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment, which is so important to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Climate change is, indeed, one of the biggest threats to our environment, to our people and to the future of our earth. This reality is clearer today than it has ever been and it is a threat that this Conservative government and this Prime Minister takes very seriously.

Here at home, unlike previous Liberal governments, we have taken real action and we are proud of these first steps. With our turning the corner plan, we will, for the first time ever, require industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution by implementing the toughest mandatory targets in Canadian history. I am proud of that.

The end result is that our national strategy will reduce in absolute terms Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. What is significant to note is that our plan is not only effective, it is responsible. Our plan marks a new era in Canadian environmental responsibility. Our approach takes our economy into account. It goes to great lengths to protect the standard of living of Canadians no matter where they live and it goes beyond any other plan to ensure it takes real action to protect our environment.

Our government also recognizes that Canada's north is one of the areas that will most quickly bear the burden of climate change. We have committed more than $80 million for science research on adaptation that will help the north deal with climate change. I have seen these changes first-hand and I assure Canadians that they are taking place. This will be of great help to the rest of the world as well because, in the Canadian attitude we share, we share the world's responsibility and we will help the rest of the world in understanding how to adjust to the new reality that we are all facing.

However, we admit that it has been an uphill battle to move Canada forward. We have been here for two years and we have had our work cut out for us. Thirteen years of complacency and mismanagement by successive Liberal governments crippled our environment, set us far back and it crippled our international environmental standing. We inherited a huge mess from the previous Liberal government. We inherited a landscape of patchwork environmental programs that did little, if nothing, to minimize Canada's carbon footprint in the world.

In fact, by the end of 2005, emissions had climbed to 33% above the target levels set in the Kyoto protocol. One of the toughest issues we have faced is how to meet the 2012 targets, given the situation Canada has been put in by the previous Liberal government.

Had that government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline. However, we have had to deal with 10 years that has been lost due to inaction. This fact has already been debated in the House repeatedly. In fact, all parties agree, even members from the Liberal party, including the leader himself, have said that they did nothing.

Our position on the subject was very clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne that was put before the House for a vote. I am glad to see that the Liberal Party supports our environmental policies and I want to thank the Liberals today again for supporting the government on a continuous basis through the budget.

They supported the Speech from the Throne, the mini-budget and, now, I am proud to say, this budget, which all contained great things to clean up the environment. It is clear that the Liberals support our government, our responsible position and our realistic approach to environmental protection. Again, I thank members of the Liberal Party.

I would like to also address the issue of Bill C-30, which is also mentioned in today's motion. The Conservative Party worked in good faith on the Bill C-30 committee to try to improve the clean air act. I know that for a fact because I was there. I was in every meeting and I saw what took place. All members of the Conservative Party worked earnestly and in good faith trying to get real positive results for Canadians.

Our government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes bringing forward concrete and realistic industrial targets to reduce greenhouse gases and improve the air we breathe and improve the health of Canadians.

In committee last year, the government supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act, and brought forward others of our own. We worked or tried to work cooperatively. We took politics out, unlike the other parties. Sadly, in most cases, we were opposed by both the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois.

We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on the North American market, the integrated market in which we live, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals do in return? They voted it down and knowingly played politics by imposing standards that would have been impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry.

The Liberals also played politics by writing Kyoto targets into the bills with no conceivable plan to achieve them, again, playing politics. It was hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had ever put in place a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago. Today it is even harder. As the Liberal member for Halton said:

I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”.

Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down.

Indeed, even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer the moon with no hope of ever delivering it. We know how they governed the country and Canadians certainly do not want to go back to that. Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is even easier for them to tell Canadians that they want to achieve Kyoto emission targets.

The opposition also gutted parts of the clean air act, Bill C-30. We told the opposition not to mess with the health of Canadian children and not to mess with the health and the quality of life of Canadians, the elderly and those suffering from respiratory illness. What did it do? It gutted those important sections of the clean air act. The opposition members should be ashamed of themselves.

What did Canadians lose in the rush to gut the clean air act, led by the Liberals and the environment critic, the member for Ottawa South? Canadians should know that the opposition removed many new regulations that would have helped to better protect the health of Canadians and our environment. We lost, for example, mandatory national air quality standards, mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards, increased research and monitoring of air pollutants, and tougher enforcement rules for compliance to air quality regulations. Shame on the opposition.

The government put forward 15 pages of concise new regulation making authority to protect Canadians' health and our environment, and the opposition just ripped them up. What did the Liberals add instead? They inserted clauses to delay action by implementing and requiring six months of consultation around a new investment bank before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. This was a delay tactic. The Liberals inserted complex and unworkable requirements that made it harder, not easier, for the government to act on air pollution.

Even worse, the Liberals inserted a clause that would have allowed political interference into air quality standards. For instance, the Liberals wanted the Minister of the Environment to exempt “economically depressed areas” from air quality standards for three years. Would this allow the Liberals to buy votes? Was it their intent in this particular section to exempt certain Liberal rich voting areas of the country from air quality regulations while punishing those areas that were not Liberal? We do not know what they thought but they were thinking the wrong thing.

The Liberals imposed the Liberal leader's carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. The health and the prosperity of Canadians depends on the quality of the air we breath, the quality of life. The integrity of our environment is tied so uniquely to that. It is very clear that only the Conservative government members were prepared to put the environment before politics.

However, all is not lost. Our government committed to bringing back the parts of Bill C-30 that had all party support. Unlike the Liberals, the government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air we breath and the health of Canadians. Our actions speak louder than words. We are getting the job done. We will take no lessons from the Liberals or members of the NDP who cannot get it done for Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speeches presented by both the leader of the NDP and the party's environment critic and what is interesting about their comments is that they are both confused.

On the one hand, the leader of the NDP is actively seeking the cooperation of the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois at committee to pass his bill, Bill C-377, which cannot pass without the support of the Liberal Party of Canada.

On the other hand, he refers to Bill C-30, the backbone of which is the Liberal Party of Canada's balancing our budget plan. As the leader of the NDP puts it, the bill was originally punted to a legislative committee because he had a special deal with the Prime Minister. Then he realized that the Prime Minister was not serious whatsoever in seeing that legislative committee bring the clean air act to any successful completion and we brought forward the balancing, our department budget program and plan.

I am confused because one of the longest serving NDP MPs, the member for Winnipeg Centre, believes differently than his own leader. He says that the federal New Democratic Party may need to enter into some kind of informal coalition with the Liberals or risk, in his words, “political obscurity”. That statement came from a veteran NDP MP, one of the top and longest serving MPs in that caucus.

What exactly is the NDP's position here today? In the case of--

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

moved:

That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

It is an honour for me to speak to this important and serious motion today. This motion speaks to the priorities of families today. It speaks to an issue that has very serious consequences in Canada and will have profound consequences for future generations. It speaks to Canada's role in the world and our desire to be leaders—not laggards—on the world stage.

It speaks to the flawed and the failed agenda of the government. It speaks to the respect that is due to this House and the majority expression of opinion that has been delivered by the House of Commons.

Of course, I am talking about the issue of climate change, the government's flawed plan and the work that Parliament did to get the country back on track.

Seventeen months ago the Conservatives put forward their clean air act, Bill C-30. It was clear when it arrived that it was dead on arrival. It would allow climate change to worsen and worsen dramatically.

We did not want to accept continued inaction on the environment. That is why I asked and secured agreement from all party leaders that the bill be sent to a special legislative committee to challenge all of the members of the House to roll up their sleeves and get down to work to create legislation in which everyday Canadians could take pride and from which all of us could draw some hope and inspiration for the future.

With concern about climate change at an all time high, this is exactly the kind of action that Canadians wanted to see and this special committee did not disappoint us. It worked long hours. It was applauded by some as a rare example of the cooperation a minority Parliament is supposed to foster.

The committee finished its work nearly a year ago. Environmentalists were quick to say that the new clean air and climate change act was a “breakthrough”. It included major changes that the NDP has championed from the start, including real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the short, medium and long terms; a fixed cap for major industrial polluters, to reduce their share of emissions; a greenhouse gas emission pricing system; strict air quality standards for each pollutant; and strict vehicle fuel consumption standards.

Finally, we had a comprehensive environmental plan that would get results. They said it was impossible. The Conservatives put forward poor climate change legislation, but this Parliament put forward good legislation for Canadians.

We repeatedly called on the government to bring this improved clean air act forward for a vote. The heads of 10 of Canada's leading environmental organizations wrote to the Prime Minister calling on him to bring this bill to a vote. They said that the bill represented “a huge step forward for environmental protection in Canada and an important leadership opportunity”.

Sadly, the government refused to listen. There was no stopping its stalling on the environment. That is why last May the NDP used its opposition day to call on the government to bring the amended Bill C-30 back for a vote as soon as possible. A clear majority of the House supported that motion: 155 votes to 121. I thank each and every member of Parliament who voted with us because it recognized how we reach important decisions.

However, the government still was unmoved. It prorogued the House and brought in a throne speech that abandoned the improved clean air act and our international responsibilities on climate change. That is just one of the reasons why the NDP opposed the throne speech.

That brings us to today, 10 months later and our next available chance for an opposition day motion. We have been constructive. We have been consistent. We have been determined, but we cannot wait for action on climate change any longer. We cannot have confidence in the government's environmental plans.

Ordinary Canadians across the country are getting more and more worried about the future of their kids and grandkids. They are seeing the air get dirtier. They are seeing the pine beetle devastating forests and the forest industry. They are having to tell their kids not to swim in our lakes.

This week, the residents of Salluit, a village in northern Quebec, were forced to consider moving their village because of climate change. Mudslides, buckled roads and sinking buildings are threatening the village. Because of the risk of natural disasters brought on by the warming climate and melting permafrost, residents are having to consider leaving their ancestral lands.

That is the reality of climate change today. The inaction of the current government and past governments has forced families and communities to make tough choices.

The government's failed approach on the environment needs to stop, but we see no indication of that happening. Its so-called “turning the corner” plan has been panned across the board. Its accelerated corporate tax giveaways to the big polluters in the budgets give no sign of hope. It refused outright to eliminate now the tax advantages to the tar sands and it sided with laggards like George Bush in international negotiations.

Even this week it is filibustering yet again my private member's bill that sets out targets for the period after Kyoto, the same targets that were embraced in Bali and based on the best available science. What did it do in last week's budget? Millions for unsafe nuclear power development and millions for pumping pollution underground. This is no solution.

Is it any wonder that on the 10th anniversary of the signing of Kyoto we are 30% above the limits that should have been established and honoured.

Canadians have no confidence that this government will deal with the crucial issue of climate change. Time is short. Every month, an estimated 65 megatonnes of greenhouses gases are emitted into the atmosphere. There is no time for more mistakes. With every delay, the crisis grows worse.

Most of the members of this House are well aware of this, and families today are as well.

They see the evidence everyday. The NDP cannot have confidence in a government that ignores these signs and ignores the signs that the climate change crisis is actually affecting our communities today. We are not talking about some far away time in the future.

The government is ignoring the conclusions of our best scientists and the best scientists in the world and those who have won Nobel peace prizes.

This government, like George Bush's government, is putting on the brakes and stopping progress to deal with the biggest crisis facing humanity today which is climate change. Yet, the Conservatives put the interests of oil and gas companies, the biggest polluters, in first place and help them out with our tax dollar subsidies.

It is very clear that we cannot have confidence in a government that is willing to turn its back on this Parliament, on the Canadian people, on the people of this earth at a time when decisive action is required. Could there be a more important time to express in this House a sentiment of non-confidence? I do not believe so and that is why we have tabled this motion today.

That is why we call on members of this House who believe as we do that this is a critical issue requiring a collaboration of action on the part of all of us here to send a message to the government that what it is doing to our climate is unacceptable to Canadians.

Budget

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about a lack of credibility, the lack of credibility of the Prime Minister goes well over just the economy and permeates everything.

Let us look at the so-called climate change plan. The C.D. Howe Institute has said, “The government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatonnes”.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply adopt a real plan, a plan that will work, the Liberal plan, Bill C-30, the climate change and clean air act that the government shamefully killed last fall?

The Environment

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, climate change is the worst ecological threat humanity is facing. Canada must do its best to fight it, but the government has done bad. Its so-called plan is so weak that it will not even meet its weak targets.

If the Prime Minister is serious about cooperation, why will he not bring back Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, which he shamefully killed last fall?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the plan put forward by the Minister of the Environment has been roundly criticized and is considered very weak, whereas Bill C-30 was widely praised for good reason. Moreover, it is based on the Liberal idea of a carbon budget. The Pembina Institute called it the best proposal any Canadian political party ever made to control industrial pollution caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister this: what is preventing him from recognizing the excellent work done by Parliament and allowing a debate in this House on Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of Afghanistan, the Prime Minister has shown a new openness, which we would like to see extended to other issues, such as climate change, one of the worst threats to humankind. The government killed the clean air bill, Bill C-30, a comprehensive plan to combat climate change.

Could the Prime Minister not resurrect this plan and hold a debate in this House on the basis of this bill, to prove that his new openness will not be limited to the issue of Afghanistan?

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-33, which, in short, would regulate fuels. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of having the standing committee study this bill. In fact, passing the bill at second reading, the motion which we will vote on, enables the committee to directly examine this bill. The bill will not have an immediate effect on the content of fuels, but it will simply enable the minister to regulate the content.

The bill reflects some of the Bloc's concerns—and I say some—that we should wean ourselves off our dependence on oil. The Bloc Québécois, like all Quebeckers, believes our policy should be to increasingly reduce our dependence on oil. The bill also calls for an effort to be made in the transportation sector in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of agricultural and wood waste products.

Before the regulations are implemented, our party would like to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which calls specifically for legislative action to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada. The regulation would be very similar to the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

We know the Conservative government's stance on this, however. It has chosen to ignore the reform supported by those who are showing leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases. In his statement, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities instead endorsed the Bush administration's declaration, which is much less demanding and seems as though it was designed specifically to spare American car manufacturers. Once again, the Minister of Transport showed his loyalty to the Prime Minister's approach and the Conservative Party line, which lean towards the Bush administration rather than California standards.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels. It would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline. The proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 of the previous session. I would remind the House that the bill called the “clean air act” was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appear in the amended version of the bill.

The government already announced the following:

An amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations which will require five per cent average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations will also require two per cent average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

Clearly, we believe that cellulosic ethanol is the way of the future. In terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This process, still in the experimental stage and deserving of more support for research, uses a plentiful and inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground. Thus, research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose and fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses. However, it is a more complex process requiring specific enzymes and it is not cost-effective at present.

Iogen, an Ottawa company, has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years. The pilot plant in Sweden produces ethanol from wood chips. The production process combines acid and enzyme hydrolysis. The products obtained are lignin, which can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide, which is recovered, and ethanol, which is used to produce a biofuel.

Still in the experimental stage, ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste cannot yet compete with traditional products. However, it does represent an interesting possibility. In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec.

It is important for all parties, and all the men and women listening, to understand the Bloc Québécois's policy and program to reduce our dependency on oil.

Quebec can cut its oil dependency in half within 10 years. By oil dependency, we mean oil's percentage of our energy consumption. Since global consumption of energy—be it electricity, energy from biomass or less conventional energy—will continue to grow in parallel with economic growth, reducing oil dependency by 50% means reducing oil consumption by a third in absolute numbers. This is quite a challenge, but it is not impossible.

The Bloc Québécois estimates that this huge shift requires that six objectives be met: one, quickly help Hydro-Québec regain a margin of flexibility; two, continue encouraging individuals, businesses and industries to give up using oil; three, reduce fuel consumption in passenger transportation; four, stop the increase in consumption in goods transportation; five, reduce consumption of petroleum products as fuel; and six, make Quebec a centre for clean energy and clean transportation.

When we say that we need to focus on energy efficiency to restore a margin of flexibility to Hydro-Québec, which can no longer count on surplus electricity as it did in the past, the goal is to increase residential efficiency by 18% and reduce consumption by 15% in 10 years.

To recoup energy, we need to start by looking at the energy we waste. The best way to create some flexibility is to improve energy efficiency, especially in buildings. Older homes are must less efficient than new homes. Homes of equal size built between 1981 and 1996 lose 14% more heat than new homes built after 1996. The difference climbs to 27% for homes built between 1971 and 1981 and 43% for even older homes. Using fairly simple methods to improve thermal efficiency, we can reduce the difference between older homes and newer homes by 65%, according to the federal Department of Natural Resources.

Given the real potential to save energy, we need to look at introducing measures such as programs to encourage people to use alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, passive solar or photovoltaic energy; mandatory but free energy audits when homeowners apply for a permit for a significant renovation; and amendments to the building code to set thermal efficiency standards for older homes and require that homes be brought up to standard before any permit is issued for major renovations.

Our second proposal is to eliminate the use of fuel oil in homes, businesses and industry. The 10-year goal would be to reduce by half the number of homes that heat with fuel oil, to reduce their consumption by 60% through energy efficiency measures, and to reduce by 45% the use of oil as a source of energy in industry.

In 25 years, the number of homes heated by fuel oil in Quebec has been cut in half. In the past few years, the trend has slowed considerably, in part because there are no longer any incentives for converting heating systems, but also because the price of oil has been relatively low for the past decade. The price of oil has gone up considerably in the past two years and that in itself provides an incentive.

To accelerate the conversion rate, the incentives for converting heating systems that were successful in the past could be reinstated.

Third, we recommend curbing fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. Trucks consume far too much fuel and alternatives to trucking are not flexible enough.

The goal is to put a freeze on truck traffic at its current level and to focus on technological advances and on changing the standards and regulations, in order to achieve a 9% reduction in fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. This increased fuel consumption is directly related to the increased quantity of goods being transported by truck.

While the quantity of goods transported grows along with the economy, rail transport is not growing as quickly as production, and transport by truck is practically absorbing the entire increase. To reduce truck traffic in the intercity transport of goods, in addition to increasing the energy efficiency of trucks, the relative advantages of other modes of transport need to be greater and efficient infrastructure needs to be developed to encourage the use of more than one mode of transportation.

Creating programs to rebuild the rail system, immediately removing all federal obstacles to implementing a Quebec marine policy, building an efficient transshipment infrastructure to facilitate the use of more than one mode of transport—intermodal transport—and limiting the predominance of trucking are some avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

There is a second point to the third suggestion, which is to curb fuel consumption for the intra-city transport of goods, since nearly all oversized vehicles run on oil products. The goal would be to reduce the amount of fuel used for the intra-city transport of goods by 25%. Unlike intercity transport, for which it is possible to develop alternatives to trucking—since it is over a long distance, it is always possible to consider transport by rail or by water—trucks will always be difficult to replace in an urban environment. However, in many cases, the vehicles used for this type of transport are unnecessarily large.

According to a 2001 study by the Office of Energy Efficiency, delivery trucks in urban areas in Canada were on average driving with a load that was at 20.5% of their capacity. The Bloc Québécois thinks we should put an end to that.

Measures specially designed for this sector can be implemented, for example, developing plans to reduce the size of vehicles, in cooperation with the government, for transport and delivery companies. For companies to which this measure could apply, such as messenger companies, there should be incentives to encourage them to introduce as many electric or hybrid vehicles into their transport fleet as possible. This idea has already made some progress, since in a brief presented to the House Standing Committee on Finance on October 17, 2006, the association representing messenger companies indicated that its members were interested in introducing electric-dominant hybrid vehicles into their fleets, provided they would receive a federal tax credit to help them make up for the price difference between hybrids and gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Bloc Québécois' fourth suggestion is to reduce the amount of fuel used to transport people, which makes up two thirds of the total amount of oil consumed in Quebec's transport sector and of which a large portion, 83%, is used in urban settings almost exclusively by cars. Our goal is to halt the increase in the number of automobiles on our roads by promoting a 40% increase in public transit ridership, and to reduce the fuel consumption of privately owned vehicles by 17% and that of industrial and commercial vehicles by 30%. Automobiles are responsible for nearly all oil consumption used in passenger transportation. Reducing our oil dependency and contributing to the fight against greenhouse gases necessarily requires us to reduce the use of cars and reduce fuel consumption.

There are two paths to achieving our objectives. On one hand, we must come up with an efficient alternative to the use of personal cars in urban settings and, on the other hand, we must reduce the amount of fuel consumed by cars. This will obviously require considerable investment in public transit infrastructure, particularly, to establish transit-only roads, develop new lines for commuter trains, street cars and trolley buses, establish designated lanes for public transit and car pooling, all properly monitored, as well as car sharing and other initiatives. For the Montreal, Quebec City and Gatineau areas alone, these developments would require considerable investment.

It would also require regulatory changes in order to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of automobiles. Such a measure would target a 20% reduction in the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec within10 years. In order to ensure that the reduced fuel consumption of new vehicles is not offset by an increase in consumption by older vehicles, this measure would have to be coupled with mandatory annual inspections of all vehicles more than five years old or having been driven more than 100,000 km.

Once again, our regulations should follow the California model rather than what is being proposed by the Bush administration in the United States or the Conservative administration in Canada.

Fifth, we recommend that the amount of oil be reduced in fuels where biofuels, despite their interesting potential, are almost non-existent. The objective of our fifth suggestion is to reduce by 5% the amount of oil consumed throughout Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, like the federal government, is recommending that current oil-based fuels have a 5% biofuel content—biodiesel and ethanol, preferably cellulosic ethanol.

Sixth, we recommend that Quebec—a leader in some areas of transportation and clean energy—become a transportation and clean energy pole primarily by increasing investment in research and development and promoting the creation of technology poles. The objective is to gain the advantage on our neighbours and to be on the cutting edge of technology when this sector really takes off.

By further consolidating our assets in such sectors as public transportation, hydroelectricity and wind power, as well as substantially increasing support for research and development in niches related to clean technologies—in which Quebec has comparative advantages—Quebec could have an enviable position in the post-petroleum era because it would be less vulnerable to oil crises and it could export leading edge technology.

Over the next 10 years, achieving the objectives and recommendations that we have just listed would benefit Quebec in many ways. Quebeckers could benefit from a 32.8% reduction in oil consumption in Quebec and a reduction of close to 50% in oil used for power generation in Quebec, which would drop from 38% to 20%. They would also benefit from a 21.5% reduction in Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions, and a savings of $3.2 million on the cost of importing oil into Quebec. These measures would also make Quebec more competitive and stimulate growth, which would, in turn, increase employment and outside investment. Quebeckers would also benefit from increased wealth and an improved balance of trade.

Let us not forget that achieving these goals would effectively reduce Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2012 and by 21.5% by 2020.

Within a few years, these investments would produce significant results, particularly in terms of Quebec's balance of trade, the competitiveness of businesses here, household disposable income in Quebec, Hydro-Quebec's revenues, and employment in construction and businesses in the transportation and clean energy sectors. In short, investing to reduce our oil dependency will make Quebec richer and will generate revenue that will enable the state to cover the full cost of these investments, perhaps within as little as seven years.

It is important to understand that so far, Quebec has developed its hydroelectric generating capacity by itself with no funding from the federal government, which has contributed barely 8% to the development of wind energy. It is high time the government came up with programs that will enable us to invest in reducing our oil dependency, in helping people and in imposing the strictest possible standards for automobile manufacturing, rather than offering tax credits to help rich oil companies.

All the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois are achievable in the short, medium and long term. Just as it is already a leader in hydroelectricity and wind energy, Quebec could be a world leader in the fight against greenhouse gases, but especially in our desire to reduce our oil dependency. Clearly, this will require an effort by the federal government.

Quebeckers can cut their oil dependency in half within 10 years, but only if the federal government does not work against us and scupper Quebec's efforts by doing nothing, as it has done in the fight against greenhouse gases.

Moreover, in accordance with the constitutional division of powers, the federal government has responsibility for taking some steps to help achieve these objectives. Consequently, the government must correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all, mainly in the form of independent revenue, which grows with the economy and inflation. It must also continue investing in transportation, in particular by rebuilding rail lines and port facilities, building transshipment facilities to support the development of intermodal transport and improving transportation networks.

In short, with federal involvement, Quebeckers could avoid once again having to foot the bill themselves for developing new energy sources.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I really was looking forward to the government's throne speech. The government said when it prorogued the House that it would chart a new course for this country. I expected it to live up to those words. The government prorogued this House. That is a very serious act. That turned back the clock on many bills and motions that had been worked on for months by the members of this House.

I thought that since the government took this step, it would truly have a new direction, a new course, but I was disappointed. Once again the Conservative government looked in the rear-view mirror. It missed an opportunity. It is taking Canada in the wrong direction, the wrong direction on climate change and the wrong direction for seniors, for children, for first nations and for ordinary Canadian families.

The biggest disappointment was the government's complete and utter failure to address climate change. Last spring, my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, worked hard in an all party committee to improve Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change act, so that Canada could begin to move in the right direction.

All parties agreed that Bill C-30 was going to be a good start, but the government is not even bringing it back. In fact, it is bringing back only a small portion of it even though the majority of the House agreed on the changes to Bill C-30. What arrogance. What contempt for this House the government has. Once again it has broken the trust of ordinary Canadians.

I and many others from my riding and across the country are disappointed in the government's stance on the environment because we are running out of time. Ordinary Canadians are doing their part. They are changing their light bulbs. They are conserving water. They are converting to hybrid cars. However, no matter how many of us change our light bulbs, if the government does not change course all our efforts will be futile.

The government could have made a big difference if it had implemented hard caps on large carbon emitters. That would go a long way to meeting our emission targets. It decided to go with intensity based measures instead. With the expansion of the oil sands looming on the horizon, intensity targets will do nothing to reduce Canada's emissions. When we produce more oil from the oil sands, we also will be producing more greenhouse gases.

Another opportunity was missed by the government when it came to addressing the needs of seniors. My colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, introduced the seniors charter last year. It was debated and passed by the House, but the government has never enacted it. The government had an opportunity in this throne speech to implement the priorities of the charter, including primary care, long term care, home care and free pharmacare and dental care. These things would all enhance the quality of life for seniors.

However, once again the government has let seniors and all Canadians down. It is another broken promise. The governmentt said it would act on what was passed by the majority of this House.

When it comes to hope and fairness for ordinary Canadians, the government has done nothing on the issue of affordable housing and homelessness. We have just seen $14 billion in federal surplus. The government has announced that this year's surplus will be twice what it had anticipated. Quelle surprise.

With all that extra money in the coffers and with all the need for housing in my communities, and in fact with nearly two million Canadians across this country who do not have what is deemed to be acceptable housing, why did the government not make it a priority to invest in a national housing strategy?

I have been to many first nations communities in my riding. The housing situation there is even worse. For example, in Port Hardy, the Gwa'Sala-Nakwaxda'xw are in dire need of acceptable shelter. They live in mouldy homes. Sometimes as many as 25 people are living in one house and three families live together in a home built for single family occupation. These are deplorable conditions and they need to be addressed immediately.

The same goes for child care. I have been talking with parents and child care workers in my riding from Port McNeill to Courtenay, and they are telling me that there is a crisis. Failure on the part of the government to address the crisis has resulted in longer wait times for child care space and increasing costs. There is up to a two years wait for a space. That means we have to register our child before it is even born.

Child care centres need reliable, long term funding to provide the kind of access that parents and their children are looking for. That is why the NDP proposed the child care act that will soon be voted on at third reading. That is the kind of solution today's families are looking for, real commitments to child care in this country.

I would like to address two things that are crucial to Vancouver Island North, two things the government mentioned in its throne speech that it would protect. It said it would stand up for forestry and fishing, but on these two files, the government has a very bad track record.

The Conservatives sold out forestry communities and forestry workers in my riding and across this country when they signed the sellout softwood agreement. Because of that agreement, it is not profitable for companies to mill logs in Canada, so they ship raw logs to the U.S. or abroad and we get to buy them back as finished lumber.

The irony is not lost on the constituents of Vancouver Island North. Our communities are surrounded by forests, yet lumber mills are closing from B.C. to Atlantic Canada as more and more raw logs and jobs leave this country. Pulp and paper mills and fibre mills are having a hard time getting fibre because there are very few sawmills left to provide it.

I introduced Motion No. 301 to curtail raw log exports and to encourage value added and manufacturing right here in Canada. The natural resources minister said he recognized that something needed to be done about the situation that is killing our resource based communities, but again, the government has failed to act. I do not call that standing up for an industry, for workers or for our communities.

The other issue that I would like to mention is that the Conservatives said they would stand up for the fishing industry, but again, they are going in the wrong direction. Last spring, they introduced Bill C-45, a new fisheries act, without consultation with fishermen, first nations or anyone from our communities. That bill has gone now because of prorogation, but why did they bring it forward in the first place? No one wanted it.

They also said that they would decentralize the DFO and have more decision making on the coasts of this country. After almost two years there has been no movement on this promise. Instead, I have to ask the government if they are trying to kill our west coast fisheries.

Just a few weeks ago an order came down from on high to cut the Chinook egg take for the entire west coast. When asked why, the Conservatives said it was due to a lack of funds, but I remember last year when I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about a budget cut, I was told that it had not been cut, so there should have been lots of money there.

Thankfully, the decision to cut this egg take and to kill the Chinook fishery was turned around, but a decision like that should never have been made in the first place.

Also, a recent barge spill in my riding in Robson Bight is causing grave concerns because the fuel tank and vehicles are on the bottom of the ocean continuing to leak oil and diesel to the surface. Environmental groups, local businesses, students and concerned people from around the world donated money to carry out an investigation. We called on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to also carry out an investigation, but the ministry waited a full two months and finally, after the environmental organizations announced that they would do carry out an investigation, the government was embarrassed and had to come forward and say it would do one too. It finally did the right thing.

These oil spills are having a devastating effect on the waters and on the salmon in the Strait of Georgia. Salmon are the canary in the coal mines of our oceans. They feed whales and people, and are a source of cultural and ceremonial significance to first nations of B.C. The health of salmon is important to the west coast and we are in danger of losing them.

Enhancement must be increased. Monitoring of sport and commercial fishing must be increased if we are to have a clear picture of what is going on off our coast.

There are many reasons not to support the direction in which the government is going. I am speaking for the thousands of Canadians in my riding who oppose this direction. I and they have little confidence--

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would concur with my colleague that the Prime Minister has indeed lost his way, if he had ever been on the right way toward dealing with the climate change crisis.

I find it absolutely ironic that earlier in the debate, a member from the government caucus had asked about how we reform our democratic institutions. It seems to me one of the best ways to deal with democracy in the country is to act on the will of Parliament. Bill C-30 was that kind of opportunity. All parties had collaborated. We had a comprehensive bill that would tackle climate change in a meaningful way and the government decided to let that bill fall by the wayside and to introduce a watered down version that has all the right words but will not do anything to address this very serious problem that is top of mind for most Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I am familiar with his expertise in the subject matter, since we sat together on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. In fact, I hope we will do so again in the course of this new session.

I would nevertheless like to assure my colleague that the Liberal Party fully supports the Kyoto protocol. We must agree on that. But he already knows this, since it was our party that proposed the carbon budget that was included in Bill C-30, a bill that was passed by the committee.

Let us move on. I have a technical question for the member. A number of times now, we have heard that the government wanted to limit the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, at the same time, create a carbon exchange. However, in order for a carbon exchange to really take root, we need absolute limits on greenhouse gas emissions, do we not? That is my first question.

My second question is this. Last week, the Globe and Mail revealed that business leaders and executives of Canada's largest companies want the government to adopt absolute limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The government clearly refuses to listen to the public or to Canada's business leaders. So, who does it listen to?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as leader of Her Majesty's official opposition, to rise today and lead the Liberal Party of Canada in responding to the Speech from the Throne to open the second session of the 39th Parliament of Canada.

I would like to begin by congratulating the Governor General for the elegance with which she delivered the Speech from the Throne. Unfortunately, my congratulations will almost have to stop there. The meagre Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday is so vague, so full of holes and raises so many concerns that it warrants little praise.

Yet, somehow, in thinking about this a lot, I may find something relatively positive to say about the speech. It is not as bad as the one we would have heard from the Conservative Party if it had been a majority government.

As the Prime Minister's most trusted political adviser, Professor Tom Flanagan, recently described, if the Conservatives form a majority government, rural economies would be threatened by a fatal assault on supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board. Health care would be subject to an agenda of Conservative “radical reform”. One may imagine what that means.

The work of our police officers and the safety of our citizens would be threatened by the absolute dismantling of the gun registry and our environment would be neglected by those who believe that, to quote Mr. Flanagan's incredibly irresponsible statement, “global warming may threaten the planet, but it actually improves the weather in Canada”.

Canadians can count on the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party will never form a majority.

The throne speech we heard yesterday, with all of its weaknesses, has to be assessed in light of the fact that Canadians do not want another election right now. They want Parliament to do its job.

Three general elections in three and a half years, not to mention the provincial elections held recently or to be held shortly, would be too much in the eyes of Canadians.

The Prime Minister and his government may be increasingly frustrated by an opposition that prevents them from implementing their ultra-Conservative program; but we, the official opposition, are determined to make Parliament work. That is what Canadians want.

Let us look at the more positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne. It is encouraging to see that the government intends to expand the scope of the Action Plan for Official Languages, which linguistic minorities are in the bad habit of calling the Dion plan. We hope the government will keep this promise and table a robust plan that it will not have to call the Dion plan II.

But why stop there? Why not revive the court challenges program that has done so much to protect minority rights? And why not reinstate the bilingual requirement for officers of the Canadian Forces?

We are pleased to see that the government has finally decided to offer an official apology to the victims of the Indian residential schools. This does not in any way discharge the government of its obligation to right the terrible wrongs caused by its rejection of the Kelowna Accord, which delayed urgently needed measures in education, health and infrastructure, and by its refusal to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are also pleased with the government's interest in Canada's North and we support its intention to set up a world-class research station there. However, we would like to know the location of the site, the budget and the deadlines for achieving this plan.

It was high time for the government to keep its promise of mapping the Arctic seabed. It made that promise 18 months ago. We would like to know how the government intends to respect the crucial 2013 deadline to show that the continental shelf falls within Canadian territory, which our country is required to do since it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The government also talked about expanding aerial surveillance in the North, but then why not deploy fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, as the previous Liberal government planned to do?

One may also ask why the government makes no mention of the building of small craft harbours in the Arctic, when such a measure could create jobs and increase trade and tourism in northern Canada.

And why not take a collaborative diplomatic approach to assert our interests with the Arctic Council, the only international organization of circumpolar countries, which can deal with major Arctic issues, and within which Canada must still play a leadership role?

Finally, to conclude on the North, how can one talk about the North without talking about enhancing the quality of life of its inhabitants, the quality of life of the Inuit people and services that are provided to them, particularly at a time when global warming has such a profound effect on their way of life?

In another positive point in the Speech from the Throne, we were pleased to learn that the government was committed to supporting our veterans. However, the throne speech does not contain any provision to enhance the quality of life of active members of our armed forces and their families, particularly to help them overcome the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder that often follow their deployment overseas.

We take note of the government's intention to modernize the Canadian armed forces. However, we have some concerns about the way that it wants to do so. Will the government continue with its troubling reliance on contracting without tender? Contracts of $30 billion have already been awarded in this manner.

It is good to learn that the government has decided to make a commitment toward Haiti, but it remains vague on the exact nature of this commitment. Is it financial aid for basic health care? Is it funds for reforestation? We still do not know.

Of course we applaud the decision to grant Burmese dissident Aung San Suu Kyi honorary Canadian citizenship. This is an idea that we fully support and that our colleague from the Yukon has been promoting for months.

Let me now turn my attention to the more problematic sections of the speech, starting with the absurd expression that the Prime Minister keeps repeating. Let me tell the Prime Minister that when he argues that “Canada is back” he diminishes the fine tradition of Canadian peacekeeping and international leadership that long preceded the Conservative government's election to office.

And for that, Canadians must wonder where the Prime Minister was back when Canada obtained an international treaty banning landmines; when Canada was a main architect of the International Criminal Court; when Canadian armed forces airplanes were the only ones operating an airlift in and out of Kigali during the Rwanda genocide; when our soldiers fought to protect Bosnia's civilian population; or when Canada hosted the world in Montreal and rallied it around the Kyoto protocol.

The government's continued ambiguity on the mission in Afghanistan is also disconcerting. The government is being deliberately ambiguous about the length of the mission in Kandahar. In fact, it does not want to mention the word Kandahar. Nor does it mention the words “combat mission”. It refuses to call the Canadian mission in Kandahar what it is: a counter-insurgency combat mission in which our troops are required to proactively seek out and engage the Taliban.

The Prime Minister now wants Canadians to believe that this combat mission is a training mission. It is not. If the government wants to transform it into a training mission after February 2009, that could be an acceptable option, one that we have advocated for since last February and one that the blue ribbon panel on Afghanistan has been instructed to consider.

Still, the government should immediately notify NATO and the government of Afghanistan that our combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009. By refusing to do so, the government makes it more difficult to replace our troops and to prepare a new Canadian mission.

There is another question on Afghanistan. Why has the government asked the Manley panel to look at four options while the throne speech already chooses one of the four options: accelerated training of the Afghan army and police? Perhaps the Prime Minister should inform the panel that its work is done.

The mission in Afghanistan is an important one, but we cannot remain silent, as the throne speech does, on our other responsibilities around the world. Why has the Prime Minister turned his back on Africa? And what does the government intend to do in Darfur?

Beyond these international issues, we also have important domestic challenges to address. I would like to discuss the important issue of our federation, which has recently been affected by the Prime Minister's breach of trust with so many provinces.

The throne speech states that “the constitutional jurisdiction of each order of government should be respected”, but the Prime Minister should start by respecting premiers. It is inconceivable that after 19 months in office the Prime Minister of Canada has refused to call a first ministers meeting with the premiers. This is not open federalism. It is simply “my door is closed” federalism.

Hence, the Prime Minister wants to go ahead with his unilateral reform of the Senate despite the fact that many provinces have expressed serious disagreement with his proposals.

Now he is announcing that he will introduce legislation to formally limit the federal spending power. The Prime Minister should understand, however, that he must convene the premiers to discuss this most important issue. Otherwise, he would simply be guilty of more closed-door federalism.

Could I humbly suggest that the Prime Minister consult me on the issue of the federal spending power just as he consulted me before introducing the motion on the Quebec nation within Canada?

When he does, I will tell him that the federal spending power as he described it in the throne speech falls short of the present limits to that power that I myself, under the leadership of former Prime Minister Chrétien, introduced in the throne speech of 1996. More importantly, the proposed limits fall short of the social union agreement of which I was the architect.

To continue with my exercise in humility, I will add that no federal politician placed greater limits on the federal spending power than I did, but I did so without reducing its usefulness.

Let us hope that the Prime Minister's objective conforms with the spirit of the social union framework agreement; that is, to use the federal spending power as a tool both for social progress and for partnership between the governments of our great federation.

In Canada federal spending power has been instrumental in building the Canada-wide social programs that all Canadians value, such as medicare. It has been essential in promoting equality of opportunity for all Canadians, helping to ensure access to social programs and services to Canadians wherever they are in Canada.

The social union framework agreement, SUFA, recently helped to successfully negotiate the early learning and child care agreements with the provinces and territories. These agreements have, sadly, been cancelled by the Conservatives, depriving millions of children and families of billions of dollars in funding to improve their early childhood development opportunities.

We Liberals will make sure that the initiatives of the Conservative government do not in any way diminish the value of the federal spending power as a tool to promote social progress for Canadians and good partnerships between governments. We will not allow the Prime Minister to build a federalism of firewalls.

Let me also remind the government that today in Canada more than half a million of our senior citizens live in poverty. The men and women who built this country deserve better.

Today in Canada, more than one million children live in poverty. We cannot waste a generation. All of our children deserve to share in the bounty of our nation.

A plan to fight poverty is urgent and, let me tell everyone, it will be at the heart of our Liberal agenda.

Earlier, I mentioned our health care plan, which is the result of a wise use of the federal spending power. In the throne speech, the government congratulates itself—not really honestly, I might add—for the progress it made in shortening wait times. Unfortunately, we do not see any such progress. In fact, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, the average wait time for surgery in Canada now stands at 18.3 weeks, the longest it has ever been.

Now, I come to the economy. The Conservative government inherited an unprecedented economic dynamism thanks to the efforts of Canadians and to a decade of sound financial management by the previous Liberal government. The economy has not been in such good shape since Confederation. This is the longest growth period in decades. We have the highest growth rate of all G-8 countries with major job creation, balanced budgets, a trade surplus and a reduction of our national debt. Our country is the only one to have succeeded in putting its pension plan on a solid footing for the long term.

Over the past 19 months, the Conservative government has been content with just riding on this strong economy without having any plans or convincing scheme to enhance our economy's potential. That is what I call being near-sighted. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that there will be no end to the current growth. The fact is that this government has done more harm than good in terms of Canada's international competitiveness. It is about to allocate $12 billion per year to cut the GST by two points, a measure that will not allow Canadians to bring more money home, does nothing to combat poverty and does not make our economy more competitive in any way.

The Conservatives' interest deductibility proposal is a frontal attack on the competitiveness of Canadian companies and has been denounced as the worst tax policy in 35 years. It will cost Canadian companies billions and will serve mainly to enrich foreign governments. The Prime Minister has not listened to common sense, but it is not too late for him to do so.

It is not the time to make such mistakes. The parity of our currency with the U.S. dollar, the uncertainty of the U.S. market, the high cost of energy, and the new powerhouses of India and China are all putting pressure on our economy and on the exporters and manufacturers that generate the jobs upon which we depend to maintain our high standard of living. Nearly 80,000 workers have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector this year alone.

To maintain these jobs, and to enhance this standard of living well into the future, we must find ways to improve the innovation, competiveness and productivity of our businesses and workers.

The throne speech mentions infrastructure. It mentions post-secondary education. It mentions science and technology. It mentions the manufacturing, forestry, fisheries, mining, resources, tourism and agriculture sectors. But a mention is no substitute for a plan. We hope that the fall economic and fiscal update will provide clarity on how the government will improve Canada's competitiveness.

The throne speech promises tax cuts, but the government actually raised income tax rates in the lowest bracket from 15% to 15.5%. This decision costs Canadians over a billion dollars every year.

On international trade, the government did not explain why it closed consulates in key markets such as St. Petersburg, Osaka and Milan.

The government went to lengths to hide the flawed softwood lumber agreement, an agreement that cost the Canadian industry at least $1 billion, which is being put in the hands of those now using the money to sue our companies.

On the matter of criminal justice and security for Canadians, the government laments that much of its legislation did not pass. What the government always fails to mention is that for months it systematically refused Liberal offers to fast track the majority of its legislation. Of the six bills the government wants to reintroduce as part of the tackling violent crime bill, we already support five.

It is the government that obstructed the passage of these bills, causing them to die on the order paper at prorogation, and it did so to the detriment of the security of Canadians. Hopefully the government will be more cooperative in the coming session. We urge the government to stop playing politics with the Criminal Code and to stop putting partisan politics ahead of the safety of Canadians.

Further, with respect to the tackling violent crime bill, we obviously want to see exactly what the legislation will say. We could support it if includes measures that would make Canadians safer. We Liberals are tough on crime and we are tough on the causes of crime.

As for the Anti-terrorism Act, the government has not indicated what changes we can expect. We hope that this time it will be informed by the 100 recommendations made by the House and the Senate in their recent reports and that it will not renew its attempts to play politics with such an important issue.

This brings me to the most disappointing aspect of the Speech from the Throne: extremely weak environmental protection measures.

Once again, the government missed an opportunity to meet the challenge of fighting global warming, the most serious environmental threat facing humanity today.

In this Speech from the Throne, the government said that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions could not be reduced to the level required under the Kyoto protocol for the first phase of implementation, that is between 2008 and 2012. One thing is sure, with this government's so-called plan, greenhouse gas emissions are bound to continue increasing in Canada.

Let me outline the damages the Prime Minister and his government have caused to Canada.

All I need to do is sum up the Sierra Club of Canada's Kyoto report card for 2007. It explains that last year the Conservatives cut over $5 billion worth of investment in environment and climate change programs. The Sierra Club said:

Federal programs were slashed, and the importance of addressing global warming was downplayed.

An entire year was lost.

The Sierra Club goes on to say:

--Canada had a plan for reaching its Kyoto targets. This plan, Project Green...had provided a foundation for action upon which new Conservative initiatives could have been built.... Instead of improving Project Green, the new government shredded it along with its programs and its institutions, in March 2006.

This is what the government has been doing to Canada. It has spent all of 2007 trying to reannounce the programs it scrapped in 2006, changing their names and their logos with less money, less commitment, no coherence and incompetence in implementation.

This is what the Conservatives have done to Canada. Now look at what they have done to the world.

Let me again quote the Sierra Club:

The current government also inherited the presidency of the International Climate negotiations, which had been led by former environment minister [the Leader of the Opposition]. The Canadian government’s efforts at the international climate change conference in Montreal won Canada international praise.

Under the new Conservative government, Canada quickly went from hero to zero. At an international conference in Bonn, Canada attempted to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol.

It is what the Prime Minister means when he says that Canada is back.

In contrast, in 2007, the official opposition proposed an enhanced climate change plan to conquer our industrial emissions, the carbon budget. When we launched this carbon budget in March 2007, the Pembina Institute said:

This is the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada.

--it sets the right targets and the right timelines....

The Climate Action Network said:

This is great. It's hard to ask for much more

It is important to recognize that the other two opposition parties agreed to include this regulatory plan in Bill C-30 on air quality and climate change.

On August 23, I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him not to scrap Bill C-30 after proroguing the House. The Prime Minister did not even deign to reply. On reading the throne speech, we can see why.

The Conservatives will only bring forward the minor parts of the clean air and climate change act, the ones they allow their members to support. As a result, the regulatory framework to cut and bring down gas emissions is gone. The regulatory framework to improve air quality is gone. The autonomous emissions standards are gone. This is a step backwards in the face of a major global challenge.

What are we left with? We are left with a government plan that has been panned by all credible experts in Canada and abroad, a climate change plan that has been panned by all the experts, like the new Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, who called the Prime Minister's plan “a complete and total fraud, designed to mislead the Canadian people”.

The Pembina Institute, that once rated Project Green, the Liberal plan killed by the Conservatives, would have delivered almost seven times more reduction than the government's current approach.

The Deutsche Bank said, “We think that the Canadian government has materially overstated the cost of complying with Kyoto. Under current policies, we would expect Canada's industrial gas emissions to continue rising over 2006-2020".

According to the C.D. Howe Institute, with the government plan, “overall emissions in Canada are unlikely to fall below current levels” until 2050 and beyond.

The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said:

--targets set by your government are so easy to meet that oil companies could end up with a windfall of $400 million worth of easy credits.

Under the Conservative plan polluters do not pay; polluters get paid.

I could also quote the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, which also harshly criticized the government's plan.

The throne speech states that national regulations to reduce emissions will be implemented this year. We do not know what the government is talking about, since its own regulations will not see the light before 2010 at the earliest. Does this mean that the government has changed its mind and will assign a monetary value to carbon in 2008?

Let us hope that the government understands that it must significantly strengthen all its initiatives to protect the environment and fight climate change.

Canadians can count on the official opposition to press the government to take action and be accountable. The government must understand that any deadline set for meeting our targets for the first phase of implementation of the Kyoto protocol, which ends in 2012, can be corrected during the second phase, after 2012. But to do that, we have to start today. That is why the government has to significantly toughen its measures to fight climate change.

The official opposition will cooperate fully with the government to help it reach real targets. Canada must remain a party to the Kyoto protocol, the only international accord to fight what is a global threat.

The official opposition certainly remains very critical of the throne speech but never before has a federal government fallen on the basis of a throne speech.

Canadians can count on the official opposition to do everything it can to make this Parliament work. To that end, we will propose amendments and we will not make the government fall on its throne speech, which would cause a third general election in four years, something Canadians have clearly shown they do not want.

The amendments we are putting forward would enable us to support the throne speech. If they are rejected, we will do as the NDP when it decided on October 16, 2006 to abstain on the vote on the softwood lumber agreement in order to avoid causing an election.

As another leader of the official opposition said some years ago, “I believe it's not in the national interest to have an election now. What has become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things but it is up to us, our caucus, to decide whether the time has come to have an election. In our judgment and I think in Canadians' judgment it is not that time”.

Everybody will have guessed that this leader of the opposition, quoted on March 10, 2005, is our current Prime Minister when he was explaining his party's dissension to the 2005 budget.

I will now move an amendment that could even allow the official opposition to support the throne speech if it met with the approval of the House. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following:

and this House calls upon the government to recognize that any shortfall in meeting our 2012 Kyoto commitments would be a result of their decision to kill the previous government's innovative Project Green plan, followed by 18 months of inaction, and the government must replace its weak approach with real action to create the momentum required for Canada to catch-up in the second phase of Kyoto;

to announce now that the Canadian combat mission in Kandahar will end in February 2009 in order to facilitate a replacement, and begin discussions with NATO and the Government of Afghanistan on what non-combat role Canada can play afterwards to aid in the reconstruction of Afghanistan;

to end 18 months of inaction in the fight against poverty in Canada by building on the good work of the previous Liberal government that funded such initiatives as the Canada Child Tax Benefit, affordable housing, literacy, the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) and the Working Income Tax Benefit; and

to stop taking for granted the unprecedented strong economy and fiscal success inherited by this government from its predecessor and bring forward proposals to reduce corporate taxes and other measures that will improve the economy of Canada, especially in sectors such as manufacturing and agriculture, and lessen the impact of the government's egregious mistakes on income trusts and interest deductibility.

Motions in Amendment

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate on air safety. There is reason, though, to wonder why the government wants to rush this bill through despite its many flaws. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned. They should be seriously concerned about this bill.

It seems that people can say anything these days and get anything passed so long as it will reduce government involvement, as if that were a good thing in itself, without any care for the consequences. In this case, the consequences are very serious because public safety is at stake. That is something the government has apparently forgotten. It would rather worry about the profits of the big corporations than the safety of the general public. We should wonder, though, what the effects will be on public safety.

Canada has often been recognized—as other hon. members have said—as a leader in the field of public safety. There is an expression that when something is finally perfect, people often want to start changing it. In this case too, I have the feeling that the changes are for the worse.

This morning, my hon. colleague, our transport critic, who has done a lot of work on this, compared what happened in the railway system with what could happen in the airline industry if the government’s proposed amendments are passed.

In British Columbia where I come from, there have been many accidents, sometimes virtually weekly, on the railways. We know that these accidents started to increase after the safety system was simply handed over to the companies. The government more or less just offloaded its responsibilities.

The law that is proposed in Bill C-6 contains many flaws. The policy issue that is important to note is that this will have impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada, WestJet and others have been preferred and that is going to be the factor in setting safety levels in the sky.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as a general overseer of safety management systems. That is why I asked, with the government saying it is going to reduce government intervention, is that in itself a good thing when public security is being sidelined for commercial interests?

Let us talk a bit about the impacts of Bill C-6. It seems to enshrine the safety management systems which allow industries to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept, tolerable levels of risk in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety established by the minister acting in the public interest. Safety management systems allow the government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards.

The government seems to think that because it says something it makes it true. We have seen that all too often in the way the government has acted on accountability and in the way it has acted on Bill C-30 in tackling environmental issues. The government takes half measures and proclaims it has acted in the interest of public. Canadians are not fooled by this kind of talk.

The bill does not exempt whistleblowers. A worker who identifies a problem, for example, a loose wing nut, and I will not talk about the kinds of wing nuts, reports it and no action is taken, he or she will be silenced. That is a problem with what the government has proposed.

Furthermore, the government would like us to think that companies will automatically report any problems to the public. Any of us who have negotiated with the private sector knows there are many financial interests to protect. The private sector is very guarded in anything that will affect its financial bottom line. I fear very much for transparency, for what Canadians will find out about some of the problems that can occur.

While the NDP agreed to an amendment in the transportation committee, which emphasizes reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than tolerating risk, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations. Acting in the public interest is still, as I see it, the responsibility of the government. It is not the responsibility of corporations. Their responsibility is to make money. By giving that responsibility over to corporations, the government is abdicating its own responsibilities.

Adequate safety costs money. Safety management systems will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked with high fuel prices. What will happen to safety when the need to make a profit and save money is paramount? I do not think the bill adds to that and it does not answer that question adequately.

I will close by asking one last question. What happened to the government's responsibility to protect public interest?

Afghanistan

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

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer have confidence in this Prime Minister or his government.

There has been no transparency about the prisoners in Afghanistan; there has been no action on Bill C-30 and climate change; there has been nothing done about ATM fees and the banks continue to rake in profits; the Accountability Act is meaningless when we have ministers concealing their travelling expenses; and the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages now has her very own sponsorship scandal.

How can Canadians have confidence in this government now?

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister reminds me of a school child who gets caught cheating on an exam.

Four reputable organizations, four independent reports, confirmed that the minister is deceiving Canadians. Even the government's own officials cannot back up his claims.

This ecofraud means consumers will pay billions of dollars for no real environmental or health benefits.

Why does the minister not just stop the charade and the schoolyard antics and bring Bill C-30 back to the House for a vote?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I take as our primary duty as legislators to consider pieces of legislation that have actually been put together through the work of people like the member for Edmonton Centre as the chair of that committee which logged all of those long hours.

It seems to me that our first duty as parliamentarians is to consider government bills that the government has asked us to rewrite after second reading. I acknowledge once more the skilful work of the member for Edmonton Centre. It seems to me that ought to be our top priority, to bring back Bill C-30.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It was my understanding that the member asked for unanimous consent that Bill C-30 be added to the extra hours of debate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent time with my hon. colleague from Don Valley West on the committee that dealt with Bill C-30 and we got along quite well. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that an expert is someone who agrees with one's beliefs and if that person does not agree, the person is obviously not an expert.

Why did all the leaders in the G-8 have so much praise for our Prime Minister and Canada's position of leadership and the only people who seem not to be able to praise it are the people on the opposite side of the House?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was talking about extending the hours and we are prepared to stay as long as it takes to debate those issues, including Bill C-30 that he was talking about, but there are also many other important pieces of legislation at hand here.

If we clear the slate the way the Conservative government wants to, the government is under no obligation to honour and respect the bills on Kyoto and Kelowna. We know the government has difficulties with honour and respect. As we saw with the Atlantic accord, the words trust and integrity mean so little to the government.

I would ask the hon. member this. Does he feel there are other single pieces of legislation that Canadians should be concerned about, given the government's stubborn, bullheaded approach to governing?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me do two things.

First of all, let me respond to the hon. member. I heard no members present in Berlin, from other legislatures, say anything of the sort about the Canadian plan. First of all they did not understand it. Second, they did not ask. Third, everybody who has looked at it and has understood it says it is a fraud, so we got no such international endorsement from other legislatures at all. I think what we got was disappointment that Canada has not been more ambitious.

Second, let me take advantage of this moment to ask the House for unanimous consent to put forward a motion that in view of the interest in Bill C-30, that within the hours that will be extended, the House consider Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite inspired by the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. We support extending the hours of Parliament, because that will give us an opportunity to consider Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act. I want to pick up on what the member for Wascana said. The time has come to consider the debacle of the Prime Minister's speech at the G-8 meeting last week in Heiligendamm. Extending the hours will give us an opportunity to correct the situation. Now we may finally have time to study Bill C-30.

In the wake of the G-8 meeting, Canada's problem is the lack of consistency between the Prime Minister's international statements on climate change and the reality of the domestic regulations on industry proposed by the government about six weeks ago to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bill C-30 has had a curious history. It was originally proposed by the government in October, with a series of regulations. Then, it was attacked from all sides: by NGOs, the media, economists and all three opposition parties. The government withdrew the bill. Then it was sent after first reading to a legislative committee chaired by the member for Edmonton Centre.

To everyone's astonishment, the process worked very well in the case of BIll C-30 and produced an extensively amended bill that was stronger, more coherent and more ambitious. What has happened? Once again, the government is refusing to present Bill C-30 and is instead substituting weak, empty regulations under the existing legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The parliamentary secretary has spoken several times today about the importance of taking the work of parliamentarians seriously. He was suggesting that one of the arguments in support of prolonging the hours of Parliament was to allow a report to be made concerning the activities of a group of parliamentarians, of which I was one, when they took part in a meeting before Heilingendam in Berlin of legislators from the G-8 plus five countries.

However, as I indicated in a previous intervention, while that is important work and while the results of that visit are worth knowing and those discussions should be referenced, how can that compare with the work which many of us, including the parliamentary secretary, put in on Bill C-30?

The hours and hours of debate, the hearings, the extra sitting hours into the evening and all of the work which went into it with the highly successful result under the skilful leadership of the member for Edmonton Centre, to whom we must give credit for helping to get this much improved clean air and climate change bill through.

Surely, the member for Edmonton Centre, even though he is on the government side, would love to see the fruit of his work honoured after putting all that effort into it.

This is a good reason to extend the House sitting hours. The government has now twice failed to bring forward a meaningful climate change plan. The regulations that were proposed instead under CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, are a complete ecofraud. There are, as the Pembina Institute has pointed out in a very thoughtful piece of analysis, at least 20 loopholes in the entire package that undermine any claim that can be made about greenhouse gas reductions. Until these loopholes are plugged, I can give but a brief example. Pembina says:

In reality, the regulatory framework’s effect on emissions cannot be known with any certainty, because (i) its targets are expressed in terms of emissions intensity, not actual emissions; (ii) we do not yet know how targets will be defined for new facilities; (iii) “fixed process emissions” are exempted but have not been fully defined; and (iv) some of the “compliance options” that companies can use to meet targets will not result in immediate emission reductions, and some may not result in any real emission reductions at all.

That is simply an example of some of the 20 loopholes. The government has misrepresented to Canadians about what this plan will actually achieve. There will be and can be no absolute reductions by 2012 and no absolute reductions by 2020. Not a single government official, when summoned before the environment committee, could guarantee that the so-called plan's claims could be met and it is clear that little analysis has been done. The analysis that has been done was shrouded in secrecy and not a single, independent expert has been called in to verify the so-called plans claims.

Indeed, a leading German investment bank, Deutsche Bank, has produced an extensive report on the subject and it comes to exactly the same conclusion. It says in plain language:

We do not think the Government's alternative plan will succeed. Setting aside the Kyoto target of an absolute reduction of 6% in emissions over 2008-12 against the base year of 1990, the Canadian Government has published a plan that re-defines its GHG emissions-reduction targets.

The turning the corner plan takes 2006 as the base year instead of 1990 and imposes reductions in the intensity of Canadian industry's emissions rather than reductions in the absolute level of emissions.

That means that the redefined targets are much less ambitious than the Kyoto targets. Yet, because the turning the corner plan allows for the offsetting of emissions at what we think is too low in price to incentify investments in new low carbon technologies, we think that even these much less ambitious targets will probably not be achieved. In short, under current policies we would expect Canada's industrial greenhouse gas emissions to continue rising over 2006 to 2020.

The point is further reinforced by a document from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research entitled “Climate Change Policy and Canada's Oil Sand Resources: An Update and Appraisal of Canada's New Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions”, with the same conclusions. Tomorrow, just to put the final and fourth nail in the coffin, the C.D. Howe Institute will be releasing a detailed and critical analysis of the turning the corner plan.

In other words, four major studies continually make the same point that the plan that is on the table now will not do the job and that we need to get back to Bill C-30.

What do we have after 16 months? We have something that is worse than nothing at all, because we have created tremendous uncertainty that will prevent industry from making the rational, long term investments that are necessary for deep greenhouse gas reductions. After 16 months, all we have on the table is a shell, not a single regulation and no promise of regulations for up to 18 months for greenhouse gas reductions, and nothing until sometime in 2010 for smog.

The former government's project green, as has been noted by the Deutsche Bank, not only would have created certainty for industry, but it would have produced almost seven times the reductions proposed by the current government's plan.

Certainly, we need a better plan in place before we break for the summer. Therefore, government should bring Bill C-30 back to the House, so that we can get on with it.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

As my colleague from Acadie--Bathurst has said, this is about slashing the court challenges program and any number of really good programs that the government has taken an axe to, both in this budget and in previous policy decisions.

We started hearing last week that the government members were in a panic, that they had to get Bill C-52 through the House. Wait a minute, we said, the government has had well over three months to work this through. My colleague from Vancouver, our House leader, has detailed this. The government has had a number of opportunities to bring the bill forward for full debate at second reading, report stage and third reading. This is the budget. This is the biggest item for any Parliament to deal with.

What did the Conservatives do? They just kept putting it off. They brought forward other bills. This was completely within their control. They brought forward 11 other bills and said the House would deal with them first. Now we are going to deal with this one, they said, and then we are going to deal with that one. They brought forward 11 different items on 11 different days when they could have brought forward Bill C-52. Now it is panic time for the Conservatives and they are saying they have to get the bill through.

I want to address what seems to be a suggestion that somehow these programs are all going to collapse, along with this new funding, if the bill does not get passed in the next 24 hours. That is just not true. This money will be spent when Bill C-52 finally gets through the House. The flow of that money may be postponed by several days or several weeks, but it will get spent because obviously both the government and the Bloc Québécois have indicated that they are going to support the bill and they have the numbers in the House to get it passed.

Constitutionally, the government again putting around the panic that the Senate somehow is going to block this bill. That is not going to happen. It may be delayed a bit, but the Senate does not have the constitutional authority to block a money bill. Specifically, it has no authority to turn down a budget. That is not going to happen either.

What this is really about is the fact that the Conservative government is tired, it does not have a program, and it wants to get out of here. If they can get away with it, Conservative members are going to move adjournment of this House as soon as they get Bill C-52 through.

We do not have a problem with debating Bill C-52. I have here about 20 items that I would just love to be able to get into. If I did, I could be here for many hours showing the flaws in this budget. That is not what this is about. This is not about this opposition party or, quite frankly, the other opposition parties being shy about debating the contents of Bill C-52 and all that it lacks.

What this is about is the government's unwillingness to face, in a realistic fashion, what is going on in the country. It continuously gets beat up, whether it is on the climate change file or whether it is on Afghanistan. We can go down the list. The government is just tired of being here.

I could not help but think of the hypocrisy of some of the statements coming out of the mouth of the House leader when he addressed this motion earlier this afternoon. He said that we should believe the Conservatives because they did not intend to have an election. Of course he did not address the fact that their airplane was lined up, with a contract for it, and their campaign office was open and substantially staffed. They were ready to go to an election. Quite frankly, if the Canadian people and the opinion polls had not made it clear what was going to happen if they took the country to an election at that time, we would have been in an election now.

What has happened is that the Conservatives did not have a fallback position. They did not know what they were going to do if they did not have an election. They do not have an agenda as to how they are going to deal with it. They want to get out of here so they can regroup and see what they might do when we come back in the fall. They want to get out of here as fast as possible. That is what the motion is really about.

I want to say very clearly on the record that the NDP has no problems whatsoever with staying here until June 22, which is what is scheduled. Quite frankly, we have no problem with extended hours. What my party and I are concerned about is that Standing Order 56.1 will get used probably as early as Wednesday and the House will adjourn.

I know that most Canadians do not fully appreciate the amount of important work that happens outside this chamber and particularly in committee. Again, in many incompetent ways, the government kept pushing crime bills through the justice committee, through the two special legislative committees it set up, and also in some work that we have been doing in the public safety and national security committee. There is a lot of work going on, both in terms of bills that have come from the government itself and in terms of a large number of private members' bills on specific crime issues, which we have been dealing with.

A number of those, probably three, four or five, and both private members' bills and government bills, would be dealt with and completed if we stayed sitting in committee until June 22. If in fact we adjourn earlier than that, all of this work will be postponed into the fall. As well, depending on whether the government actually prorogues sometime through the early fall and comes back with a new session of Parliament, which is the rumour is floating around, some of those bills may be ended completely and never will see the light of day.

Thus, it is quite important for the House to continue to sit. We in the NDP understand that. We as the NDP are quite prepared to sit here. We as the NDP will do whatever we can to thwart the government's attempt to adjourn the House early.

The motion, though, is misleading for the public when it tries to let the public know that the government really wants to work longer hours. That is not what it is about. We believe very clearly that if we do not stop the Conservatives the House will adjourn in the next few days.

Specifically with regard to Bill C-30, it is one of the bills that badly needs to get in front of the House. All three opposition parties are supportive. They have gone to great lengths and have done a great amount of very good work in amending the bill into a form that in fact will allow the country to deal with the crisis we are confronted with as far as global warming and climate change are concerned.

In that respect, we would very much like the government to commit this week or next week to bring that bill forward for a fulsome debate at report stage and third reading. It is ready to go. All the background work has been done. In that regard I am proposing at this time to move an amendment to the motion before the House which would read as follows: “That the motion be amended to add immediately after 10 p.m. the following: 'and if the government calls Bill C-30 at any time, the House shall continue to sit until the bill has been decided at all stages'”.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was happy to allow the House leader for the Bloc to go ahead of me in the usual order.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

I want to spend a few minutes laying out what is going on here.

First, we are all aware, as members of the House, that we receive a calendar every year. The calendar is very clear in that the House is intended to sit until June 22. We all agreed to this, all parties, through the whips. It is something with which we are all familiar.

We also are aware that on this day the government can, as it has done, move a motion for the extension of hours. We are debating a motion now as to whether the hours should be extended from June 13 to June 21 to 10 p.m. every night. The question that is really before us is this. Is this a warranted measure? After hearing the government House leader, this is a crisis that the government has manufactured.

Let us be very clear about what has taken place. This is happening because of the incompetence of the government in the management of its legislative agenda, its lack of consultation with opposition parties and its lack of calling its own bills. For example, we heard the government House leader talk about the budget bill, Bill C-52. He has said that he wants to get it through. There were 11 days when the Conservatives could have called the bill for second reading and they failed to do so. Instead they brought in all kinds of other bills that were quite inconsequential. If the budget were so important, they had ample opportunity to bring the bill forward for second reading.

I point out on the record that once it went through second reading, when the Conservatives finally brought it forward into the House and it went to the finance committee, the finance committee met for four sessions only to hear witnesses. It in effect fast-tracked that bill. It heard witnesses very quickly on a budget bill, which is core to our whole reason for being here. Then it was brought back to the House. We had one day of debate on the report stage. Now we are now debating third reading.

When we look at what has happened, it is clearly a manipulation by the government itself on its own agenda. I think what is happening is the Conservatives have brought forward this motion today for extension, even though they are saying the extended hours would go to June 21, so they can cut a deal to get out of here early. If we get out of here early and they get their budget bill, which we know they want, there will be no committees, no question period and no debate on other bills. That clearly needs to be put on the record.

In terms of management of other business, we have heard the government House leader say today that all these justice bills have to come forward. If we look at the agenda of the justice committee, the government made it a priority to deal with private members' business. It has taken up the valuable time of the committee to deal with private members' bills. Now we are being told it has all these other bills that it wants to get through. It really does not cut it. It does not make sense.

I really appreciate the position you took on Friday, Mr. Speaker. At the very last moment on Friday, the government tried to bring in a very rare Standing Order, used for emergency debates, to deal with Bill C-52 and extend the hours to rush the bill through. To your credit, you listened to what members in the House had to say and you made the correct decision in the end. I want to thank you for that. These things are really important. We have to play in a way that is open and transparent, and I do not believe the government is doing that at this point. Therefore, we are very suspicious and skeptical about the agenda.

Again, another irony is the Conservatives are saying that they want to extend the hours of debate. Yet we have never seen the light of day for Bill C-30, the clean air and climate change bill that came out of committee. The bill was amended by the opposition. It is a bill that would work, and it has the support of the majority of members in the House. However, the government itself is refusing to call it forward. We will stay here for as long as it takes to debate that bill. We consider it is an urgent matter that Canadians want us to address.

We will stay here for as long as it takes to debate that bill. We consider it is an urgent matter, which Canadians want us to address. It is a priority that goes beyond all partisanship, but I did not hear the government House leader mention that bill.

The Conservatives would rather get out of here, not having to bear the public scrutiny in question period and committees and not debate all the other bills. They just want to get the budget through. I fear they have made a deal with the official opposition. I do not know that, but I can almost guarantee, even though these extended hours will be approved, in a couple of days, maybe Wednesday, they will find a way to adjourn the House. That is really their agenda.

As the Bloc House leader has mentioned, one bill that we believe must be brought forward is the ways and means motion. It used to be called Bill C-55, which was the wage earner protection bill protecting workers from bankruptcy. This has been an outstanding matter.

The government, again, has not engaged in adequate consultation with the opposition parties, which want to get this bill through. It was passed in a previous Parliament, but was never given royal assent. It is an absolute injustice that today workers still do not have protection from bankruptcy. Millions of dollars have been lost, legitimately earned and deserved wages of workers because they have not had the protection of that bill.

I want to put on the record today that this attempt by the government to bring in extended hours is really about adjourning the House. It wants to get a very bad budget bill through. It looks like the official opposition is now complicit in getting through a budget bill, which, as we have seen, is a disaster in Atlantic Canada in that it has broken the accord. It is a disaster in terms of so many other areas, whether it is housing and homelessness, student summer programs or the environment.

We know the government wants to get the budget passed and that is all it cares about. I am very concerned we are facilitating its agenda under the guise of extending hours when really what it will do is rush to adjourn the House. We know it does not want to be accountable or go through question period.

Let us not forget that the Conservatives were filibustering in the committees. The Conservative members were making the committees dysfunctional. Why? Because they did not want business to go ahead in committees.

We found out about their 200 page playbook, a handbook for all the tactics that its members and chairs could use in the committees. This is further evidence that the Conservatives real game plan is not to deal with all the legislation about which the government House leader spoke. They want to rush through a bad budget bill that has barely been debated.

Nobody is holding up the budget bill, by the way. There are no tactics being employed by the opposition to hold it up. We want to have an adequate debate. We want to ensure that people can say, on the record, what they think about the budget because we have a lot of criticisms about it.

Let us be very clear. The motion today is under the guise that government members are ready to work and extend the hours of the House until 10 p.m. every night. Really it is about getting out of here, for the Conservatives to get beyond public scrutiny, to shut down the House, committees and question period once the budget bill is passed. That is what we will see happen.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Joliette's comments about Catherine, who works in the lobby for the Bloc Québécois. I would like to say that she really worked professionally with all the political parties. I would like to wish her good luck.

I have a question for the Bloc Québécois. The House Leader of the Bloc Québécois talked about many important bills. I know that the budget is very important to him since he is voting with the Conservatives on it. This is very important for the Bloc members. But my question is about the other bills, such as Bill C-30.

I know that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie worked very hard on environmental issues. The government could introduce a motion to adjourn the House before June 22. Even though the calendar shows that the House can sit until June 22, it could be done pursuant to Standing Order 56.1. We need to have 25 members here. Since the Bloc Québécois is very disciplined, it will have no problem keeping 25 members in Ottawa. Will the Bloc members work with the other parties to ensure that there will be 25 members in the House of Commons so the Conservatives will not be able to adjourn before June 22?

It is all well and good to extend the number of hours per day, but if we adjourn on Wednesday, it will not do any good. Bill C-30 will be gone, Bill C-59 as well, and Bill C-29 will no longer be there. There is also the bill for workers.

Can we have a guarantee from the Bloc Québécois that they will keep 25 people in the House of Commons to ensure that it will not adjourn?

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

Mr. Speaker, further to the question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I want to ask the hon. member the question.

As far as extending sitting hours is concerned, given the choice between discussing the trip to Berlin by the legislative group—which I was a part of with other members—and discussing Bill C-30, which would take an incredible amount of parliamentary work and countless hours of sessions, how would he prioritize these two choices?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi was a member of the Berlin mission and really appreciated the work that was done there. However, with respect to the report, I do not see the problem. Nevertheless, we must not evade the issue. We are not very proud of our Prime Minister's performance at the G-8 with respect to achieving phases I and II of the Kyoto targets.

As such, I think that all of the parties agree that the government should bring Bill C-30 back to the House as soon as possible. This bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We have to continue the debate on this issue because the government has no allies in this House when it comes to environmental issues.

If we take a serious look at the proposals made by the Minister of the Environment, by the Prime Minister at the G-8, and by the Minister of Finance in this House, we will find that they do not meet the Kyoto targets. Furthermore, they do not include the territorial approach that would enable Quebec to take into account its efforts in past years in order to meet the Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels.

As we all know, the Prime Minister said at the G-8 meeting that he found the European community's territorial, country by country approach to negotiating targets very interesting. Despite the parliamentary secretary's question, I think that this issue must be addressed. The problem is that the government's approach is no good. It has not agreed to a territorial approach; it has no absolute intensity targets; and it is allowing greenhouse gas emissions to rise.

There has also been talk of opening a carbon exchange in Montreal to trade derivatives and take care of this economic and environmental aspect that would help our manufacturing industry. That said, in order to have a carbon exchange, we need absolute targets. The government does not seem to have understood that yet.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, there are few issues of greater import to this House or greater import to Canadians than a successful battle against climate change. In respect of the work of this Parliament and the work of our standing committees, one of the finest bits of work that was done was the rewriting of Bill C-30.

The bill was obviously dead on arrival when it was first presented in this House last fall. Everybody agreed, whether they were in Parliament or in the NGO movement or in the private sector or in provincial governments, that Bill C-30 as originally drafted was an utter disaster.

Now a parliamentary committee has gone to work on Bill C-30 and has actually made it a good piece of work. I am glad to say that it includes the vast majority of what my leader first proposed in terms of the concept of a carbon budget and the other measures to get serious in this country and around the world in the battle against climate change.

I think it would be very useful if the government would now pick up the good work that was done by the parliamentary committee, bring Bill C-30 back to this House, so we can have a real debate on the things that need to be done to actually deal with the climate change issue.

In addition to that, I would also hope that we would have a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government, in proposing this motion today, has chosen once again to maintain its habitual lack of consultation and reluctance to attempt a collaborative approach to organizing the business of the House.

On more than one occasion, as I think the Chair will remember, I asked directly whether the government intended to make use of Standing Order 27. As other House leaders can confirm, the reply was, “probably not”. I do not think we would be off base in the opposition in expecting that if that were no longer the case, if the government had in fact changed its mind, that it would have decently given us a heads-up that it was going to propose this motion today, at least given us that notice some time earlier than around one o'clock this afternoon.

Frankly, as we saw the government House leader making his travels across the floor of the House, I will not say where he went, the heckling and yelling as he departed the chamber obviously indicates the kind of demeanour of which we have to deal.

I do not see what there is on the order paper at present that this motion will get through the House any more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. I presume, judging by the government House leader's remarks, that the government is principally concerned with Bill C-52, the budget bill.

It has represented to the House and to the public that the government is now extremely concerned the bill will not receive royal assent in time for certain expenditures to be booked in the appropriate fiscal year. Let us be clear. The fiscal year the Conservatives are talking about is 2006-07, and that is the point.

The issue is retroactive fiscal bookings for the last fiscal year, not the future fiscal year, as members would have gathered from the remarks of the government House leader. If there is concern about the lateness of the date, the government really has only itself to blame.

Usually federal budgets are delivered in or about the third week of February, which then permits the introduction of a budget implementation bill by the end of that month. If things are properly managed, this would permit the bill to be in committee before the end of March and to be passed at all stages by the end of May or, at the very latest, the beginning of June.

This year the government chose, for its own partisan reasons, to delay the budget until the third week of March. We did not even see it until then. Then it unilaterally interrupted the budget debate. Then having finished that, belatedly, it interrupted, again, the second reading debate on the budget implementation Bill C-52. That interruption lasted for three full weeks, getting the bill to committee only in the middle of May.

As a consequence, the government then bulldozed the bill through the committee, breaking procedural agreements, denying many interested and informed citizens and groups the right to testify on the bill. Let it be clearly understood that any procedural issue on Bill C-52 is a direct result of government breaking the agreement on the process, which had been fully settled by members of the committee.

Nevertheless, the bill is now only in its third day of debate at third reading and there is every indication that the third reading and final stage would come to an end in debate in the House by the end of business tomorrow at the latest.

It is important to underscore what these dates are with respect to the budget. Remember that the House resumed in the final week of January. The budget was not presented to the House until March 19, fully eight weeks into the parliamentary sitting. That was followed by a ways and means motion and the introduction of the budget bill, but that was delayed because the government interrupted its own budget debate on the financial principles of the government.

Its budget was late, the budget debate was unilaterally delayed by itself and then it finally got around to introducing the budget bill on March 29, which was debated at second reading for the first time on March 30. It was then debated in a haphazard, sporadic fashion, brought forward to the floor by the government, until April 23, and then it was hoisted altogether. The House did not see it again until May 14, full three weeks later.

Finally, it went to the committee, not as a result of any filibuster by the opposition or any party in the opposition. The delay was entirely the procedural mismanagement of the government. It was there for less than two weeks and one of those weeks was a break week when Parliament was not even sitting.

It finally passed through the committee, rather expeditiously, thanks to the cooperation of the opposition, and it was brought back to be debated at report stage on June 4. For how long? One day, that is all the report stage took. Now it is at third reading where there have been three days of debate, and probably a conclusion could have been arrived at very easily by the end of the day tomorrow.

This is why I made the point at the beginning of my remarks that there really is nothing on this order paper that could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of business without the measure the government House leader has introduced. Obviously it is a tactic to blame the opposition for the delays that lie entirely within the control of the government.

What is it then? If it is not Bill C-52, what is it that causes the government to move the motion today? Despite frequent requests for the government to outline its realistic legislative priorities before the summer, all we have heard repeatedly from the government House leader and from others on the government's side is a flow of partisan rhetoric. Legislation has in fact been moving along through the House and through committees, despite the government's erratic management of its agenda.

In fact, the most controversial bill on the order paper, and this is what gives me perhaps a little hope here, is probably Bill C-30, the clean air act, as it has been revised by members of Parliament. Significantly, only the government has been stalling it up to now. However, now we will have some extra time, some extra hours of sitting every day beginning on Wednesday.

Can we then conclude that the extra time the government is seeking is to facilitate the work of the House in consideration of Bill C-30? I certainly hope so. It is in this fervent hope that I indicate to the House that my party, the official Liberal opposition, will support the minister's motion for the extension of hours.

In the time available, in addition to Bill C-52, which will probably be done tomorrow, and in addition to Bill C-30, which I hope the government has the courage to recall and put before the House once again, the official opposition also looks forward to making progress on Bill C-11, lowering freight rates for farmers, on Bill C-14, dealing with foreign adoptions, on Bill C-23, dealing with criminal procedure, on Bill C-29, dealing with Air Canada and the use of official languages, on Bill C-35, dealing with bail reform, on Bill C-47, dealing with the Olympic, on Bill S-6 and Bill C-51, dealing with land claims and on Bill C-40, the private member's legislation that would provide free postage for mail from Canada to our troops in Afghanistan.

Then there is an item that was referred to in question period today. This is the bill we are anxiously awaiting to see, the one dealing with wage earner protection. I hope the government will follow through on the commitment given in question period, that it will table the bill in amended form so it can be passed at all stages and brought into law before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Let me mention one other matter, which is outstanding and which should be dealt with by the House, or at least dealt with by the government when the House is sitting. This is the examination undertaken a few weeks ago by Mr. Brown in connection with the matters that have been of great concern to Canadians in respect of the RCMP pension fund.

As we understand it, there is a report due from Mr. Brown on June 15. That was the original undertaking given by the Minister of Public Safety. It would be very important for us to know that the examination is on time, that we will hear from Mr. Brown on time, and that the Minister of Public Safety will take the step that he promised to take and make that report public immediately.

Perhaps the government might also consider, in whatever time that remains before the summer recess, reforming its approach to the mood in the House. The mood could be improved if the government would refrain from certain of its more hostile practices. For example: no more gratuitous attack ads, no more broken agreements on how witnesses will be heard, no more manuals about dirty tricks for disrupting parliamentary business, and no more devious games to misuse Standing Orders of the House. A little good old fashioned good faith could change the mood for the better.

Environment Week

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honour of Environment Week. Unfortunately, this year Environment Week is a reminder that the Conservative government celebrated its return to power by slashing over $5.6 billion in environmental spending.

Following a strategy of deny, delay and deceive, the government released a climate change plan rejected by 9 of 10 provinces and not endorsed by any independent third party. True to form, it allows emissions to increase well past 2010 and contains gaping loopholes for the oil sands.

After rewriting the clean air act, Bill C-30 has been suppressed and debate around it censored. Just an hour ago, at the environment committee, we confirmed that the Minister of the Environment misled all Canadians by claiming that his ecotrust funding had been delivered.

After all the photo ops, after all the gimmicks and after all the bravado, now we learn that his department cannot confirm the status of $1.5 billion while the Prime Minister works to weaken G-8 commitments abroad.

It is Environment Week. How unfortunate that Canada has been tossed into complete uncertainty about its environmental future.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan constitutes a step backward. Environmentalists and the international community were not impressed by the Prime Minister's speech at the G-8 summit, and rightly so. The plan does not respect the Kyoto protocol, nor does it respect this Parliament.

Why is the Prime Minister trying to sell a bogus product to international communities? We have a solution in the form of Bill C-30 on climate change. Why is the Prime Minister abandoning the Kyoto protocol and reneging on a commitment made by Canada?

Fisheries Act, 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, I answered the question for the parliamentary secretary before but I will give the answer to the hon. member for Labrador who spoke so eloquently on his heritage and his people's heritage in the beautiful part of Labrador and attached to Newfoundland regarding the aspect of the fisheries and what it has meant to the survival of his people for over thousands of years.

When we asked about consultation on the bill, we know there was none, as we have proven already in the House. We have asked the parliamentary secretary to table the documents in the House but so far the government has refused to do it.

However, we do have indications here. I will take the province of British Columbia. There is a gentleman by the name Byng Giraud who is the senior director of the Mining Association of British Columbia. The new bill has 253 different clauses with 107 pages, a lot of it written in legalese. It takes someone of very high academic standing quite a long time to go through the bill and to understand it.

This was tabled on December 13, 2006 in the afternoon here in Ottawa. On December 14 the B.C. Mining Association issued a press release saying that it was pleased with the new act.

How can these six reputable organizations, the B.C. Business Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the forest industry, the Mining Association, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the B.C. Agricultural Council, say that the bill is great after only 12 hours from the introduction of the bill? How did they have that analysis?

We find out that in August 2006 they made recommendations to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the environmental aspects of the bill. Now we find that of the 16 recommendations they made, close to 14 of them are in the bill.

It also turns out that Byng Giraud just happens to be on the National Council of the Conservative Party for British Columbia. The government would not talk to fishermen in his riding. It would not talk to the fishermen in British Columbia or Nova Scotia. It would not talk to the families, the people who are involved in the fishing industry.

I keep reminding the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that he is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, not the minister of mining.

My hon. colleague is absolutely correct when his colleague from Gander brought in the hoist amendment. We challenged Bill C-30. We took it to a committee and rewrote it and it is something we are proud of. The government is not. We ask the same for the fisheries bill. We ask that it be brought before the committee before second reading where fishermen and their families will be able to debate it. Let us write a new act that we can all be proud of and let us all move forward.

The Environment

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of the eco-fraud that the government keeps dishing out.

Yesterday the Pembina Institute punched holes through the environment minister's plan. Today the minister was caught saying there were fewer greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants while he was a member of the Ontario government, when in fact there were more. The government's environmental agenda has no credibility.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that Parliament created a better plan than his minister did? Why will he not bring back Bill C-30 for a vote in the House?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we saw two bad changes made to Bill C-30. Let me tell the House about each of them.

Bill C-30, as amended by the Liberal Party, contains an unlimited license to pollute. That is wrong. If there is an unlimited licence to pollute, where countries can simply buy their way out of actual greenhouse gas reduction, that will not cut it.

I also take great offence and have great concern with the Liberal approach to allow the Minister of the Environment, with the stroke of a pen, to allow pollution to continue to rise in some parts of the country. That is wrong and it is bad for our environment.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the current Prime Minister said:

I will always bear in mind that the people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government.

It is time he practised what he used to preach.

The opposition parties built a strong plan to fight global warming and wrote it into Bill C-30, but the government refuses to bring it back to Parliament for a vote.

When will the Prime Minister live up to his 2004 commitment and bring Bill C-30 back for a vote in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government tried to convince us that at the G-8 summit it would support the demands to reduce greenhouse gases by 2050. However, in order for Canada to meet its obligations, there are only two plans to ensure that the 2^o C global warming limit is not surpassed: our bill on climate change accountability, and Bill C-30, the amended clean air and climate change act.

Which of these two plans will the Prime Minister be taking with him to the G-8?

Fisheries Act, 2007

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right, there have been some attempts to address the needs of updating the Fisheries Act, and that is why all the members who have spoken have made it clear that there are substantial areas of concurrence, but there are some that are not.

The member will know that I brought before the House a disallowance motion with regard to an aspect of the current Fisheries Act with regard to basically law made through a regulation.

I can read into the record the quotes from the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who berated the then government for breaking the law, but when the legislation came back again in this Parliament, the same person, now the fisheries minister, argued totally on the other side, saying that the government will take care of everything, but there is some disagreement there.

When the Fisheries Minister came before the joint Commons-Senate scrutiny of regulations committee, he promised that we would deal with this stuff.

The bill is already in difficulty. I am hoping that the minister will recognize that he still has an existing Fisheries Act which is in violation of the laws because it makes laws through the regulations and it should not. It is a simple amendment. A two line amendment to the existing Fisheries Act would solve it, but it has significant implications to licensing.

The minister has had different positions, depending on where he is at the time of day. He will tell us one thing, but is not afraid to tell us a different thing if he happens to be in government or in opposition. He will tell us that it is okay to send a bill to committee before second reading if it suits his purpose. This one does not suit his purpose and he is not afraid to say that right here, even though Bill C-30 goes to committee.

The minister needs to come clean. The minister has to understand that there are significant areas of question and possible weakness in the bill that members would like to have resolved. Those things may have to be resolved prior to a second reading vote.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not have a fishery in my riding, it does border on Lake Ontario where there is a fair bit of recreational fishing going on. I listened to the debate this morning and there obviously is some disagreement among the members with regard to the appropriate process which Bill C-45 should undertake. Let me address a couple of the points that have been raised in debate which deserve some comment.

First of all, the issue of a bill going to committee prior to second reading has been the representation of a number of members with regard to this bill. It has to do with the fact that the bill has not been amended in some 36 years. It has to do with the fact that there are numerous stakeholders. Fisheries in Canada are extremely complex and there are many stakeholders as has been pointed out.

We have heard the argument that the bill should be hoisted and go to committee for some consultations. The allegation is there have not been consultations and it would appear that representations made by various stakeholder groups would tend to support that allegation, that consultations should have taken place. I should note that even in the summary of the bill it is stated:

This enactment repeals and replaces the Fisheries Act. It seeks to provide for the sustainable development of Canadian fisheries and fish habitat in collaboration with fishers, the provinces, aboriginal groups and other Canadians.

I do not know how some members define collaboration, but I would suspect that it does constitute to some extent, maybe a great extent, that there has been ample consultation with regard to a draft text or at least the principal issues.

The question with regard to second reading has to do with once the House has passed a bill at second reading, Parliament has given the bill approval in principle. The bill then goes to committee where witnesses are called. There is an opportunity at committee stage to propose amendments from time to time. Sometimes there are an enormous number of amendments made and many of them are ruled out of order. The reason they would be ruled out of order is that they would be contradictory to the decision of Parliament that the bill had received approval in principle. Effectively committee stage amendments are meant only to correct errors or to make certain modifications which are compatible with the fundamental principles of the bill.

Today in debate members have provided a number of examples of changes they would like to see to the bill as it is right now as we debate it at second reading, which in their view and I suspect in the view of the committee clerk, would be out of order because they are beyond the scope of the bill or amend the fundamental principle of the bill which has been approved by Parliament.

It is a very important question. I wanted to comment on this because the fisheries minister himself rose in the House in posing a question in which he dismissed referring the bill to committee prior to second reading. Subject to checking the record, if I could recall his statement, it was basically that it would be an opportunity for a whole bunch of people and virtually everybody would want to come before committee and hijack the process and we would be subjected to listening to all the input from various stakeholders who might be environmentalists, fisher persons, regulators, jurisdictional representatives from the provinces or whatever.

I have two points to make. The first point is that is consultation. That is listening. That is an important part of the process of making good laws and wise decisions. On my second point, I would refer to what the member who is now the Deputy Speaker said in the House, that delay is an essential part of the legislative process. It is part of democracy to filibuster, to debate fully, to raise as many questions as one may have. To some it may be viewed as disruptive to the flow of business, and apparently the minister views it that way.

When members feel strongly enough about an issue related to a bill, they have tools they can use. They have the tools of debate. They have the tools to make motions. They have the tools to call witnesses. Under our Standing Orders, they have the tools to be very thorough and exhaustive in their attention to a piece of legislation.

The minister has made it clear on the record that he does not want to hear from all the stakeholders in any great detail. This bill was tabled in December 2006 and has been languishing around. I do not know why it did not come up sooner, because it is an important bill. There are a number of outstanding issues and it is very important that they be dealt with. The minister clearly did not want to hear from all of the stakeholders who would have all kinds of questions, ideas and concerns. That is what the legislative process is all about.

I dare say that many members in this place will not have had an opportunity to read Bill C-45 in its totality. It is over 100 pages long. This bill replaces the existing act fully. It repeals the old act. If we are going to do the job properly, we have to go through the bill clause by clause to determine what has changed and to determine whether or not there is an understanding of why it may have changed. It is very difficult. Even in the brief 20 minutes that each member is given to speak at second reading, a member would not get into very much in terms of the essence of some of the details.

The first speaker raised some very important points. One had to do with transferring a licence on retirement. Another was the role of the tribunals. Another one that I thought was quite interesting was the delegation of the minister's responsibilities to DFO officials. This is a whole new regime. There was a suggestion that there have been cases in the past of abusing that authority to grant or to refuse licences.

If we think about it, there is a lot on the table for parliamentarians. There is a hoist motion, which basically asks Parliament to cease this process at second reading and to send the bill to committee for consideration. Interesting enough, when the minister made his argument on why we should not do that because he did not want to hear from all the stakeholders, from the various groups, aboriginals or commercial fishermen or jurisdictional individuals, et cetera, he forgot about bills like Bill C-30.

Bill C-30, when it was first tabled in the House, was the government's alternative to Kyoto. It is the environmental plan. It was leaked to environmental groups so that they could have an opportunity to respond. A week before the bill was even tabled in the House, they critiqued it in its totality and it was unanimous that Bill C-30 was a failure and it was never going to get anywhere. The bill was tabled in the House, but we did not have a debate on it. We have never had a debate on that bill because the government decided to send it to committee before second reading.

As we know, Bill C-30, a very bad bill, the clean air act, was totally rewritten by parliamentarians who heard a plethora of witnesses to make sure the bill was going to deliver in terms of our international commitments, and the appropriate processes and targets for our greenhouse gas emission undertakings.

That bill was totally rewritten by the committee. It was based on expert testimony and the best work possible by the members who were selected by each of the parties to be on this special legislative committee.

If consulting with Canadians on the clean air act is appropriate before second reading because it is complicated, there are a lot of diverging views, there are areas in which it is not overtly clear to members why certain steps have been taken, sending it to committee is the place to do it.

The minister makes his argument about it not going to committee before second reading because the Conservatives do not want to hear from these people and yet the government itself referred another bill to committee before second reading. In fact, that is not the only one. One cannot have it both ways. One either recognizes the circumstances a bill is in or one risks losing the bill and having to find another way to do it.

We cannot afford, quite frankly, to lose this new Fisheries Act because there are many changes that have taken place and many new areas that should be dealt with that are currently not in the existing legislation. One that I happened to notice and something that I have spent a fair bit of time on in my involvement with the International Joint Commission has to do with alien invasive species. In part 3 of this bill it actually refers to aquatic invasive species.

Canadians may be familiar, for instance, with zebra mussels, which are an alien invasive species or what is called an aquatic invasive species. I understand there are some 30 of these species in the Great Lakes system and they destroy the fish habitat. In the work that is being done so far, for every one alien invasive species that is treated, dealt with and gotten rid of, another one appears. How does it appear? There is certainly speculation about how they come in but it has to do with ship ballast. They are brought in by ships that come from abroad.

I noted in this area that it is an offence to transport an aquatic invasive species. I wonder what would happen if a ship coming to Canada has a listed aquatic invasive species that it is not aware of but is discovered. I am going to be very interested in seeing the regulations on how to deal with it. I suppose it could even involve a court case in terms of whether the ship owners knew or ought to have known that in the normal practice of managing the ballast of a ship, they would have probably collected certain species that would be classified as an aquatic invasive species.

There is certainly that area. The International Joint Commission is a group made up of representation from Canada and the United States which share common waterways. It is responsible for conducting studies and making observations to determine what the issues are and to suggest and discuss possible solutions.

The only problem with the IJC though is that it has no authority and no power because half of its members represent the U.S. government and the other half represent the Canadian government. It cannot unilaterally take charge of a situation and do something about it, so it takes a lot more work. I would be very interested to see how the responsibilities and the authorities that the minister has in the bill would be able to dovetail with the responsibilities of the IJC.

In part 3 clause 69.(1) states that: “No person shall export, import or transport any member of a prescribed aquatic invasive species”. When I read further, clause 70 states:

The minister may, subject to the regulations--

And regulations will be made at some future date.

--destroy or authorize any person to destroy, in accordance with any conditions imposed by the Minister, any member of

(a) a prescribed aquatic invasive species; or

(b) any other species that the Minister considers to be an aquatic invasive species as defined in the regulations.

I would think that this may be a problem because when the minister now has the authority to designate any other species to be an aquatic invasive species, we are probably making law through regulations and I am not sure that is going to get by the scrutiny of regulations committee but we will have to see on that.

In any event, even the small section which is only about four clauses in part 3 on aquatic invasive species, I could think of numerous questions that I would have of the IJC, that I would have of those who import and export and have ships using the waterways of Canada.

The other area that I want to comment on has to do with what was raised by one hon. member as an example of what can happen during second reading. As the member had indicated, we had Bill C-257 which was a bill related to replacement workers. It was to be amended at committee. There were some amendments. Ultimately, it came back that in the opinion of the Speaker, in consultation with the clerks, that the amendments made at committee were beyond the scope of the bill. Even though they were certainly directly related but what they did was they touched upon another bill which was not mentioned in Bill C-257.

Therefore, there are even good amendments which do not get incorporated into a bill on technical reasons. This is a very good example. In fact, right now a new bill on the same subject matter related to replacement workers, Bill C-415, has been ruled to be non-votable by a subcommittee of procedure and House affairs for the reasons that it is same or similar.

I can understand the argument that the vast majority of Bill C-415 is identical to Bill C-257 which was defeated by the House. Therefore, we could argue that the majority of that bill has already been defeated by the House and to put the question on those provisions again would be redundant and therefore the bill in the subcommittee's view is not votable.

It has now been appealed and it is still under review, but even something as simple as a reference to another piece of legislation may be enough to undermine the acceptability of changes at the committee stage.

I have to say in my experience of almost 14 years now that it is extremely difficult to get changes made at committee which are substantive. I think the members know that. I think the minister knows that. I think the minister also knows that should we have the kind of consultations that members have been asking for, that changes are going to be required here. He should also know that there is a great deal of support for the vast majority of the bill but there are some areas of weakness and members have raised those.

I believe that in a minority situation, this is a prime example of where the parties should be collaborating on the areas in which the bill can be improved. With that, I will conclude my remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the name Josephine Kennedy comes up now and then, a good woman from Cape Breton who represents a fair number of fishermen in the Cape Breton and Nova Scotia area.

This is an individual who cares about one thing and one thing only: the livelihood of fishermen and their families in these small coastal communities in Nova Scotia. She has said exactly what the hon. member has said, that what we want is that strategic pause. We want a chance to seriously look at this bill and what it means for them, their families, their communities and their futures.

They have already had this since December. It is almost June and they do not like what they see.

I would remind the Minister of Fisheries that he talked about consultations on Bill C-30. That was the clean air act which we in the NDP took to a committee before second reading, rewrote it and brought it back, so the minister may want to correct himself on that one.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Sydney—Victoria a question. Does he think that it should be the fishermen, their families and their communities from coast to coast to coast, especially those first nations individuals in Cape Breton and others right across the country, who should have a say? They are the ones who should write the act. They are the ones who should come before us and say, “Here is how we want to see the fish habitat protected. Here is how we want to see the fish managed for our future, because we are the ones who do the fishing”.

Does he not believe that it should be up to them, in a parliamentary democracy, to tell us that they want to see and how their lives should be managed in the future?

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to my colleagues in the NDP for ensuring that Bill C-30 sees the light of day.

My question concerns previous comments made by a Liberal colleague who said that this bill in fact was unnecessary and that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act ensures environmental protection.

It is my understanding that one of the reasons the previous Liberal government failed to act on the environment, even after signing the Kyoto accord, was because these decisions had to be made under this act, under CEPA, behind closed doors, and even the environment minister could not get support for initiatives on the environment.

Could my hon. colleague comment on the changes in Bill C-30 and the importance of public accountability on environmental issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great joy that I am taking part in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day.

The opposition motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, given the desire of Canadians that this Parliament meaningfully address concerns about air quality and climate change, the government should call Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, for debate and decision at Report stage and Second reading as soon as possible.

From the outset, I would like to indicate to this House that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this motion, which, according to our party, is essential. It is essential for facing the climate change phenomenon, which will have consequences for the environment, our ecosystems and our natural resources.

Global warming will have a very negative economic impact if we do not soon start to correct the situation, if do not soon force those who are considered major industrial emitters responsible for increasing greenhouse gas emissions to commit to a real change in their production methods, and if we do not soon reduce our dependence on oil. Major economic consequences will result from our inaction.

We needed to proceed with consideration of Bill C-30 quickly. It was the responsibility of the opposition to amend the bill to meet the expectations of the people of Quebec and Canada. On October 19, 2006, when Bill C-30 was introduced in the House of Commons by the former Minister of the Environment, this government tried to have people believe that Bill C-30 was an adequate solution to combating climate change and that just because this government introduced a bill on air quality, which did not integrate the Kyoto protocol targets or targets for the short and medium terms, that the public would give it a blank cheque.

The response was exactly the opposite. In Canada and Quebec, there was an unprecedented angry outcry against this government, a government that decided to scrap the Kyoto protocol targets. Quebeckers reacted strongly, in the streets of Montreal, for example. They reacted through their civil society, through community organizations, as well as in the business community, the Cascades company, for instance, and through other Quebec businesses that saw that the government's decision to do away with the Kyoto protocol would have serious repercussions for the Quebec economy.

This became clear when the new President of France, Mr. Sarkozy, clearly indicated during a debate and again following his election that he planned to impose a carbon tax on all countries that refuse to comply with the Kyoto protocol. This is no trivial matter for Quebec. Forty percent of Canadian exports originate in Quebec. What is this, if not a telling blow against inaction? To not take action against climate change will not only decrease business opportunities for Quebec companies that wish to sell carbon credits they have amassed as a result of changes made to industrial processes, but the tax will also have repercussions for our economy, if the WTO deems such a tax legitimate.

The government is trying to make us believe that implementing the Kyoto protocol will lead Canada into one of the worst economic recessions ever; however, the opposite is true, Madam Speaker.

We have had a change in the chair occupant. We seldom have a woman in the chair, and I congratulate you.

It is not true that implementing the Kyoto protocol will lead to economic catastrophe. Some say that it will be worse than the 1929 crash. That is what we were told in recent weeks by economists hired by the government. We would have to look back 60 or 70 years to find a catastrophe of such proportions. The reality is quite different. It is inaction that will lead to economic decline.

It will be a lasting decline because we will not have adjusted to this paradigm shift, the change in the development of our economy, which was originally based on investment in natural resources. Given that climate change is a phenomenon which must be addressed with urgency, it is not right that we learn today that the government is thinking of buying the Mackenzie pipeline. Two years ago, it was valued at $7 billion and today we learn that it is valued at approximately $16 billion.

What hope do we have of this government fighting climate change when it is thinking of saving from bankruptcy a project whose sole purpose is to develop the oil and gas industry, which, in future, will contribute to the increase in greenhouse gases? It makes no sense for the government to table a plan that looks at greenhouse gas reductions in terms of emission intensity and not in terms of absolute results. It does not make sense to promote reductions by production unit. It is not right to try to make Canadians believe that they want to decrease greenhouse gases by 18%. On the contrary, the facts show that greenhouse gas emissions in one industrial sector alone—the tar sands—will increase by179%, and that increase will have an impact on the Canadian economy and the Canadian reality.

So, this is a government that must side not only with Canadians, but also with international opinion and consensus. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps releasing new reports. There is confirmed scientific evidence that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is, at 90% to 95%, an anthropogenic phenomenon, that is, caused by human activities. There is increasing evidence to that effect, yet the government refuses to take action in the short term. That is totally unacceptable.

That is unacceptable, because we, the opposition, had decided to act responsibly, despite what the government would have people and the public believe. As early as November 1, after accepting the Prime Minister's invitation to refer Bill C-30 to a legislative committee, the opposition had decided to act responsibly. The word “responsible” must be remembered, when we look back to the review of Bill C-30. We set aside the partisanship that sometimes comes into play here. In this House, we do not always agree with the Liberals or the New Democrats, but the one thing on which we do agree is that climate change requires immediate action.

We will not accept a plan—or a bill such as Bill C-30—which pushes back to the year 2050 the greenhouse gas reduction targets. We, on this side, and this includes the NDP and the Liberal Party, are making a solemn commitment to make the fight against climate change a priority, and rest assured that we will remain focused on that objective.

We made that commitment consensually, by telling the government that we want greenhouse gas reduction targets of 6% based on 1990 levels. We did that by setting a medium-term greenhouse gas reduction target of about 20% for 2020, again based on the 1990 levels. We also increased this Parliament's sense of responsibility, by setting a longer term objective of between 60% and 80% reductions.

We did not limit ourselves like the government did by setting a long term objective because we set short and medium term objectives and we also reiterated our commitment to setting up a carbon exchange. This is essential for Quebec and it is the best tool available to help us achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets. This is a growing market, and we think it will be worth over $70 billion in a few years.

The government believes in implementing the market system, yet when it is time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to apply this market theory to environmental policy, the government is not on board. The reverse must be done.

If it works for Europe, which has six exchanges that enable it to meet its environmental targets while keeping the impact on its gross domestic product below 1%, why would it not work for Canada? If we continue to delay, Canada might no longer be competitive in foreign markets.

Protecting the environment is not a constraint. Since when have development and technological innovation been an economic constraint? On the contrary, this is a golden opportunity for Quebec to develop new markets. We must not leave this to others. If we take up this challenge, Quebec and Canada will come out on top. Canada has every opportunity to become one of the most competitive countries in foreign markets.

We believe in this exchange because it is better than a carbon tax. I think this exchange will enable better trading. The European experience has shown that the exchange can meet the targets. We believe in absolute targets, and we reject intensity targets. Large industrial emitters emit between 40% and 50% of our overall emissions, which means that implementing a system based on intensity reduction targets does nothing more than let big industrial emitters off the hook and make it more difficult for us to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

So we must jump into this fight and push for absolute reduction targets. We must also actively and confidently jump into a carbon market system currently estimated at more than $20 billion by the Business Development Bank of Canada. We must give an opportunity to companies like Biothermica in Quebec, which wants to sell its credits outside the country, and which wants to be recognized for the efforts it has made in the past as part of a Canadian plan.

We must also let Quebec implement its own approach and plan. We must trust the provinces, who are responsible for natural resources. Quebec and Manitoba are examples of what a province can do when its government decides to attack climate change. Quebec's previous governments have shown this, from Robert Bourassa to Jacques Parizeau. All of Quebec's governments, regardless of their political affiliation, have shown that when we implement a plan to fight climate change with clear goals, we can succeed in keeping greenhouse gas emissions in check. We are also able to strive for and respect our Kyoto commitments.

This is what Bill C-30 is calling for. Some people think that the Bloc never makes any progress. But after negotiations with the Liberals and the New Democrats, the Bloc was able to incorporate a territorial approach into Bill C-30. Under this approach, if a province, such as Quebec, decides to meet its greenhouse gas reduction target, it can implement its own climate change plan.

Why are we demanding that? Not because we are so attached to the principle of sovereignty, but simply because this is the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gases. For every dollar invested in the fight against climate change, we must maximize greenhouse gas reductions.

It is not true that a dollar invested in Quebec will lead to the same reduction in greenhouse gases as if it were invested in Alberta. Quebec does not have the same energy policy as the rest of Canada. We generate 95% of our power from hydroelectricity; 95% of our energy comes from renewable sources. When we invest in energy efficiency in our homes, that does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, whereas in the rest of Canada, increased home energy efficiency reduces the use of fossil fuels and consequently greenhouse gas emissions.

This example shows that we need a shared commitment in Canada, but that each province needs to take its own approach to meeting that commitment so that this plan to fight climate change is adapted to the realities across the country. That is what Europe did when it set a reduction target of 8%, negotiated in Kyoto in 1997. I was in Kyoto. I saw the Europeans come prepared. All the sovereign members of the European Union were in agreement at the time. They had a plan and targets. They knew how to address climate change because they had reached agreement with their partners, because they had understood that there could not be a target for Europe without equitable territorial reduction targets.

That is the commitment the Bloc Québécois made when it introduced this territorial approach, which aims to set a common target for Canada—we hope it will be the Kyoto target—but with a different approach for each province. Some greenhouse gas-emitting provinces have made huge profits in recent years. How did Alberta get rich? By developing an industry that, unfortunately, causes pollution. What we are asking for with the territorial approach and an emission credit trading mechanism is that the government apply the polluter-pay principle rather than the polluter-paid principle.

That is what we want. We want Quebec's efforts—because Quebec did not sit on its hands—to be recognized. Furthermore, we believe that Bill C-30 meets that expectation and we want it to be debated and voted on as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to what the initial question was. It is basically a who said what.

Our position from the get-go was that Bill C-30 was not necessary to achieve the objectives that were put forward. We agreed with the NDP that this was so.

We then agreed with the NDP to give it a try, to bring the bill to a legislative committee after first reading, although we always had grave doubts about this. Those grave doubts have been fully satisfied by the behaviour of the Conservatives. We never thought for a moment that they would accept a modified Bill C-30, but we worked with the NDP and the Bloc to give it our best effort.

As we said from the get-go, we did not think the Conservatives would do it. They did not need to do it, and we have wasted about six months doing nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for talking about the historical aspects of Bill C-30. However, he needs to recognize that when Bill C-30 first came to the House, the Liberal Party supported it to get it to a committee. It was our colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who objected to it, saying that it was terrible, that it needed to be rewritten and that it needed to go to a special committee.

The Liberal Party at that time, along with the Conservatives, said that it could not be done. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proved that it could be done, and we want to thank him very much for it.

However, I would like to give another shot at the Conservatives for the fact that they have been climate change deniers for years. The member for Red Deer, their environment critic, said that global warming was a myth. Does he believe the Conservative Party still believes that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two points.

First, on the environmental assessment that was referenced in the hearings, the question was whether they followed the full cabinet proceedings, which necessitates an environmental assessment of a certain kind, and the answer was no.

The second point, which is on the intensity target, is we recognized that project green was intensity based when it came to large final emitters. We also realize that is no longer sufficient because we have lost time and we now go to an absolute based system, as we should, in the new Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, historians looking back at the tangled story of Bill C-30, the government's so-called clean air act, will probably say that the chief lesson to be derived from the whole sorry exercise is “be careful what you wish for”.

Historians—and that is my profession, I must say, my occupational bias—will certainly take notice of the Conservative government's initial skepticism regarding the science of climate change.

Historians are going to recall a Prime Minister who described the Kyoto treaty as “a money sucking socialist scheme”. They are going to recall a Prime Minister who asked how we could possibly predict the climate when we could not tell the weather in three days. They are going to recall a Prime Minister who said about the science behind global warning, “It's a scientific hypothesis and a controversial one”.

This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle when the benefits are negligible.

Historians will also recall that it was the previous Liberal government that signed and ratified, in December 2002, the Kyoto protocol against the fierce opposition of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative, call it what we will, party that were in turn allied and abetted by most of the provinces at the time and a large section of the Canadian business community, which collectively rejected the very concept of climate change.

It is so ironic for the Conservatives now to say that we did not get the job done when it was their most fervent wish that we not get the job done since they opposed the very concept of the fight against climate change.

Historians, while noting that the Liberals certainly might have done more, will also recognize that the previous Liberal government did bring forward, in 2005, a green plan, which regulated and would have put in place regulations for large industrial emitters by 2008.

It was the Liberal government that negotiated an agreement with the auto sector up to 2011, which has been honoured and kept by the Conservative government.

It was the Liberal government that brought forward a number of other measures which would have helped provinces, such as the partnership fund, do their part to reduce greenhouse gases, and there were major projects foreseen in Ontario and Quebec.

The Liberal government created a climate fund for us to buy into projects in Canada to reduce greenhouse gases and to use international-UN mechanisms under the Kyoto protocol to do our part to reduce greenhouse gases.

The Liberal government created a plan that supported the energy retrofit program, including EnerGuide for low income houses, to help Canadians save money.

It was the Liberal government that put $1.8 billion over 15 years into the wind power production incentive and the renewable power production incentive.

The Liberal government put in money for the sustainable energy and technology strategy.

All of these things were cancelled when the Conservative government came into place and then, with complete cynicism, brought back in a weakened and in feeble form in many cases, when it finally realized that it was out of step with Canadians.

Bill C-30 and its accompanying notice of intent to regulate only appeared in October 2006 as a desperate attempt by the Conservatives to reverse their previous strategy because polls told them that Canadians took climate change seriously and that they were on the losing side of history.

The Conservatives response was completely cynical. First, they muddled, deliberately, the issues of climate change and air pollution. Second, they did as much as they had to and as little as they could get away with. Hence we have Bill C-30.

The bill was so feeble, so universally condemned by non-governmental organizations, the media, opposition parties, and public opinion, that it was withdrawn in disgrace and sent to a special legislative committee after first reading, with an invitation by the government to the three opposition parties to re-write the bill to meet all of the objections that had been raised. “Be careful what you wish for”.

Following intensive and frequent meetings in February and March of this year, the three opposition parties joined forces, something rather rare in this House, to push for some amendments and respond seriously to the challenge presented by the Conservative government. Together, the opposition parties produced a much stronger, more serious and better bill. It is still Bill C-30, but the bill is now called Canada’s Clean Air and Climate Change Act.

Now irony of ironies, the government refuses to produce its own much improved bill, confirming the cynicism of those who said at the time, as my colleague from Ottawa South noted, that Bill C-30 was never necessary in the first place, that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act provided all the resources, all the power necessary to regulate both greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

On April 26 of this year, the government confirmed what we the official opposition had been saying since October 2006, by issuing a weak and incomplete climate change and air quality package of regulations, which was entirely dependent on the existing legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. There was not in that document a single reference to Bill C-30, which the government had previously insisted was necessary in order to accomplish the changes through regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The three opposition parties have acted in good faith. They did improve both the climate change sections of the bill and the air quality provisions of Bill C-30, as the government asked us to do. “Be careful what you wish for”.

Canadians need to compare the strengthened, improved and ambitious new Bill C-30 with the pathetic, loophole ridden, muddle-headed, unambitious plan of April 26. However, we can only do that in a formal sense if the bill is brought back to the House as it should be.

Historians and Canadians will look back on the first year and a half of Conservative inaction on the climate change file and note the following: a 180° turn on the whole subject and a 90° turn on the Kyoto protocol itself.

What we notice is the replacement of one ineffective minister of the environment, who was undermined at every turn by the Prime Minister's Office, with an aggressive, partisan, and I have to say, uninformed and ultimately discredited and ineffective new minister.

We notice Bill C-30 introduced, discredited, withdrawn, reintroduced, amended, improved, withdrawn again. We notice the regulations introduced, discredited, withdrawn, amended, reintroduced, discredited, and the dreary cycle continues. We notice over the top attacks on phantom bills no one introduced in the first place. We notice the apocalyptic Chicken Little attacks on a fantasy and a phantasm.

Meanwhile there is complete silence and no analysis by the government of the serious carbon budget plan introduced by the Liberals as part of the new Bill C-30 and endorsed by the Bloc and the NDP.

The final judgment of historians may well be that by May 2007, after having been in power for 16 months, the government had run out of bullets and credibility on the subject of climate change. It has run out of new plans to introduce. Having used up all its ammunition attacking a phantom plan, it has nothing left to say about the reasonable carbon budget plan of Bill C-30.

Having attacked the Liberal green plan, then reintroduced in feeble form many of its elements, no one believes a word the Conservatives say.

The true colours of the government have been revealed. There is nothing more to do, nothing more to say, nothing more to hide. “Be careful what you wish for”.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, you will notice the great cooperation from this side of the House in relation to that last motion, and indeed that is what we are trying to do with Canada's environment.

We want to take serious steps to make the environment, the air that Canadians breathe, better. As such, I am going to continue on, notwithstanding that I said this just before question period. I am going to continue from where I left off, and that is, on the issue of asthma and the health of Canadians.

We know that asthma is increasing in our population and in fact, I stated that it more than tripled in children aged zero to 14 over the past 20 years. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma by a physician. That is 12.2% of children and 6.3% of adults in Canada. Indeed as I mentioned, my youngest child has asthma.

The quality of life for these people is dramatically affected by not taking action on the environment, by the previous 13 years of the previous Liberal government not taking action. That is why this government feels that we cannot accept what the NDP has put forward.

We want to take action now. We are done consulting. We want to make Canadians' health better. Indeed, it is clear that we need to take action to reduce all potential causes that increase incidents of illness and death, especially those which affect our children.

This government's approach will provide us with the authorities and tools which are so necessary in order to launch this fight against those terrible pollutants, to address the sources of both indoor and outdoor air pollution while setting in motion a very realistic plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I am proud of this government's motion, of these great steps that this Minister of Environment has taken, and the real action plan to come forward. Our mandatory reductions will reduce the impact of greenhouse gases and air pollution on the environment and the health of Canadians, which is so important to all Canadians.

These regulations will have real tangible benefits and I think many people do not realize how important these benefits will be. The estimated benefits by 2015, from the Conservative agenda for the reduced risk of death and illness associated with our air quality improvements, will be over $6 billion annually. That is correct, over $6 billion annually.

This puts the health benefits from air pollution reductions in the same broad range as the economic costs of meeting the air pollution and GHG emission targets. These have been calculated at less than 0.5% of our annual GDP. Thus in the short term, the GHG emission reduction strategy that we have put in place is balanced by the air pollution benefits.

This government's objective is to minimize or eliminate risks to the health of Canadians posed by environmental contaminants in the air. That is our goal. It is a very aggressive agenda, but we will get it done. As has been seen by Canadians, we do get the job done and we will continue to get the job done.

I sat in on Bill C-30 and I saw what the NDP was doing. I saw what the Liberals were doing. I saw what the Bloc was doing. What they were doing was playing politics with Canadians' lives, with the health of Canadians, and we in this government are not going to let that happen.

I looked at the aggressive agenda of the NDP to play politics. It is sort of like watching a person play Twister, not getting anything done but making a lot of confusion in the process, and indeed that is not what this government is going to do.

That is why our government has introduced one of the toughest plans in the world today on turning the corner on greenhouse gases and air pollution. Our government is bringing in mandatory, not voluntary, targets. We are going to get the job done for Canadians on the issue of the environment.

Opposition Motion--The Environment

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee that looked at Bill C-30 and I listened intently to the witnesses. I went to every meeting and I spoke to NDP members at length in relation to what they were proposing. Today, we see they are asking us to call Bill C-30. I am prepared to call it something. I would call, quite frankly, a collection of really bad ideas and a couple of good ones. What the government is going to do is take the good ones and put them to work for Canadians.

I am also pleased to address the House on the issue of what our government has done regarding the establishment of greenhouse gas and air pollution reduction targets. This is very important to Canadians.

The government has brought forward a comprehensive and integrated regulatory framework, which not only addresses greenhouse gases, but which also calls for concrete action to reduce air pollution which affects the health of Canadians every day.

Canadians have probably heard this one time or two times before, but Canada's new government did inherit a mess of ineffective and counterproductive strategies for air pollution and greenhouse gases. The previous government's strategies just did not deliver what Canadians need, that is healthy air and a healthy environment. This government is committed to do that.

The inaction by the previous Liberal government and the failure to set and follow up on plans and priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reduction requires a more realistic approach. We want to get results. We are done with talking, and the motion calls for more of that. We are not prepared to do that any longer. We think it has happened enough and we will get results for Canadians.

That is why the government has brought forward a regulatory framework to significantly reduce GHGs and air emissions from industrial sectors. That is why we have and will continue to introduce additional measures as time goes to fight climate change and to fight air pollution, which is so important to Canadians.

For those people who are listening, do not take my word for it and do not take the word of the member opposite. Look at the legislation, look at the website and talk to the experts. Canadians will see that this government is taking real concrete steps to help the health of Canadians.

I underline the point that we are putting in place regulatory reductions, not voluntary reductions as the previous government did, of greenhouse gas and air pollutants in place. We are setting stringent targets, but achievable sector based targets for emission reductions. What is more, the government's approach ensures that there is actual accountability. We stand for accountability on this side of the House and these steps and this approach ensures accountability as well as flexibility to accelerate these actions, as required by this government. We are taking real steps and we are going to continue to do so.

I will turn my attention now to what I consider some key aspects on what this government approached is based, aspects that set it apart from the lack of actions that was taken before by the previous government.

Our goals are the goals of Canadians. We have listened intently to the goals of Canadians. The legislation we have proposed and the continued changes and advancements that we will making are clearly what Canadians want to protect the health, the environment and the prosperity of Canadian jobs.

We are getting the job done and getting it done the right way, for our future, our children and our grandchildren. Our government has set targets which contribute to significant reductions, not only of greenhouse gases but also of air pollutants which are so important. These reductions will provide immediate and long term health benefits for Canadians. Often the air pollutants and the greenhouse gases come from the same source, so it makes sense to do this as a collection of ideas that work toward a better quality of life for Canadians.

I want to also take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of regulating reductions in air pollution at the same time as we regulate greenhouse gas reduction. The health impacts of poor air quality are very evident. Until people are touched by those poor air quality standards and the health effects of those, people do not realize what is important to them. As a government we realize what is important to Canadians. Approximately 5,900 deaths or 8% of all deaths in eight Canadian cities can be linked to air pollution every year. The government will get the job done for Canadians to protect their health.

We are also aware of reported increases over the last few decades of certain diseases affecting our population. I have even seen it in my community and in my own family. This is a significant cause for concern and one that in certain instances can be related to the quality of the air we breathe.

We know that asthma is increasing in our population. In fact, over the past 20 years it has more than tripled in children zero to 14 years of age. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma by a physician. That is right, some 12.2% of children and 6.3% of adults have complaints of asthma. My youngest child Michael has asthma. Until we see what takes place with somebody with serious asthma and how it affects the qualify of life, we do not realize how important the steps are that this government is taking for Canadians.

It is clear that we need to take action now, not some six months or six years later as the NDP has proposed. We need to take action now to reduce all potential causes that increase incidences of illness and death, especially those which affect our children.

This government's approach--

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I grin when I hear the rhetoric from the member. Maybe he did not notice what was happening. He was busy ordering a cake for the end of Bill C-30 and meeting with his media buddies. Maybe he should have paid more attention.

Maybe he should have paid attention to the witnesses. Every one of the witnesses said that what he was proposing could not be done, except for one, but he ignored that and got busy ordering a celebration cake.

This is what was said in the Globe and Mail right after Bill C-30 ended and while he was cutting his cake:

— what the opposition parties, especially the Liberals, did to this bill in committee before they returned it to the House of Commons...made a bad law worse. With dozens of amendments, they slapped a hefty carbon tax on industry and then assigned the money from that tax to a new agency with the clout to give it back—if satisfied with the polluter's progress—or to spend it elsewhere. Their overhaul was so drastic that they even amended the name of the legislation.

Bill C-30 was severely damaged. He talked about the national air quality standards. We support national air quality standards, not regional standards where there can be political interference. All Canadians deserve to have air quality, not just some areas.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That was the member for Halton, a Liberal member.

Even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer whatever people wanted but they had no intention of ever delivering.

Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is clearly easier for them to tell Canadians what they want hear, which is that they want to achieve the Kyoto targets, when in fact they cannot and had no intention to. It was 13 years of mismanagement.

The NDP takes the same position but it is hard to tell what the NDP's position is on short, medium and long term targets for greenhouse reductions because in the last six weeks it has supported two different positions.

First, there were the targets that it wrote with its Liberal buddies on Bill C-30. These targets would cost Canadian families and businesses over 275,000 jobs and send gasoline prices soaring over $2 a litre. These targets would be disastrous for the economy and the NDP supported them.

The NDP then introduced even tougher targets in a private member's bill sponsored by the leader of the NDP that would harm the economy even worse. Those targets were so over the top that when it tried to write them into Bill C-30 even the Liberals said that they did not make sense because they were so obviously over the top.

Canada's new government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes concrete and realistic industrial targets recently brought forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the air that we all breathe.

Let us look at what happened with the clean air sections of Bill C-30. The opposition members gutted those clean air sections. We asked them to work with us to protect the health of Canadian children, the elderly and those suffering with respiratory illnesses. What did they do? They gutted those important sections out of the clean air act.

What did Canadians lose in the opposition's rush to gut the bill? Led by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the Liberal member for Ottawa South, what did Canadian's lose? They lost mandatory national air quality standards, and members opposite are applauding that those were lost. Canadians lost mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards. Canadians lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants. Canadians lost tougher enforcement rules of compliance to air quality regulations. Finally, the opposition removed regulations that would have improved indoor air quality.

We heard from Health Canada officials at the environment committee yesterday about the importance of indoor air quality. Allow me to quote from their presentation:

Canadians spend about 90% of their time indoors.

In the built environments where we live, work, go to school, and play, Canadians are exposed to a variety of contaminants such as airborne moulds from excessive moisture, emissions from household products and building materials, and carbon monoxide from poorly vented oil and gas appliances.

These and other indoor air contaminants can cause or exacerbate many different ailments, including asthma, respiratory infections, and allergies.

Under the Clean Air Agenda announced last fall, the Government committed to develop a priority list of indoor air pollutants in partnership with provinces and territories, which will lead to guidelines and other measures to protect the health of Canadians from these pollutants.

Tragically, the opposition members removed indoor air regulations from Bill C-30. What did they add instead? They added delayed action by requiring six months of consultation around a new investment Bank of Canada, before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. They added complex and unworkable requirements that would make it harder, not easier, for government to act on air pollution.

Even worse, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, inserted a clause that would allow political interference into air quality standards. The Liberals would allow the environment minister to exempt economically depressed areas from air quality standards for two years. This would allow the environment minister to engage in political interference in setting air quality regulations. That is something Canadians certainly do not want.

It is also interesting to note that at the House of Commons environment committee yesterday, officials from Health Canada testified on the importance of national air quality standards as opposed to the regional patchwork as proposed by the NDP members and their Liberal buddies on Bill C-30.

Bill C-30 was key to protecting the health of Canadians and the environment. It is clear that the opposition picks politics over the environment.

The Liberals also inserted their carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. Unlike the Liberals, we believe actions speak louder than words. That is why we introduced the toughest, most realistic plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the world today.

For the first time ever, Canada's new government will force industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We have taken immediate action to implement mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down.

Canada needs to turn the corner because we went in the wrong direction under the Liberals. Since the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gases in 1997, they have only gone up.

Canada's new government is turning back the hands of time on the disastrous Liberal record and we will cut 150 megatonnes by 2020. We will impose mandatory targets on industry so air pollution from industry is cut in half by 2015.

The government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air that we breathe for Canadians today and tomorrow. Our plan is real. It begins now, immediately, and will lead to concrete results with challenging but realistic targets for industry.

There is no doubt that we all need to work together if we are to address our growing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Unfortunately, the motion seeks more delay and more debate, and that is why we will not support it.

The time for talk is over. The time for action is now and I look forward to getting support from all opposition parties to implement our tough new regulatory framework on air emissions.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

He is still at it, I can hear him.

On December 5, Parliament referred Bill C-30 to a legislative committee of the House of Commons for review. As we all know, Canada's Conservative government worked in good faith in committee on Bill C-30 to try to improve the clean air act.

In committee we supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act. We even brought forward amendments of our own. Sadly, in most cases we were opposed by the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.

Vehicle emissions is one example. We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on North American market standards, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc do? They voted against it and then knowingly imposed standards that would be impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry. As for the Liberals' plan, Buzz Hargrove said that it would be disastrous but they did not listen.

We also cannot ignore the unrealistic targets that were put into the bill by the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals played politics by inserting Kyoto targets into the bill with no realistic plan to achieve them. The NDP supported that irresponsible action. It is difficult to stomach such gall from the Liberal Party. It is also clear that the Leader of the Opposition did not support Kyoto. His colleagues have repeatedly said this.

Liberal environment ministers, David Anderson, Christine Stewart and top Chrétien advisor, Eddie Goldenberg, told Canadians that the Liberal Party had no intention of meeting the Kyoto targets, that they were only paying lip service to Canadians on Kyoto. It is hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago and it is even harder today. The member for Halton said so. He stated:

I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”.

Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a member who has served on the Bill C-30 legislative committee and one of many Conservatives who is working hard for a cleaner environment.

I also want to thank the minister who, I believe, will go down in history as one of Canada's greatest environment ministers.

I am pleased to participate in today's opposition day debate introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, well-known as the member with over the top rhetoric and theatrics in the committee. It kept the committee very interesting.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, a dark place.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind about the most urgent issue our generation faces. One would think the Conservatives would understand the threat to our children and the urgency to act.

Yet the Conservatives and their friends in the oil patch dismiss the impact of our actions in Canada. They say that our emissions represent only 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but they fail to understand that we are 0.5% of the world's population.

In other words, we are a dirty bunch, spewing out four times more emissions than our share. This is not the “punching above our weight on the international scene” that most Canadians have in mind.

We are told that this is the case because of our economy, so we get rich at the expense of the environment and at the expense of the rest of the people who inhabit it. This is certainly not the role that Canadians want to play in the world. It is a disgrace.

Bill C-30 offers a real possibility for a shift in direction. We are the only western country whose emissions are still rising, and the Conservative plan does not change that until 2020.

The Conservatives have us stuck on an escalator going ever upward. We are the only western developed country whose emissions are still rising and we are looking over at everyone else who is on the escalator going down.

The environment minister has said that he understands the urgency of the situation, yet given the lack of urgency of his actions and his plan, it is clear that he does not understand. He runs around claiming that the economic sky will fall if we aggressively tackle climate change.

However, a couple of days ago, a Canadian financial leader speaking at the Rideau Club said the following about those countries and those businesses who are too slow to join the green economy. He said that “the last into this will pay through the nose”. His company, VanCity Savings, is in the process of becoming carbon neutral by 2010. What that means is the act of doing business in a way that does not contribute to global warming.

One would expect that the Conservatives, who make themselves the apostles of productivity, would understand that those who transition early to a green economy will benefit. Yet with their ludicrous, discredited, intensity based targets, they remain firmly anchored in an old way of thinking and in an old economy that separates us from the possibility of real solutions.

There are real solutions. Other countries are putting them forward. We are being left in the dust.

Our excellent NDP energy critic, the member for Western Arctic, said that “any credible plan needs to be accompanied by real investment in renewable, sustainable, and green energy”. He continued, saying, “We must develop a national energy strategy which invests in renewable energy, supports conservation and creates an east-west energy grid so Canadians can share clean energy with each other”.

That is the kind of thinking that will allow us to change paradigm. What we need is a vision for what a green economy will look like and the determination to be the first ones to get there, which is precisely what the Conservative minority lacks.

If there were genuine political will to get something done beyond the mere appearance of action, the crucial first step would be to set the necessary political signals and framework conditions to achieve a more climate friendly development in the time to come. However, that does not mean making the tar sands slightly less dirty per barrel. It means a full shift in the way we produce energy. It means making stable, long term investments in conservation and development of renewable energy sources, instead of the spontaneous flash-in-the-pan window dressing projects that were given by the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them. It requires making a transition to triple bottom line decision making where social, economic and environmental objectives are given equal weight and all decisions must meet these objectives on each front. It does not mean doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that.

This is the principle that Norway has adopted. Norway produces only 0.2% of the world's emissions, but the country's leaders understood that it was part of the global family and needed to do its part.

The five countries that produce the most emissions account for half the world's emissions. However, as the Norwegian commission on low emissions has stated, if all the countries with relatively low emission levels rely on the major producers to reduce their emissions, we will never control climate change.

We can also follow Germany's example. Years ago, German political leaders seized the opportunity to build a strong, green, sustainable economy. They had a vision of the future that is being realized today.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about this bill, which was drafted by a committee with representation from all the opposition parties as well as the governing party. This committee was inspired by the NDP.

This bill, which the committee renamed Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act, offers an environmental plan that is far superior to what the Conservatives are proposing. They would have us believe that their targets will mean tough control over greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is different. The reality is that with intensity-based targets, greenhouse gas emissions will increase. That is why the committee took the Conservatives' shoddy bill and amended it to give Canadians a really effective plan. That is what Canadians want.

I condemn the government for not having the courage to introduce its own plan in the House for a debate and a vote. That is why the NDP is introducing Bill C-30 today.

To shut down this debate through procedural trickery, to bring it down from eight hours to two, is all about stifling the good ideas and progress made in Bill C-30 on an issue that Canadians are progressively increasingly concerned about. Canadians are angry about the inaction of their governments over the past decade.

For a government that purports to want to bring democracy to other countries, this action is profoundly undemocratic and disrespectful to the majority of Canadians who want real action on climate change. There is no issue about which I have received more mail from my constituents in Victoria.

This is a government that is increasingly and dangerously unwilling to accept the majority will of Parliament and of Canadians. We have seen this on committees throughout the last week.

Instead, the Conservatives jet-set around the country to introduce one idea per town, small half measures that fall far short of what is needed, without a real plan to reduce greenhouse gases.

One would think some of the best scientific minds on this planet would have been able to shed light in the Conservative mind--

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

Mr. Speaker, the continuation of these theories is incredible. Despite what the First Nations Forestry Council in British Columbia is saying, despite what the environmental groups are saying, and despite what the scientists within the department of the government are saying, somehow the theory is that the pine beetle devastation is due to a handful of environmentalists in British Columbia.

That is what is happening. Those members are not realizing the truth of the matter, which is that we must fundamentally change course in this country. We must alter the economic reality for this country and start to build the type of green economy that Canadians have been asking for.

Bill C-30 would allow us to do that. Why the government refuses to listen to the will of Parliament, just like the Prime Minister used to call for when he was in opposition, is beyond me and beyond Canadians, but the Prime Minister will feel the retribution when it comes.

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

I think it might actually be in the guide, Mr. Speaker. There apparently is a 200-page guide available to the Conservatives. It may be 500 pages according to the parliamentary secretary.

While there might be some fun to be had with this, this is also a serious issue. This describes a government unwilling to face the key issues of the day, the issues that Canadians are calling on us to address with most haste.

There has been a general agreement that there must be a calling for a state of the nation for Canadians when we realize what is happening to our planet, what is happening as a result of our actions on climate change.

Due to the Liberal's failure and the current government's continued denial, delay and inaction, Canada finds itself at least 35% above our international obligations under Kyoto. Government officials, the minister himself, and others have admitted to the fact that we will not meet our obligations by 2008 or 2012, but perhaps we will meet them by the year 2025.

It is incredible to me and to other Canadians, when we look at our international competitors in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and the United States, that we find Canada performing worse than all of them. Canada has given itself a record to the world saying that we will not abide by our signature on an international agreement, and we will not play a full role. We are telling the world that we will not pull our weight or contribute our fair share to battling what has truly become an international problem.

We received one important piece of testimony from witnesses when we were debating the clean air act. They asked us to consider the Kyoto framework and the protocol as an economic pact rather than simply an environmental one. This is an important designation for all members to realize here today.

The government has been asked to assess the threat of climate change to our economy and to the health of Canadians, and yet there has not been a single study performed by the Conservative government, or previous ones, to understand the impacts and the threats to our country with an increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. There has not been a simple understanding of what that impact will be like on all of our communities.

As we have watched the pine beetle devastation roll through our communities in British Columbia, devastating community after community by attacking the forests, a source of livelihood, we realized once and for all that the affects are real, that we must do something about it, and the time for inaction has long since past. The forestry councils of British Columbia have directly related this to the impact of climate change.

I would contend that every generation is met with a great challenge, whether it is seeking rights for all individuals, whether it is the emancipation of slavery, or whether it is fighting great despots in foreign lands. Every generation is judged by future generations as to the quality of handling that challenge. How did we respond to that challenge? How did our forebearers respond to the challenges of their day?

Every Remembrance Day we stand with pride and recognize the service of our veterans. We recognize that when that generation was met with a challenge, they faced that challenge. We look to previous generations and wonder how they responded to the challenge of finding the right spot for first nation women and minority groups.

Our generation's challenge is finding a way to conduct ourselves, conduct our economy, to live our lives in such a way that we do not do harm to ourselves or to our planet. I would contend that by the actions of the previous government and by the continued delay and denial of the Conservative government, future generations will hold us to account.

Future generations will decide when they look upon our record that it was simply for another CEO's bonus cheque in a Calgary office tower that we were unwilling to take the appropriate actions, that we were unwilling as a generation to move in the direction that was most needed and most called for by our children and their children.

Clearly, this issue of the environment and climate change must not be all that important to the Liberal Party as members can attest by their overwhelming attendance here this morning. It is an important issue for the New Democrats. For New Democrats this issue for our leader from Toronto—Danforth has been front and centre year in and year out, as we have seen governments bend to the will of inside corporate lobbyists rather than to the interests and needs of Canadians every day.

When the government first brought Bill C-30 forward, the clean air and climate change bill, and it was simply called the clean air bill in those days, that was one change we had to make quite quickly, it was dead on arrival. I remember standing in the foyer with all the media and the then environment minister who has since been replaced to much fanfare and much expectation that this bill would be the solution. This would be the silver bullet and finally some action.

As I flipped through the bill, as did other Canadians, we found that there was no serious action on climate change until the year 2040, as if we somehow had the luxury of time, the luxury to delay even further into the future.

The bill was dead on arrival. It met with no support from any other party in the House. There was no consultation with any other party in the House and there was not a single environmental group or a group of interest in the country who supported it in its measures.

I can also recall the day when the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the New Democrats, stood in his place in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister to move the bill to a special committee. I recall the Conservatives guffawing and slamming their desks and laughing and calling out names of derision.

The Prime Minister stood in his place and said, “All right. Let's let a minority Parliament do its work. Let's let a process happen whereby each party will contribute their best ideas”. It was suggested that we bring forward the best witnesses we can from across the country and that no single party would win, but the best ideas would be allowed to win. Here was a novel concept for Canadians watching politicians, one of the most derided forms of occupation that could be had in this country, that they would somehow put aside partisan interests for a moment and allow a process to go ahead where every party would be allowed to move amendments, make changes and recommendations. Lo and behold, that is what happened.

Every party in this place made recommendations to the new revised bill. Every party voted for a majority of the sections of this bill. Yet here we find ourselves. All the media and the lobbyists and members of the government said that this could not be done, saying this simply cannot be done. But we got it done. We were able to find a place of consensus where everyone got something and everyone gave up something.

It is an old adage in negotiations that a good agreement is one where everyone gives something up. That is exactly what happened when we rewrote this bill and then renamed it.

The minority government's response to this has been to simply pretend it never happened, as if Canadians did not witness this experience, as if people are uninterested in the issues that we brought forward and that all the time and money that Parliament spent in good faith rewriting this bill simply did not exist. That is simply not true.

There was all sorts of sabre rattling as we entered into the spring session with the Prime Minister ready to go to the polls and, lo and behold, his numbers slipped in those very same polls and we do not have an election.

The Conservatives scrambled about the place and brought in another green plan. They stepped up to the plate for their second opportunity and it was another dud. Not a single environmental group in the country, not a single group, is interested in this at all.

The results of moving forward and what we were able to accomplish in a new and revised clean air and climate change bill were that national housing standards have an absolute lead and national targets for the first time have been placed into law that the cabinet cannot undo.

There are industrial targets for each sector and allowing those industries to use every tool available, unlike the government's bill which restricted the use of tools available.

Air pollution standards for the first time in this country will have national standards placed in the bill. The bill provides the ability to build the best vehicles in the world, the best cars and trucks for Canadians to drive, with the lowest emissions and the highest quality. This is what Canadians expect from us and this is what we delivered.

The government should bring the bill back to the House for a fair and free democratic vote today.

The Environment

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Toronto has just suffered through two consecutive smog days that are severely affecting the health of Torontonians.

Toronto Public Health estimates that 1,700 Toronto residents die prematurely each year due to air pollution but the Conservatives have announced a plan that will not get the job done on smog and climate change. This plan is no match for the breakthrough Bill C-30 as rewritten by the NDP-led all party committee.

Last week our leader called on all opposition parties to unite to force the new clean air and climate change act to a vote in the House. However, instead of using their opposition day today to achieve real results on smog and climate change, the Liberals have decided it is more important to protect their corporate friends.

In my party, we walk the talk. Next week the NDP will use its opposition day to call on the government to bring forward the clean air and climate change act to Parliament for debate and a vote.

Thirteen years of Liberal inaction is not an excuse for falling further behind. Toronto families and all Canadians are counting on us to finally get the job done.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, this government is acting to reduce smog, to reduce pollution in every industrial sector, including in the oil sands. If we left it to the Liberal business as usual approach, these emissions would rise by 300%. That is unacceptable.

Maybe the member from British Columbia could tell us why he voted against mandatory national air quality standards in Bill C-30. Why did he vote against mandatory public reporting on air quality? Why would he allow a politician behind closed doors to exempt certain parts of Canada from clean air? Shame on him.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the member for St. Paul's said last year, we had one smog day in 1993 and we had 48 last year. That is the Liberal record on smog and pollution.

It could get worse. The Liberals want to take out mandatory national air quality standards from Bill C-30, mandatory public reporting on air quality. The worst is that they want to allow the minister to exempt some Canadian--

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a smog day in most of southern Ontario and it is only the beginning of May.

Sadly, the Liberal leader does not think that we have a problem. He has said that our air is one of the cleanest to be found in a developed country. Tell that to my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex in southwestern Ontario.

Could the Minister of the Environment tell the House about the detrimental changes by the Liberal Party to Bill C-30 when it comes to clean air?

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue our focus on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime.

This morning we completed the debate at report stage on Bill C-10. That is a bill to introduce mandatory penalties for gun related crimes and other violent acts. Our government proposed amendments at report stage to restore what the Liberals had gutted from the bill at committee, mainly those aspects that will ensure violent criminals actually serve time in jail. We will be voting on these amendments next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-22, which is the age of protection legislation, followed by Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation that would require criminals who are convicted on two separate occasions of a violent crime to prove to the court why they are not a danger to the community.

Next week will be strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It effectively kicked off today when Bill C-16, the fixed dates for elections act, received royal assent.

On Monday we will resume debate on Bill C-43. That is the bill that proposes to give Canadians a say in who they want representing them in the Senate.

Our government will be introducing a number of new measures in the House of Commons next week, which I will address at the appropriate time.

Of course, we still have Bill S-4, the bill to establish Senate term limits, which has been languishing in the Senate for almost a year now. It would be nice if the Senate passed that. It would be nice if the Liberal senators could get on with it, so that we could actually have that bill here in the House of Commons as part of our focus on democratic reform next week.

Tuesday, May 8 and Thursday, May 10 will be allotted days.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66 I would like to conclude debate tomorrow on the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I would like to conclude debate on May 11, 2007 on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Subject to an agreement with other parties, there may be interest in concluding debate at second reading of Bill C-33, the income tax bill, as early as tomorrow.

On the question of Bill C-30, we see elements of that legislation that we brought forward that are very valuable relating to biodiesel, alternative fuels and so on, and we will seek ways of introducing that in the House of Commons. However, we have absolutely no intention of bringing forward the Liberal carbon tax plan, which is now at the fore of that bill, which would establish an unlimited right to pollute for polluters. All they would have to do is pay and they would have an unlimited right to pollute. That is not our approach. We are bringing in regulations to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gases. That is our approach.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could the leader of the government advise the House of the agenda he intends to follow for the rest of this week and through next week?

Could he also confirm to all members of this House that he will give high priority to Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act?

Criminal Code

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I congratulate you formally on getting second reading on your Bill C-343, to amend the Criminal Code, motor vehicle theft. I was very proud to support that.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-22 today. The bill amends the Criminal Code to raise the age from 14 to 16 at which a person can consent to non-exploitive sexual activity. This applies to sexual activity involving prostitution, pornography or where there is a relationship of trust, authority, dependency or any other situation that is otherwise exploitive to another person.

Bill C-22 will better protect our youth against sexual exploitation by adult predators and I believe it strikes an appropriate balance that will not target consenting teenagers.

The age of consent of 14 has been around since the Canadian Criminal Code was consolidated in 1892, and the change proposed in the bill is long overdue. Most of the U.S. states, by and large, have 16 as the age of consent, as do most of the states of Australia as well as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Belgium, Finland and many other countries.

BillC-22 was tabled on June 22, 2006, and we are fast approaching the one year anniversary of the government bringing forward the legislation. The Conservative government knows that a majority of MPs in the House of Commons want to pass the bill, the government's bill, and yet we are debating a bill that could have been passed months ago.

I have been incredibly disappointed with the Conservative government's constant delay of legislation that it has put forward.

The Liberal opposition has tried three times in the last six months to expedite a number of government bills dealing with justice issues and each time the Conservative Party has shown that it is more interested in gaining partisan advantage than in actually passing its own legislation.

The Liberal opposition even tried to table a motion that proposed the immediate passing of seven of the nine bills that the government brought forward. All of this legislation could have been in the Senate long ago and some even passed into law, effectively disposing of more than half of the government's entire justice agenda.

Unfortunately, the Conservative House leader raised a point of order to block the Liberal motion and caused further delays in passing serious anti-crime legislation. The citizens of Canada are seeing for themselves how hollow Conservative words ring when it actually comes to implementing a serious crime agenda.

This is not the only legislative game the Conservative government is playing. It refuses to bring Bill C-30 to the House. It is delaying private members' business dealing with climate change in the Senate. It has delayed seven different justice related bills in the past few months. It is absolutely incredible.

Over that period of time in my own riding of Newton—North Delta, the city of Surrey has brought forward its own crime reduction plan, which I spoke to earlier this week. The Liberal opposition has brought forward a plan to hire 400 new RCMP officers and fast track justice legislation on which we all agree. Instead, we have seen dithering, delay and broken promises. The biggest being the Conservative government's promise to hire 2,500 new police officers, which it did not get it done. The mayor of Vancouver brought forward more money for new police officers this year than Canada's government for the entire country.

It is time for the Conservative government to stop playing politics with the issue of crime reduction and prevention. People expect better and rhetoric will not cover for the fact that this bill should have been passed months ago.

Passing Bill C-22 will give police more tools to stop predators that our officers see on the street every day. It will bring us in line with the majority of western democracies and most importantly, it will give us an even greater capacity to protect our children.

According to Detective Janet Hall of the Toronto Police child exploitative section, this bill will change for the better the way police investigate child pornography, underage prostitution and Internet luring. In effect, more kids will be protected and more predators will go to jail where they belong.

A senior member of the RCMP child exploitative unit has praised steps to raise the age of consent as another step toward protecting our children on line.

I am also on the access to information committee and I have heard the witnesses coming there. The Salvation Army has written that those between the ages of 13 to 15, who are most vulnerable to being manipulated into a sexual relationship, will be more protected and it will end any charge that Canada is in fact a destination for sex tourism and sexual trafficking.

Tamara Lampton from my riding of Newton—North Delta wrote to me and said: “It's not about what party is right or wrong; it's about protecting the most vulnerable in our great nation”.

Kathy Ford wrote to me and said: “I'm praying you will cast your yes vote on this bill and protect our children, who are our most valuable resource”.

Laurie Leiggett wrote to me and said: “I believe Canada must step up to the plate and be a leader in protecting children from sexual exploitation, not a haven for pedophiles”.

What does that say? This is exactly what I was saying earlier, that the Conservative government could have acted months ago to protect these children who have been exploited within that timeframe.

I realize that many members on the other side of the House agree with this legislation, but there is a big difference between moving the legislation and actually passing the legislation. The Conservative government will have to do a lot of explaining to those Canadians who are appalled at the partisan Conservative delay tactics that have stalled Bill C-22.

As a father of three young children and as an elected member of Parliament who has consistently reflected my community's desire that we be tougher on crime and work toward crime reduction and prevention strategy, I implore the Conservative government to stop playing politics with the Criminal Code and allow this legislation to pass as soon as possible.

The Environment

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that hot air balloon has no credibility whatsoever on climate change. He has a bogus plan that will lead to increased emissions. Not one climate change expert has endorsed the plan and the list of those denouncing it is growing.

If the minister had the courage of his convictions, he would bring back Bill C-30. When will we get a real environment minister instead of that Chicken Little?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the list of experts who have no faith in the Conservative climate change plan grows longer by the day: it includes David Suzuki, Al Gore, and many more. The plan is a trick and a fraud and it is misleading Canadians. Bill C-30 is a real plan for fighting climate change, and we can pass it today.

When will the government bring back Bill C-30?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's latest plan scheme scam is intensity based. In the previous 13 years, Canada's energy intensity improved by 43%. We have to do more. That is why we are asking the minister to bring Bill C-30 back so we can have real reductions and absolute targets and get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are more bad reviews for the environment minister's latest green scam.

Richard Peltier, co-author of a recent UN climate change report, says that under the latest Conservative plan greenhouse gas emissions will climb “like a rocket”.

Gordon McBean of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences says that the plan will rob Canada of its leadership role on the world stage.

Will the minister stop destroying Canada's credibility and bring Bill C-30 back so the country can have a real plan to meet the challenge of climate change?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, where all parties can agree on important elements of Bill C-30, on issues like energy efficiency, biofuels, important measures on indoor pollutants and provincial equivalencies, we are happy to work with the members of the party opposite.

But it is time for the Liberal members opposite to stand up against outrageous, hateful, meanspirited comments made by their candidate running in Central Nova. It is inexplicable how they could not stand up against people who bash Christians and evoke Nazi era atrocities. It is disgraceful. It is outrageous. It shows what that Liberal is made of. He--

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

Mr. Speaker, this government's laissez-faire plan to deal with global warming is being treated with sarcasm at home and abroad. David Suzuki called it a fraud and others fear that Canada is joining the gang of environmental rogue states.

The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change confirmed that intensity targets cannot decrease greenhouse gas emissions. When will the government bring back Bill C-30 and give Canada a real plan to tackle climate change?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Al Gore and David Suzuki, not to mention every other credible environmentalist in the country, have unmasked the government's global warming plan for the fraud that it is. However, the environment minister still claims that it is a real plan to fight climate change even though it would allow greenhouse gas emissions in Canada to increase for another decade.

This Parliament has written a strong, aggressive plan that would get Canadians real results. When will the government stop thumbing its nose at the will of Parliament and bring back Bill C-30 before the House?

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Al Gore has said that the Conservatives' platform is “a complete and total fraud”. David Suzuki described it as “all smoke and mirrors”.

The not new, the cynically old Conservative government is doing it again: just stuff, stuff to sell, stuff to spin. Like its entire budget, on the economy, aboriginals, child care, smoke and mirrors could apply to it all. In 5 years or 10 years, there will be no impact; so not up to a Government of Canada, not up to Canada.

When will we see a real plan for the environment? When will Mr. Smoke or Mr. Mirrors return Bill C-30 to the House?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

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

Will the minister finally put an end to his campaign of misinformation and nonsense, and will he bring Bill C-30 back before the House for a vote?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has officially announced that it will ignore the Kyoto targets, it will ignore the Kyoto timelines, it will ignore the science of Kyoto, it will ignore environmentalists like David Suzuki and it will ignore the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.

It is a sham that prevents Canadians from using most of Kyoto's tools and that delays action for more than a decade. It is pure political hyped theatre of the absurd.

Will the Conservatives stop the doublespeak and deceit and bring their own bill, Bill C-30, back to this House so Canadians can get a real plan for our environment?

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the leader of the government could advise the House of the agenda he intends to follow for the rest of this week and through next week. In particular, could he tell us when he will bring forward the bill on clean air, namely, Bill C-30, for final consideration in the House?

The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a Minister of the Environment who takes responsibility for careless PR leaks, but not for setting responsible environmental policy. The minister blows hot and cold. He is a climate change induced spinning weather vane.

If Kyoto is a socialist flop as the Prime Minister claims, then why did the government vote to uphold the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, including the targets and absolute reductions of greenhouse gases just yesterday?

Will Chicken Little finally end the doublespeak and bring back the plan that addresses air pollution and climate change known as Bill C-30?

Opposition Motion—Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of experience in small, remote community energy systems. There are many opportunities there. I look at the community I visited two weeks ago in my own riding, Wha Ti, which is a small Tlicho community. The community wanted to put in a mini hydro system, a one megawatt system that would not only light its homes, but heat them too.

Once we make the move with Bill C-30, once we agree what we are going to accomplish here, these projects will move forward quickly. Once Canada knows the direction it has to move in, right across this country, we will see a flourishing of projects like we cannot believe.

I spent time on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities green fund. I have seen the projects that are available across this whole country. We have a great future ahead if we simply make some decisions here in this Parliament and get going with the new economy.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the concept that we are going to have a tax of $195 a tonne on carbon emissions is just frankly ridiculous. Anyone who is in the energy business, the retrofit business or the renewable energy business, businesses that I am very familiar with, would be jumping up and down at the thought that we would somehow get these kinds of dollars as a tax on carbon emissions.

Within Bill C-30 there are provisions for the $30 a tonne for carbon going into a bank fund. It is not a tax but it fixes a dollar amount around a particular substance.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It could be American corporations. It could be any other company that invests in this country, or it could be Canadians as well. All corporations have the opportunity to either move forward or not move forward. We will see who has the moxie in their company and who has the wherewithal to do it.

My territory has many multinationals. Some of them come from Australia, from England and from South Africa. They all deal in diamonds. We did not set any standards for them for energy production. They all rely on good old oil to generate their electricity to heat their mines.

We have alternatives in the Northwest Territories. We have demonstrated that. We can provide them all the clean hydroelectric power they want for their facilities. When they are under some pressure to do this, they will do it. If they want the diamonds and the economic activity, they will invest in the clean energy that will make their businesses fit under the Kyoto requirements.

Years ago I had the opportunity, as a mayor in my community, to stand up against the development of the Alberta-Pacific pulp mill in northeastern Alberta. It had proposed a particular setup where it would pollute the river systems, create a lot of damage and affect my community. We fought that and proved our point. The companies were rejected at the environmental assessment. Within two or three months, they came with a solution that reduced the pollution by over 70%.

When I talked to those same companies years later, they said the best thing that happened to them in that process was they were forced to clean up their act. They said that they now had a product with an environmental tag on it. They had a facility that was the best in the world, they were selling their pulp and making money at it.

Sometimes the lesson should be that the fear of progress should never stop one from making progress. Fear does not drive a healthy economy. Fear does not drive nation building. Fear does not create a world of which our children would be proud. The environment minister should not try to scare us. We are not here to be scared. We are here to accomplish something for Canadians.

I hope the environment minister will join with us, bring forward Bill C-30, allow it to debated in the House and show Canadians that when the four parties in this House of Commons work together, we can produce results for Canadians.

The time now is not for timid actions. It is not time to try to scare working Canadians away from what needs to be done. Imagine, in the 1940s, if the minister said that the cost to Canada of fighting the second world war was too much and that it was better to let those fascists have their way. We made a choice to invest in our future.

Like almost 70 years ago, Canada is once again facing a serious threat, a threat to our coastal cities, to our agricultural industry, to the thing that sustains our life, the planet Earth. To deal with this threat, we need cooperative action. We need global action. We cannot turn our backs on the first global treaty that has been signed to initiate a process that will reduce the level of greenhouse gases around the world. We cannot allow the threat of climate change by putting one set of interests ahead of another. We cannot say that because we need to expand the oil and gas industry, we need to use dirtier products to add to our ability to expand. Just like in the second world war, we have to work together on this.

As part of our fight against climate change, we need a national energy strategy as well, which is based on renewable energy and uses an east-west electricity grid to transfer clean energy from one part of Canada to another. At our last convention, the NDP adopted a policy for the creation of a national energy strategy.

Only through cooperative effort and effective planning, such as the development of a national energy strategy, will we be able to successfully meet the challenge of climate change. We cannot simply put into place targets without planning, without telling everyone how are we going to move forward. We have to let them know what are going to invest in to make our future right.

We talk about investing in liquefied natural gas terminals. Choosing to export money and the problem of climate change and bring in another source of fossil fuels for Canadians, is not a solution that should fit for Canadians. We can look at our valuable resources in the tar sands and say that one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from these tar sands is to export the raw bitumen, export jobs, export economic opportunities and export pollution. That does not make sense either in a world in which we live. We need to work with our people in the tar sands to ensure the product they provide is clean, it works and it has the desirable attributes that we want from an energy product.

It is time for the environment minister and others in the House, who are not ready to face the challenge, to put away their scare tactics, to work with the rest of us, to work with Canadians and to come together, bring Bill C-30 forward, let us debate it in the House of Commons and let us move forward in that regard.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Some jobs will be lost in transit to an environmentally sustainable economy but many more will be created. However, even more than Canadians losing their jobs, they will lose their future and their grandchildren's future if we lose the intrinsic nature of the stability of our climate and our environment by doing nothing.

The environment minister claims that the cost of electricity will rise by 50%. I guess the minister does not realize just how many other opportunities there are for electricity across the country. Generating electricity with fossil fuels and with oil and coal has, if properly computed, more expensive results than many other forms of energy.

Having hard targets for greenhouse gas reduction will force investments into much more clean, useful, sustainable and long term forms of energy generation. It will improve the use of fossil fuels in terms of cogeneration. It will make a difference to Canada in wind power, hydro, solar, biomass, all those things. It will move them ahead as they can be moved ahead and as they have the opportunity to move ahead.

We were in a natural resources committee meeting last week and we heard people from the wind power sector say that we had the ability of 100,000 megawatts within the existing transmission system in Canada. We have that resource available to us. Solar energy is available everywhere in the country. As we use it, as we increase the volume of it, the price will come down and the long term impact on our economy will be very positive. Then we can talk about conservation in the short term.

I heard the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, in the Bill C-30 committee, say that he had a geographically challenged area in the country for energy. He said that people had to travel long distances and that they had to use lots of energy to heat and light their homes. Interestingly enough, we did that before 1990 as well. Before 1990, we were a very large energy user. Therefore, in comparison, when we talk about Kyoto, we talk about the reduction of energy in our homes and about the reduction in our transportation system. It is relative to 1990 where we did much the same as we do now.

Canadians are large energy users. Energy was cheap for many years. We use a lot of it. We have great opportunities. The least costly electrical energy right now is the megawatt. The reduction in use of that source of energy will not cost 50% more; it will cost 50% less for the consumer.

The energy minister said that the price of gasoline would rise by more than 60%. Over the last five years, we have seen the price of gasoline go up and down like a yo-yo. That has not stopped our economy. That has not stopped people from getting to and from work. Again, he assumes that average Canadians will not move to cars which use less gasoline or other fuels or increase their use of public transit if the price of gasoline goes up.

The minister must believe that no one will use the measures announced in the recent budget and last year's budget. I am sure the minister is familiar with the law of supply and demand. When the demand goes down, the cost of the supply will go down as well. As Canadians use less and less gasoline, demand will drop, resulting in a levelling of prices or a drop.

The minister wants to scare us into believing that a doubling of natural gas prices will throw the economy into a tailspin. In the last decade the price of natural gas has gone from $2 a gigajoule up to $8. That is a quadrupling of the price of natural gas in Canada. Has the Canadian economy suffered? Has it fallen into chaos? No, it has not. Canadians are extremely adaptable. Our industries are adaptable. They make the moves that are necessary to accommodate increased energy costs, and they have done that.

If the Canadian economy can grow when natural gas prices continue to climb, doubling in price, according to this incredible assumption of $195 a tonne for carbon tax, which we have to take because the minister has given it to us, the economy will not stop. The economy will continue to grow. We will continue to heat our homes. We may move to other forms of energy, whether it is biomass pellets, or geothermal or solar energy, but we will move ahead. We will continue to move ahead, even in the situation where the minister wants us to go with $195 a tonne carbon tax.

In Bill C-30, the carbon tax is $30 and 50% will be returned to the companies if they make the effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and 50% will go into retrofits for people in homes and businesses across the country.

The Conservatives have put forward a retrofit program and over four years it will deliver for about 1% of Canadian homes. It is a good idea, but it is not enough money. If we want to put money into retrofit in Canada, which we need to do and which will help every Canadian that invests in that sort of activity, then we need more money in the programs. Bill C-30 can provide that money. We know we can do better than 1% of Canadian homes over four years.

Finally, the minister would have us believe that every one of us would have to shell out an extra $1,000 a year to take action on climate change. As I have run through the other three conclusions that he drew from his report, this is as erroneous as those. People will adjust to what has to be done. The result may be the other way around, where Canadians will conserve and save themselves $1,000 a year in energy costs.

Will there be winners in an economy based on the Kyoto reduction principles of greenhouse gas emissions? There will be many winners, as there always are in our economy. Some people will take advantage of the opportunities to do the right thing, to make the right investment, to come up with the right industrial process and to put forward the correct ideas that can drive their municipalities, their provinces, their homes. Winners are always part of an economy in our country.

Who will take a hit then? Who are the people who will be hurt by the Kyoto compliance? Polluters who do not live up to what they have to do. The large multinational corporations, all friends of the Conservatives, will have to finally clean up their mess.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today. The need for action on climate change is now, which is why the New Democratic Party will support this motion that reads:

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

This is a good motion and it does not preclude the free enterprise system in developing other carbon exchanges in this country. Interest has been expressed by other cities to have similar things. We may find, as time goes on, that these systems could be developed in a way that would be uniquely Canadian and may include other locations in the country. I know Winnipeg is interested. The motion does not tie our hands in this regard but does push forward with the need to set the targets for achieving Kyoto.

We have worked diligently in committee on Bill C-30 over the past six months in, what I have always considered, a nation-building exercise. We put the ideas from all the parties together and created Bill C-30, a bill that represents the majority view in the House of Commons. It represents a building of a consensus toward an issue that can only be solved through consensus, through the support of all parties, through the recognition that we are working for the betterment of Canada and the world, and that partisan political differences must be cast aside.

Last week the environment minister tried to scare Canadians from taking the needed action on climate change when he painted his doom and gloom scenario before members of the Senate. That, of course, raised everyone's hackles. Let us look at how realistic his nightmare on green street is.

He said that meeting Canada's greenhouse gas commitments would take a quarter of a million jobs out of the economy. This level of job loss in Canada, according to the minister, would result in economic chaos for Canada. How can he say this when the job loss from the North American Free Trade Agreement resulted in more than four times the number of Canadians who had lost jobs?

According to the Conservatives, NAFTA is good for Canada. Where was their concerns about job losses when the result was greater profit for their business pals? Where was the chaos in the Canadian economy? People worked, they recovered from the job losses and they moved ahead.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's dissertation. I have heard many of them from the Conservative Party.

It seems to me that some people are leaders in history, some people are led by history and others are dragged kicking and screaming by it, which seems to be the policy position of the Conservative Party right now.

When we saw the Conservative-Reform Party initially it said that there was no such thing as greenhouse gases. This was, in the words of the Prime Minister, a “socialist” plot to suck money out of Alberta.

Then we saw the Conservative-Reform Party became the home of every flat earth theory going on the environment. It was sunspots. It was El Niño It was the flatulence of the dinosaurs that changed the heat in the last millennium.

Then, in this new Parliament, we have a minister who has said that if we do anything we will shut down every plane, train and automobile and turn out all the lights, so we cannot do anything.

That did not work either.

Then the Conservatives had Bill C-30, although that has been shelved. Now they are telling us not to worry. They are telling us that they will actually do something but we have to give them more time.

I am wondering when they are actually going to get serious, just stop protecting the oil patch and get down to doing what Canadians are asking for, which is to take action on greenhouse gases now.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, last fall the Environment Commissioner reported that Canada can reach 21% of its Kyoto targets each year annually through a domestic offset and trading system, but the government's own Kyoto report last week announced that it would never allow such a system to be used.

Between Chicken Little's report and his refusal to be clear about Bill C-30, one thing has become clear. The government is doing everything it can to do nothing about global warming.

We all know now what the Conservatives will not do, so can the minister finally tell us what percentage of Kyoto he is willing to--

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's apocalyptic report is deeply flawed. But how can we win the fight of our generation if our hands are tied? Bill C-30, as amended by the committee, enables Canadians to use all the tools available to them under the Kyoto protocol.

Why can the minister not decide whether he will bring the bill to a vote? When will he make up his mind?

Opposition Motion--Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of the Bloc Québécois which really has two elements in it. It first talks about the importance of fixed targets, a regulated system for Canada's greenhouse gases; and second, that it has to be a precondition for the establishment of a carbon market in Montreal or indeed anywhere else in Canada.

I would like today to focus on the carbon market aspect of this and I think there are 13 important lessons when it comes to carbon markets.

Lesson number one is that a carbon market, in and of itself, does not lower emissions. To be real, somebody somewhere has to be undertaking activity, whether it is industrial or agricultural, that actually demonstrably lowers greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we keep asking the minister and his parliamentary secretary for the government to show its plan, so that we can get on with establishing a carbon market.

Lesson number two for the minister is that we cannot have a carbon market if carbon emissions are treated as free if the atmosphere is treated as a waste receptacle. If emissions are free, there is nothing to trade and that is why the Liberal Party put forward its carbon budget plan to put a value on CO₂ emissions. That was further demonstrated in Bill C-30, which was amended to reflect a true climate change plan and a true clean air act.

Lesson number three follows, therefore, that to have a carbon market carbon has to have a precise value or price. It has to be determined by the market and in order for that to happen emissions have to be capped by regulation and, hence, targets. That is why our carbon budget plan said that the price of carbon for those who exceeded their budget would be $20 in 2008, rising to $30 in 2012. That is what it means to put a value on carbon.

Lesson number four, which follows, is that caps on emissions have to be absolute, not intensity based. I am told that it is theoretically possible to have a market with intensity based targets, but it will likely be more complex and not fungible or compatible with systems like that which have been set up in the European Union.

This is why the Bloc motion is so important. This motion puts the emphasis on absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets so as to meet the Kyoto targets.

Targets have to be tough and get tougher to create a sufficient price signal to provide incentive for the formation of a market.

We will see how tough these targets really are next Thursday, if I understood correctly, when the government's intentions will be made known.

Lesson number five is that a carbon trading market needs to be simple, completely transparent and liquid. It cannot be complex. It cannot be an over the counter system where only big players can understand it and participate. It has to be accessible and fair to smaller companies and to individual investors.

Lesson number six deals with quality. Credit certification must be of top quality, of top environmental transparency and integrity.

Lesson number seven is additionality. We cannot give credit for carbon reducing activities that would have happened anyway.

Lesson number eight is that for maximum efficiency a domestic carbon trading market has to be compatible or interconvertible with the North American market, such as the Chicago exchange, and ultimately with Europe and with the United Nations clean development mechanism. That again is why we need absolute targets to establish an absolute price.

Lesson number nine is that, as with any market, we need to give this new derivative market time to work out the bugs, to establish investor confidence and to build credibility. Both the European system and the United Nations clean development mechanism have gone through a pilot period project where mistakes were made and the learning from those mistakes was used to improve the system. Perfection is not automatic or instantaneous.

The Chicago market is essentially a voluntary market for carbon where participation is not mandatory, as it is in the European Union. Chicago, too, is learning a great deal about how to build a successful carbon market. I would note that, because the Chicago market is voluntary, carbon prices in Chicago are lower than they are in Europe. We also need to learn from these types of experiences so that we can avoid their early mistakes, and there were mistakes.

Lesson number 10 is that it is a huge political challenge to explain to the public in simple language what a carbon market actually is and why it helps. As I have said before, an atmospheric tipping fee no longer treats the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle for what we call CO₂.

Lesson number 11 is that it is extremely important that we have a carbon trading market located in Canada. Otherwise, it will end up being located in Chicago or elsewhere, which is why we need a clear signal now from the government about the nature of the system it intends to create.

That leads to lesson number 12, which is that it is critical that we get a regulated system in place as soon as possible in Canada for greenhouse gases and the carbon market.

As for lesson number 13—and I see my friends from the Bloc—it is not for me to decide between Montreal or Toronto. It is as if I was asked to choose between the Senators, the Canadiens or the Toronto Maple Leafs. Personally, I always choose the Maple Leafs, because that is where I was elected. Nevertheless, we must let the market decide, as we must let the Stanley Cup decide among these three teams; it is not up to us. Ultimately, quality will win out.

In closing, I can certainly say that the Liberal Party supports the concept of creating a carbon trading market in Canada.

The Liberal Party also supports the development of an integrated climate change plan that deals with all the major sources of emissions in Canada, that is to say, industrial, electricity, upstream oil and gas, big industrial energy consumers, transportation, residential, commercial, agricultural and waste, but we have to be part of the only global system going, the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol, which flows from that.

We have to set ambitious fixed targets for ourselves and give it our best effort to reach them.

We have to honour our international obligations and Canada's promise to the world.

We have to save our country and our planet.

Most of all, we have to pass a better world on to our children and to their children.

A Canadian carbon trading market, wherever it is ultimately located, is a small but important part of that effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question.

Bill C-30, which was originally introduced by the Conservatives, did not contain anything for the short term. There were no objectives, no mechanisms, no timetables, nothing. Having been amended by opposition parties, it is totally acceptable and is an excellent tool to fight climate changes today. This bill is also being totally obstructed by the government, which does not want to bring it back to the House. Let us bring it back to the House so we can pass it and move to action.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

As a matter of fact, speaking of courage and political will, I would just like to ask my colleague if he has any comments about Bill C-30 having been held up for a very long time. We could even say that the government is unduly holding up the process.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to this important bill. This government is taking real action to address the issues of air quality and climate change, which are of concern to Canadians in every region of our vast country.

Harmful emissions continue to affect our environment, our health, as well as our quality of life. It affects us every day in everything we do.

As we on this side of the House have said before, we believe that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing the world today and we take it very seriously.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have been very clear that this government intends to bring in a short term regulatory framework very shortly. This is the first government in history to actually take this step for Canadians and the quality of life for Canadians.

Canada's new government wants industry to do a U-turn but instead of talking about it, we are taking action. Instead of 13 years of increased emissions under the Liberals, we want to turn the corner and reduce emissions and get real results. Under the watch of the previous Liberal government we are now 35% above the agreement it signed on Kyoto.

These tough new industrial regulations that our Conservative government will be bringing forward will give real, tangible health and environmental benefits for Canadians, on the ground benefits, as well as some positive economic effects. We will do that without stopping the economy or slowing down the economy. We will do it by keeping pace with the economy and adding to it.

Obviously we cannot put a price tag on all these benefits, such as cleaner communities and natural spaces, of healthier children, of fewer premature deaths, of more sustainable natural resources and, for the first time ever, meaningful contributions to the global effort to control greenhouse gas emissions through a strong regulatory agenda, through a government that gets results and sends a clear message to industry that we want results.

Today I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss some of those initiatives, specifically in the area of transportation. It is very important to realize that transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Our efforts in this sector will play a very key role in Canada's environmental agenda.

The movement of people and the movement of goods causes significant environmental consequences. We are a trading nation. We are a nation of movers. Things such as air and water pollution are so important and they are caused by this area of transportation. These environmental impacts in turn result in real social and economic costs and affect the health and quality of life of Canadians from wherever we are, whether we are in the city or the country.

Transportation has been linked to over half of Canada's total carbon monoxide emissions and nitrogen oxide emissions. The growth of emissions in this sector is caused in large part by the growth in our population, which is obviously growing at quite a pace in some parts of the country, our economy and its growth, as well as improvements in our standard of living. We like to travel around in the summertime to our cottages or in our boats. This leads to more road and air travel.

Total transportation related greenhouse gas emissions increased by 27% between 1990 and 2004. These emissions now account for 25% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions, the largest single source of gas emissions.

In October 2006, the Conservative Government of Canada issued its notice of intent to regulate major emitting industry sectors of the economy. In terms of regulatory action in the transportation sector, this Conservative government will be taking action with respect to motor vehicles, rail, aviation and marine. I think industry overall, in all parts of Canada, is looking forward to knowing with certainty what this government intends to do and we will tell them.

Emissions from road transportation accounts for 75% of Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions and passenger travel accounts for over half of that. Those are unbelievable statistics. Our goal is to establish a regulatory regime with targets that promote concrete environmental improvements that are also consistent with the need for industry to remain competitive in the North American context and in the world. This includes the auto and oil sectors. They must remain competitive. We must keep the jobs in Canada.

With respect to the rail sector, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment support the current voluntary agreement negotiated with the Railway Association of Canada. This agreement will ensure that the rail industry reduces its emissions of air pollutants consistent with the United States Environmental Protection Agency air pollutants standards and continues to improve the performance of its greenhouse gas emissions between 2006 and 2010. This will get results. Through the current Railway Safety Act, this government will develop and implement new regulations to take effect following the end of the voluntary agreement in 2010.

For the marine industry, the Government of Canada supports the development of new international standards because, obviously, we share the water with so many other countries. These were established by the International Maritime Organization for controlling air emissions from ships. The government will ensure their application domestically under the Canada Shipping Act and this will also include support for a process to designate North American coasts as areas where ships must reduce sulphur emissions.

For the aviation industry, the Government of Canada supports the development of international standards and recommended practices through the International Civil Aviation Organization for emissions from aviation sources. We believe that this is the best way to get results in the short term and in the long term.

Our approach to dealing with environmental issues does not end with regulations. We have some hands-on approaches that will bring tangible results very soon. This government is making complementary investments to encourage the development of environmental technologies and to stimulate behavioural changes through consumers, which is where I think we will see the best results.

In February, the government announced its ecotransport strategy, an excellent strategy that is aimed at reducing emissions from the transportation sector. Initiatives under the strategy include the ecomobility program aimed at working with municipalities to help cut urban passenger transportation emissions and develop programs, services and products for urban areas.

The next initiative is the ecotechnology for vehicles program which will provide funding for testing and promoting advanced, environmentally friendly vehicle technologies and building partnerships with automotive industries; in essence, to get more fuel efficient vehicles on the road and with consumers.

The third initiative is the ecofreight program which is aimed at reducing the environmental and health effects of freight transportation through the accelerated adoption of emissions reducing technology. Technology is the goal and reducing it today for tomorrow's generation is what we will do.

The ecoenergy for personal vehicles program, which is delivered by Natural Resources Canada, will be especially interesting to some people because Natural Resources Canada will provide fuel consumption information and decision making tools to encourage consumers to purchase those more fuel efficient vehicles that are currently available in the market. We believe this will bring even more vehicles into the marketplace for consumers.

In the past year, Canada's new government has taken real tangible steps to get results for Canadians with more than $2 billion of investments in a cleaner and more efficient transportation system. Budget 2007 builds on these investments by encouraging the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, the retirement, which is very important, of older and more polluting vehicles, and the domestic production of renewable fuels, which will help not only our economy but our environment and our farmers generally across the country.

In budget 2007, this government announced the ecoauto program, a new performance based rebate program offering up to $2,000 for the purchase of a new fuel efficient or efficient alternative fuel vehicle.

These steps are excellent and this government is taking tangible steps today to get results for Canadians.

Initiatives in budget 2007 to create an infrastructure advantage also helped. On the Bill C-30 committee, we heard from a witness from Quebec of how important green spaces were, not just to people but to the environment itself and to Canada for long term strategy.

We are including the transfer of $2 billion per year to the municipalities from 2010-11 and 2013-14 by extending the gas tax funding. We have listened to the stakeholders, to the municipalities and to the provinces and we are taking steps to ensure we provide what they want, which is a cleaner environment, more green spaces and a better quality of life for the people.

This Conservative government is meeting the challenge to foster cleaner air and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The transport sector, the sector that we are responsible for, is a key part of our strategy and we are going from the bottom to the top to ensure we find all the places on which we can move forward for a cleaner environment.

I have provided some concrete examples of the actions that Canada's new government is taking now to protect and improve the health of Canadians and the environment by reducing the environmental impacts of transportation.

This government wants our air and our water to be clean and we want to take action on climate change. We want our communities, our families and our children to be healthy.

I am confident that in working with all members of the House and with all levels of government, industry and all Canadians, we will ensure that improvements are made, not only to our environment but also to the health and quality of life of all Canadians today and for future generations.

We are getting the job done.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois on this Bloc opposition day. This is a clear and straightforward motion calling on the government “to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The debate we are having in the House of Commons today is a very important one, a debate on one of the greatest challenges we have ever had to face: climate change. In recent months, numerous credible scientific studies have improved knowledge of the magnitude of the environmental issues and challenges we are currently facing, and explained to some extent what most people have been realizing for themselves: we have a role and responsibility where the current climate disruptions are concerned.

I will not discuss the research commissioned by the Conservative government, which serves as the basis for the campaign of fear it has been engaged in for the past week. Acting like a lobby for the oil industry, this government has always denied the existence of climate change. One can hardly lend any credibility to such a catastrophic, apocalyptic scenario.

Instead, I will remind the members of this House of recent reports by a former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The first report recommends that each country invest 1% of its GDP in fighting climate change to prevent future economic losses up to 20 times higher than the cost of reversing the trend now. There is increasing certainty about climate change, and particularly its effects: increased tropical storms, heatwaves, smog episodes, hurricanes, forest fires and droughts, not to mention glaciers melting, sea levels rising and reduced availability of drinking water.

While we do not want to be alarmist, we must be clear and honest. According to the second report, the UN report, at least 30% of the species in the world are in danger of extinction if temperatures rise two degrees above averages in recent years. As well, 250 million people could be without water by 2020. In addition, an increase in extreme weather, such as tsunamis and storms, may occur, along with other disturbing events.

During this time, as if to justify its failure to act, the Conservative government has continued to blame the Liberals' poor performance in combating climate change during the time they were in power.

Day after day, since they were elected, the Conservatives have promised us action. After 14 months in power, we see that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost 14 months in the fight against climate change. That is precious time, and in this important battle no responsible government can stand by while time is lost.

And yet after slashing climate change programs at the beginning of its term, the government then recycled the Liberal programs, under public and political pressure. Once again, precious time has been lost.

The Conservative government underestimates Quebeckers and Canadians when it comes to the importance they place on the environment and climate change. It still does not seem to be hearing them today, or even to understand what they are saying.

Issues relating to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are very important to Quebeckers. In fact, 76% of Quebeckers believe that the government must reach the objectives in the Kyoto protocol. Quebeckers are actually the lowest producers of greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and we are one of the only developed societies, with Norway, where oil does not account for a majority of our energy consumption. This is explained, in part, by the choice we made to develop the hydroelectric system.

We in the Bloc Québécois have echoed the concerns of the Quebec public regarding these environmental issues, on the federal scene, at least since the 2000 election campaign in which we made it one of the central topics. In 2003, the Bloc Québécois made a major contribution to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and since then has made implementation of the protocol a priority.

Recently, we helped to collect over 120,000 signatures on a petition calling for compliance with the commitments made in the Kyoto protocol.

Quebeckers demand an exemplary contribution to environmental protection both from themselves and from their elected representatives. This fact is one of the major reasons why the Conservative government, which is trying to seduce Quebeckers by every imaginable means, has for some time been trying to portray itself as a green government.

Quebeckers are not fooled, and they are well aware that the Conservative government has never had any genuine interest in environmental causes. Its heart and soul have long been promised to the oil industry in western Canada. That is no secret to anyone. That is why it does not believe in the Kyoto protocol.

Here are some examples to illustrate that fact. First, the House of Commons has twice given official recognition to the importance of meeting the Kyoto targets, and rather than honouring the wishes of a majority of the members of this House, the Conservative government commissioned a study to justify its failure to act, because the Kyoto protocol would cause significant damage to companies in the west, and especially oil companies.

Then there was the Conservative government's refusal to put an immediate and complete end to the accelerated capital cost allowance (CCA) deduction available to oil companies exploiting the oil sands, in spite of the billions of dollars in profits they are pocketing.

In addition, the government has long refused to meet its own time frames and set targets for greenhouse gas reduction. It is proposing to set intensity targets rather than fixed targets. Now we learn that it is considering changing the reference date for these reductions, making 2006 the reference year instead of 1990.

Furthermore, we do not know the future of Bill C-30, which required so many hours of work over many weeks by parliamentarians on the Standing Committee on the Environment and which was significantly improved by the opposition parties. We have a good bill at the moment, which meets the expectations of Quebeckers and Canadians. What is the Conservative government going to do? It may well be in no hurry to bring it back to the House for passage.

The Conservative government is once again demonstrating that Canada's interests are at the other end of the spectrum from Quebec's. While oil makes Canada rich, it makes Quebec poor.

The oil and gas industry substantially bolsters the Canadian economy, be it oil in Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan or natural gas in Nova Scotia. The inflated dollar fluctuating with the cost of a barrel of oil and heavily impacting the manufacturing sector affects Quebec's economy.

Quebec produces no oil. It must therefore import it. In 2006, Quebec purchased $13 billion worth, while facing a trade deficit of $7 billion. This dependence on oil has plunged Quebec into a full blown trade deficit. In truth no one can deny anymore the problem with climate change or that specific and effective action must be taken immediately.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is repeatedly calling for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol to reduce Canadian gas emissions by 6% under the 1990 level, with absolute targets.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is demanding a mechanism based on a territorial approach, that is, an approach that will give Quebec the fiscal instruments to enable it to implement the most effective measures possible to reduce greenhouse gases within its borders. This is the most effective approach, the only truly fair one reflecting the environmental efforts and choices made by Quebeckers and by the province's industrial sector in recent years, especially in the area of hydroelectricity.

And this is why the Bloc Québécois is insisting that the plan include the establishment of a carbon exchange, to compensate the provinces, companies and organizations that lead the way in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Such an exchange is needed urgently in order to impose reduction targets on the major polluters. That is the producer pays policy. A business wishing to modernize could therefore finance the modernization to some extent by selling credits to other companies. The oil industry would be one example.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion on climate change, especially concerning the carbon exchange. This concept is really necessary for our country, which should make an immediate commitment to emission trading. Otherwise, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets and to continue discussions with the rest of the world.

The government is somewhat confused because I believe that the government will support this motion. However, it is possible that the confusion is caused by language. The French version contains some very specific elements that do not appear in the English version. Therefore, we should closely examine the French text today. First, there is this sentence:

Que la Chambre invite le gouvernement à établir au plus tôt des cibles absolues de réduction des gaz à effet de serre permettant d’atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto—

The words “cibles absolues”, or “absolute targets” are very important, and they are the reason that the NDP will support this motion.

The English version has a slightly but important different expression that is important for us to rectify here today. I know members in the House will work with us to perhaps fix this.

The motion reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol--

The language around the mechanisms in Kyoto is very specific in its use and phrasing. In English, the government may be reading in some cover for its intensity based targets because the word “absolute” is not applied. In the language of Kyoto, absolute targets mean an absolute cap. That is the common reference that we use when talking about large industrial polluters.

It is also the language that we use when we talk about an absolute target for countries, not a moving target, not a target associated to energy intensity, which was previously supported by the current leader of the Liberal Party and his party in the former Parliament. This intensity based target was supported actually by the current leader of the Liberal Party all the way through his leadership campaign. These are the same criticisms the Liberal Party is now vaunting upon the Conservatives, that an intensity based target was the way to go.

Let me explore this topic for a moment because it is important for Canadians listening to understand the differences between an absolute target and an intensity based target.

Intensity allows a country to set intensity based targets. That means if a country becomes more efficient in its business processes and industrial process, if that intensity improves over years, then that country gets credit for having improved when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem with an intensity based target is that it can allow, under an expanding economy, and as we have seen in Alberta that attempted this in its provincial targets, an improvement of 19% in intensity over a 10 year period, but an increase of almost 40% in the absolute greenhouse gas emissions for the province.

When countries come together at international conferences to talk about reducing our impact on the planet and the planet's atmosphere, what they are always talking about is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the only conversation held. It does not matter one's political perspective on the topic, right, left, American, Australian, or Canadian. They are talking about seeking a way to lower the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are sent out by our industrial processes. That is the critical component of this.

This issue seems to have been a bit of a moving target over the last number of weeks. The government says we are within the Kyoto protocol, but we are not going to meet the targets.

Now, it is suggested that we support the Bloc motion to have absolute targets for reduction of greenhouse gases. The words “absolute targets” are very, very clear. They establish a very strong connection with the Kyoto protocol and Canada’s international commitments. It is also necessary to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, or a general carbon exchange, wherever it may be located.

In the context of all this, as we have heard in the speeches from the environment critics and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the parties will take out their natural barbs and hooks for each other around the issue of the environment, which has become increasingly important for Canadians.

There has been almost a seismic shift in the consciousness of Canadians who are interested in the affairs of government and their nation to say that the environment, and climate change in particular, has become one of the leading issues for our country.

I would strongly suggest the government did not get elected on an environmental platform. I clearly remember the platform document the Conservatives ran on. I think there were three phrases in the entire document devoted to the environment. It was a platform piece. The Conservatives were vague. There was something in it about clean air and clean water, and a third one that has since been forgotten.

Now arriving in government, those members find themselves in a bit of a predicament, having spilled much ink in their brochures and pamphlets about the evils of international obligations like the Kyoto process, and are now faced with a population that wants something done.

To take some small pieces in lessons from history, when the Conservatives introduced their clean air act last fall, there was much excitement and anticipation by many in the Conservative cabinet at least, but I am not sure about the Canadian public. Minister after minister came to me and said how impressed I was about to be with what was going to be called the clean air act.

It was the clean air act. According to them it was very strong, very specific and very generous.

At the end of the day we found out that the act was wanting in specifics, deadlines and lacking in efficacy. We were unable to support the act and were able to encourage the other opposition parties in the House to do the same because there was almost no moral ground to stand upon in pushing off serious action in respect to climate change for another 20 years, 30 years or 40 years. That was not responsible.

What is responsible is to recommit to our international obligations, a legally binding document which we have not heard a murmur from the government on how it is going to square this circle in being signatories, which it is in representing the Canadian people, to this protocol that has built-in penalties for countries that do not abide by that signature or their targets.

The government is trying to square the idea that it can both be in the protocol, adhere to international obligations, and yet not meet those obligations. It is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest at worst.

When the act was introduced, it was dead on arrival. It was disappointing and frustrating because the legacy that the Liberal Party had left behind in government was known throughout the land as being a record of an over concentration and focus on media and optics, spin and announcements, and little to do with concrete action.

The sad part of this conversation for Canadians, and there is a great deal of skepticism in the public when the government makes announcements, is that they have some justification for the skepticism when looking at the so-called new government because after some 13 months or 14 months, some incredibly long feeling period of time short on the calendar but long when we look at the amount of delay, we are still waiting for serious action.

It may feel beyond even 10 years for some in the Liberal Party who are not quite used to the feelings of what it is not to be able to control the media's spin cycle. However, when we look at the principles of their bill, we realize that the bill as proposed was dead in Parliament.

I remember the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth standing in his place, two weeks after the bill was introduced calling upon the government and the other parties to work together, to form a special committee, give us a forum to bring the best ideas forward, and to rewrite the bill from top to bottom in order to include within it things that are called for by the motion from the Bloc today, and other motions that have come from Conservative and Liberal members.

It was a fascinating experience and important because Canadians heard stories of parliamentarians attempting to work together, of finding common ground. Looking through the record, as I have, for the various votes cast for this particular piece of legislation, I found members from the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats voting for many aspects of it. They did not agree with all of it, but they say the principles of a good negotiation are always based upon each party giving up something. No one gets it all.

As much as the Prime Minister would like to wage a war of attrition and decide that whatever he writes is law, he must come to the realization that he is working within the confines of a minority Parliament. This is the House that Canadians constructed for us and most clearly want us to work together, particularly around issues that we have said from all four corners of the House go beyond narrow partisan interests because it is the future of the environment, the climate and future prosperity of generations to come.

We rewrote the bill and adopted aspects of the bill that were written initially. Much of the actual air pollution sections, the air quality sections, were modified but adopted by the various committee members. We included new pieces, leading edge ideas, that have been accepted by the parties and no one party voted for every one and no one party voted against every piece. It was a mix.

To my perspective, and I believe the perspective of many Canadians, that is the sign of a healthy Parliament, a healthy debate, when people are able to give their input and have various coalitions form around the table on any given day. As members from that committee know, there were various votes cast. Some things were defeated and some things not. To make Parliament work, to make Parliament deliver for Canadians on the environment, that is what the NDP was focused on. That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, was entirely focused on through the process and he has received proper credit for his work there.

I will now break down the notion of a carbon exchange market.

It is very important to understand to what extent this tool is good for Canadian companies and for everyone, and that it will make it possible to advance this concept of greenhouse gas reduction.

I will quote a brief extract from the testimony of Mr. Bertrand, the president of the Montreal Exchange, on the subject of absolute targets. In response to a question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bertrand stated the following: “We think that an intensity-based system would add another element of uncertainty to the market.”

All the business witnesses said that it was impossible to invest in the reduction of greenhouse gases with a system that creates uncertainty. The concept of intensity targets does not work for Canadian companies or for our country’s Kyoto targets. It is not possible for the Conservative government, on one hand, to say that intensity targets are sufficient and, on the other hand, to support the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie which begins, “That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol—”.

That is the intention of Bill C-30. They have changed the name because it is a very important bill that deals not only with air quality, but also with climate change. That is the reason that the NDP will support the motion. It will support the effort to put more pressure on this government. It is necessary to ensure the passage of Bill C-30 concerning climate change and Canada’s clean air act, as it has been called by the government.

For Canadians watching who are not familiar with carbon exchange markets, it is a very simple concept based fundamentally upon market concepts that exist. Canadians invest in the markets every day, for their retirement, for businesses to secure enough capital to make the investments, create an economy, hire more people and put Canadians to work. The market based system, the exchange of value for future promised value that is the basis of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges around the world is the same concept that was borrowed from those trying to fight this climate change process.

A very wise witness came before the committee and said not to think of the Kyoto process as an environmental negotiation as much as it is an economic negotiation because this is changing some of the fundamentals of our economy. It is demanding that at long last the polluter must pay. This is a concept that has been bandied around in this Parliament and others for far too long. It is simple. The concept says that those who pollute, in this case those who emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, must pay for that pollution, otherwise we invoke the greatest tragedy we have ever known. Who is responsible for the atmosphere, who is responsible for the quality of the air if not those who are contributing to the ruination of the atmosphere and the quality of air?

It seems to us and to many others that this market based approach is one of the most effective tools that government can apply in setting up the terms of reference, in setting up clear rules and regulations so that companies can compete. It will allow industries to choose the lowest cost solutions to reduce their pollution and have a net overall benefit to our atmosphere and our economy.

At the end of the day, in order to achieve the short term targets that are outlined in the Kyoto protocol, and to which Canada has obligated itself, unless the government plans on tearing up the protocol, which it may be doing quietly but has certainly not publicly said it will do, then we need this tool. Businesses which are unable to make the transition in three to four years, which is Kyoto's requirement now because we have wasted so much time in the 13 years previously and in the almost year and a half with the present government, need this tool.

We have made some shift with the government. There has been some release of the ideology in small ways. I can remember the minister coming to the committee and when asked about the clean development mechanisms and other trading mechanisms that are available within the protocol, he said absolutely and definitively no.

At the time I thought he may have misspoke himself. It was not until we saw business representative after representative come before the committee and say they want access to these tools. The oil and gas sector, the coal fired energy sector are saying they want access to these tools and mechanisms because they think it is important and useful for their business. They need to be able to factor into their spreadsheets and costs of doing business the concept of pollution, the concept of greenhouse gas emissions. The notions of a carbon exchange allow them to do that and they want access to it. Why would the government deny them? They are supposedly much of the government's support base, certainly within the Alberta energy sector. They asked for access to this market. It becomes a question of who the government is defending from these tools. It is certainly not the companies that are most involved with the process, the large polluters in this country.

The government made an absolutely false and almost silly presentation on the cost of these international obligations to which we have committed. The minister was out trumpeting that last week. That needs to be set aside once and for all. We can no longer have this pitched battle of ideology between doing things for the environment and doing things for the economy. That debate for many Canadians is long since over. If the government continues to wage this campaign and die on this hill, I believe both politically and personally the Conservatives will be punished for it because it is a false debate. We have moved well beyond that. Our international competitors have shown us that.

Canada runs the desperate risk of being left in the dust in innovation, new energy production, and a more sensible and sane policy for this country and for our economy.

We will be supporting this motion and look forward to the support of all parties. We look for support from all parties to finally move forward the so-called clean air and climate change legislation, so that we can get the solutions on the table that will allow industry and Canadians to engage with government and not have a government in direct opposition to those efforts.

The Environment

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that plus ça change, plus c'est pareil.

Over the past few months, MPs have spent hundreds of hours hearing witnesses and debating on how to fight climate change in Canada. However, it seems the Conservative government does not care if Bill C-30 is ever brought to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you today to get a search warrant to see if we can find Bill C-30 and bring it back to the House because the government is not going to do it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you can find it, get it back to the House so we can debate it, get it passed and fight climate change now.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all across Canada people are worried about climate change, worried their kids' asthma is getting worse, worried that year after year the temperature rises, yet the government does not do anything about it.

Yesterday on Parliament Hill hundreds gathered to demand action on climate change. The crowd and all Canadians were encouraged to call the Prime Minister at 613-992-4122.

Did he get the message, or is his political will box full? Where is Bill C-30? Will he bring it to the House now?

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would describe for us his plan for the business of the House for the balance of this week and to the end of next week. Specifically, during that timeframe, could he indicate the fate of Bill C-16, dealing with fixed election dates? Will the minister confirm that he has no intention of recalling Bill C-16 for further action in the House during the life of this Parliament.

With respect to Bill C-30, the clean air act, when will that legislation come back to the House of Commons for further consideration? When the Prime Minister announces his new plan with respect to emission targets, will the Prime Minister be acting under the auspices of Bill C-30 or under the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has to stop hiding behind bogus, irresponsible and incomplete reports that purport to suggest it is either jobs and the economy on the one hand or the environment on the other. That is simply wrong.

The greatest threat to our economy is the climate change crisis and it is time the Prime Minister understood it. Has he got the guts to bring Bill C-30, which was built by all parties of the House, before the House, and when will he do it?

If he has targets, let him bring them to the House so we can debate them and adopt them or change them. Will he have the courage to--

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

Mr. Speaker, six months ago I called upon the Prime Minister to send his doomed clean air act to a special committee where all parties could participate and where every party could put forward its best ideas on how we could address the crisis of climate change. He agreed to do so.

Now that committee has finished its work. Every party has some of their ideas contained in that legislation.

My question is very simple. The future of this issue is in the hands of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister table the bill before the House? When will he do it so we can debate, amend and vote on the clean air act, Bill C-30? When will he do it?

Climate Change Accountability Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balancing our carbon budget would work in the following way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in the debate this evening on Bill C-377, Climate Change Accountability Act.

At the onset, let me acknowledge that we are all aware of climate change. Responding to climate change is a major concern for this government and no doubt will remain so in the foreseeable future. I suppose the only thing we could say for sure about the weather is that whatever it used to be, it is not likely to be.

In my own riding on the west coast, we are surrounded by temperate rainforest. Tourists flock to the west coast of Vancouver Island to visit Pacific Rim National Park to enjoy the surf, sun, beach, boating and outdoor adventures. Yet, for the first time in memory, this past summer, Tofino, a popular tourist destination, experienced water shortages. This past winter vicious storms lashed the coast causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage to our famous West Coast Trail. In fact, we recently provided $500,000 in funding to help clean up the damage in the park and restore the trail, and a further $2 million to help restore Vancouver's famous Stanley Park. Meanwhile right here in Ottawa, Christmas was one of the mildest in recent history and there were concerns about whether Ottawa's famous Rideau Canal, the world's largest skating rink, would open.

That is why this government has been very clear that in the coming weeks we are going to bring clear targets and regulations that are aimed at specific sources of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

However, rather than the mechanism proposed by Bill C-377, I believe that we have a more effective way of reaching our goals by setting realistic and achievable goals, targets that will strengthen Canada's long term competitiveness, targets that will still represent significant and positive progress in our fight to reduce harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this government is already on the right path to achieving those objectives.

We have made it clear that we are committed to delivering solutions that will protect the health of Canadians and their environment. It is a commitment that we take seriously. That is why we are taking concrete actions that will improve and protect our environment and our health. We are proactively working with Canadians to take action toward those targets. We are providing financial and tax incentives to encourage Canadians to drive eco-friendly vehicles. We are supporting the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and tidal powers. We are providing incentives to Canadians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

Through budget 2007 we are investing $4.5 billion to clean our air and water, to manage chemical substances, to protect our natural environment and to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This investment when combined with over $4.7 billion in environmental investments since 2006 adds up to over $9 billion. That is a significant investment in a cleaner and greener environment right here in Canada.

Canadians care deeply about their environment. They want and they expect their government to take real action. They have told us that they are particularly concerned with the quality of the air that we all breathe.

The notice of intent to regulate that this government issued last October represents real action that Canadians are demanding, a significant, aggressive and positive step in the right direction.

In the coming weeks Canadians will soon see more details expounded as the Minister of the Environment announces the regulatory framework for all industrial sectors. This framework will set short term emissions reduction targets. It will provide real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and in doing so, it will also position Canada among the international leaders in the global fight against climate change.

Permit me to say a few words in the process about Bill C-30, the clean air act, because it is indeed related to many of the issues dealt with in Bill C-377.

Canadians are, as I said, concerned about the quality of the air they breathe and their changing environment. Harmful air emissions continue to affect our health, our environment and our economy, as well as our quality of life. That is why I found some of the changes to Bill C-30 recently pushed through committee by the opposition to be hypocritical.

Through the opposition's amendments to Bill C-30, we have now lost mandatory national air quality standards, mandatory annual public reporting on air quality, and actions to achieve national air quality standards. What are the opposition members thinking? We have lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants and tougher environmental enforcement rules for compliance to air quality regulations.

Probably in the most shocking move, the Liberals inserted a clause that would allow political interference into air quality standards. The Liberals, supported by the NDP, have changed the bill to allow the Minister of the Environment to exempt economically depressed areas from air quality standards for two years. This would allow them to buy votes by exempting certain Liberal-rich voting areas of the country from air quality regulations that protect the health of those voters, while punishing other areas of the country that are economically strong but do not vote Liberal.

For all of the rhetoric from the opposition parties on strengthening Bill C-30, they now have to explain to Canadians why they played personal partisan politics with air quality standards.

Improving and protecting the air we breathe is an objective that all of us in government must work toward regardless of our political stripes. Taking action on climate change and air pollution is everyone's responsibility. Unfortunately, this bill just does not do it. That is why I cannot support Bill C-377. It does not get it done.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this climate change bill crafted by the member for Toronto—Danforth. He knows this issue back and front and, more importantly, he walks the talk. He has retrofitted his home to be a net producer of energy. As a Toronto city councillor, he proposed solutions, followed through and made them reality, such as the Toronto atmospheric fund, one of the most ambitious and effective building retrofit programs in the country.

Now, as MP and leader of the NDP, he has proposed practical solutions and has followed through on that, for example, with the cooperative initiative, bringing all parties together to bring their best ideas to re-craft the flawed Bill C-30. Now it is up to the House to make that a reality.

At the start of the year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its fourth assessment report, which provides the most sobering and scientifically precise overview to date.

It is expected that sea levels will rise, species will become extinct and natural catastrophes will increase throughout the world. In North America, we can expect an increase in hurricanes, flooding, forest fires and drought. Our cities will have to cope with heat waves that will be more frequent and intense and that will last longer, as well as their effects on health, particularly in the elderly and children.

In my province of B.C., drinking water will become more scarce and threats to water quality will become more frequent and serious. Researchers at the University of Victoria have examined 70 to 80 glacier fronts over the past five years and have consistently found glaciers in rapid decline and already at their lowest ebb in 8,000 years.

Last year's boil water advisory in greater Vancouver was the largest in Canadian history, but it will not be the largest for long.

Given the irrefutable scientific evidence before us, what possible reason could any responsible government have for not acting with more urgency?

Liberals and Conservatives seem to agree: both tell us that the economy comes first.

Under the Liberals, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 24% instead of going down, but the economy was booming, they told us, and they could not very well slow it down.

The Conservatives use emergency closure measures to act immediately to impose unfair labour settlements, but not on climate change. For that, we are still waiting.

Pitting the environment against the economy is disingenuous and just irresponsible. Last October's report by former World Bank economist Sir Nicholas Stern makes this very clear.

Societies always need energy. However, we must change our collective mentality by turning from policies of productivity and excessive consumerism to policies that promote efficiency and conservation.

By practising conservation, we can reduce the gap between our energy needs and the supply of clean, renewable energy. The government can help promote the energy efficiency of our homes, buildings and businesses by providing incentives that will lead us to change our means of transportation and the way of ordering our communities and our daily lives.

As a city councillor, I saw the determination of some municipalities to use every tool at their disposal to take up the challenge, while the federal government's response remained weak and unfocused. Canada now ranks 28th out of 29 OECD countries in energy efficiency. We have a lot of room for improvement.

In Victoria, we are working very hard to do our part.

Recently in Victoria there have been several public forums on climate change, with hundreds of people attending, and I dedicated my fall newsletter to the issue of climate change. I commended my constituents for the small and large actions they take every day and I challenged them to do more.

As a result, I received an overwhelming number of feedback forms coming from that newsletter, all with actions that Victorians are taking, such as retrofitting their homes, choosing energy efficient appliances and choosing alternative modes of transportation.

As inspiring as these simple actions are, they are betrayed by continued government inaction or halfway measures, which make it harder, not easier, for ordinary Canadians to make these choices.

It is still easier to buy polluting products that have travelled for miles to get to big box stores than it is to buy local products.

The federal government has failed to correct what Sir Nicholas Stern has called the biggest market failure. When it has acted, it has been with half measures or even quarter measures.

The government's so-called recent ecoenergy home retrofit program is an example of this kind of half-hearted measure. It does not meet the needs of low income Canadians or those with rental properties, whereas what we need is a program that would systematically facilitate the retrofit of millions of homes and buildings in Canada on a yearly basis.

This bill has been introduced precisely because of the inadequate effort of the federal government now and for the past 14 years.

This bill would end the federal government's voluntary delay and would legislate action, action that is rooted in where science tells us we need to go.

It would be based on action that would begin to tilt the market away from polluting industries and would level the playing field between polluting and non-polluting ones.

This bill enshrines the 80% target in law. Furthermore, it requires a 25% reduction by 2020, on par with the commitments of the Kyoto protocol and the 2050 target.

These targets are based on the important report The Case for Deep Reductions, prepared by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation, and supported by all major environmental organizations in Canada. Thus, it stands to reason that the starting point for this bill is meeting our Kyoto protocol commitments. We are joining other countries that have set ambitious targets to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

To arrive at our destination, we must map out a route. That is why the targets are essential.

Since this bill was introduced, some of these measures, notably the medium and long term targets, have been successfully incorporated into Bill C-30 by the special legislative committee. We look forward to Bill C-30 coming back to the House for a vote. However, we know there is no guarantee in politics.

That is why I am urging members of the House to support Bill C-377 in principle and vote for it to proceed to committee. We expect that the committee can be just as constructive in exchanging views and propositions for this legislation.

To close, I would like to relay a thought from an IPCC scientist who attended Victoria's recent forums. He said that no matter what we do, short term temperatures will rise as a result of the past decades of inaction, but our actions today are necessary because they will determine the long term impacts that our grandchildren will feel.

It is said that politicians always look for short term electoral gain and I wonder if in this House today we have politicians who are willing to act, not just talk, but act with their vote for the long term.

Do we cherish our environment and our children's future enough to make the fundamental changes that are needed to protect them? Because what we do in this House today is for the next generation.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

What a great question, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we are seeking to build upon the work that has been done in the past on the Canada-U.S. air quality agreement. We want to reopen the agreement and strengthen the provisions for particulate matter to help ensure that the air Canadians breathe is free from pollution, particularly particulate matter.

The Liberal Party, in committee on Bill C-30, stripped the important clean air parts of Bill C-30 and replaced them with its carbon tax, something that will do nothing for young children with asthma and the elderly who have to stay in on smog days caused by Liberal inaction.

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to have an opportunity to speak briefly on the budget debate. I want to indicate at the outset that I am planning to share my time with the hard-working member and NDP finance critic from Winnipeg North.

Much has been said about what is and is not in the budget. I think there is a pretty broad consensus that it is a budget born out of political cynicism and that it is simply an array of broken promises and spectacular betrayals. One hears many comments about the many aspects of those broken promises and disappointments. I want to run through a couple of them in the time available.

I think every member of the House can appreciate that it takes a pretty major force to bring every member of the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats alike, together with every member of the Nova Scotia legislature, Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals alike, to stand together in opposition to the broken promise and spectacular betrayal with respect to the government's treatment of the Atlantic accord and offshore revenue resources.

I am not going to go into all the ins and outs, but let me say very clearly that it is no secret to anybody that what inspired this budget in general, the many choices made by the government and the betrayal with respect to the treatment of offshore resource revenues is the crassest of political objectives. It is the idea that the Conservative minority government can throw overboard anybody in any community, any constituency and any province where it does not think it can make gains to elevate itself to a majority government in the election that it wants to call at the earliest possible opportunity when it calculates that is achievable.

I do not think that this is going to stand up in history as one of the most inspirational visions for a nation. It will be up to the people of Canada to decide, but I think it is absolutely transparent that this was the driving force behind the budget.

Let us be clear that for starters, going into the budget, the government was sitting on and dealing with a surplus of $14.1 billion. Yet when we go through the things that are not even touched or addressed in the budget, it is clear that there is a complete disregard and insensitivity. One cannot even give the government members the benefit of the doubt and say that it is just out of total ignorance that they do not know of the depth and breadth of the unmet needs ignored by the budget.

There is no national housing strategy, this after the previous Liberals destroyed the best national housing program in the world over a decade ago. Nothing has been done to replace it.

There is no national transit strategy. Never has it been more important to have a public transit strategy with our Kyoto challenges and the climate change fiasco that is unfolding.

If it were not for Bill C-30 and, frankly, the leadership of my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, we would have no strategy, no timetables and targets. It is my leader who provided tremendous leadership in saying that we cannot face the nation or the world without a strategy, without timetables and targets, and without something meaningful to begin address climate change, the devastating impact on our country and our commitment to try to work with the other countries of the world to minimize that impact and start to rebuild alternative energy plans.

There is also nothing to repair what remains with us as outstanding damage to the employment insurance system. Again, those damages were so fantastic in areas of high unemployment that to this day people are still angry at the smashing of that unemployment insurance system by the Liberals in the mid-1990s. We still have not seen it repaired and there is nothing in the budget to address it.

There is nothing to reduce student debt or the continuing crisis of escalating tuitions.

I could go through the many omissions, but I want to dwell on two in particular.

There is absolutely nothing meaningful in the way of a national anti-poverty strategy. That is despite the fact that what we had in this budget was the opportunity to take a significant portion of this $14.1 billion surplus and ensure that we begin to reduce the gap between the haves and the have nots, to reduce that growing prosperity gap, which is growing in part because this government saw fit to continue on through and implement further corporate tax cuts contained in the past budget. It is an absolute tragedy when we look at the impact on the lives of individuals and families and literally whole regions.

Finally, I want to speak briefly about the complete failure to deal with our disgraceful record with respect to meeting our international obligations for official development assistance. I know that Conservative members are fond of jumping up and down and saying that the budget honours the commitment made by the Liberals to increase by 8% our ODA budget. Our level of ODA is such a humiliation and such a disgrace in the world today that anything short of beginning to make a major leap forward to make up for the foot dragging and the lagging by the Liberals over a 10 year period is simply inadequate.

As a matter of fact, with this budget, to the best of anyone's ability to calculate, we will be at the lowest level of international development assistance since the beginning of really tracking the OECD countries' development assistance levels. Just very briefly historically, that of course was actually making some progress under the Mulroney government and had reached 0.52%. A former finance minister's budgets dragged it down to less than half of that.

As a result of this budget kicking in, we are now going to rank 14th of the OECD countries, moving lower to 15th, and falling so short of those obligations that we do not even begin to contribute to meeting the millennium development goals. Today was a day of teachers in this country coming together to plead for the government to deliver on 0.7% or we will not even begin to make progress toward ensuring universal education for the children of the world.

This budget is a spectacular betrayal. It is a humiliation. One hopes that the government understands that the people of Canada are not prepared to reward the Conservatives with votes of applause until they mend their ways and get on a more progressive track.

Bill C-30

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the duty to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

In accordance with its order of reference on Monday, December 4, 2006, your committee has considered Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) and agreed, on Thursday, March 29, to report it with amendments.

I do that today with thanks to members, especially support staff, who allowed us to do what the media and many others said could not be done, and that was to get it here on time.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the hard work of all members of the committee who considered Bill C-30 at this stage, before it even had been debated in the House.

We are moving forward with a comprehensive climate change action plan. We have come forward with initiatives for the first time to provide funding for the provinces in our ecotrust announcement. That is something the Liberals voted against. We came forward with some strong initiatives on eco-transportation. The Liberals voted against it.

We came forward with substantial investments in our budget, with $4.5 billion of new funding for the first time for a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and the Liberal Party has voted against it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has been saying that he will soon announce his so-called made in Canada plan for greenhouse gas emissions, including all of the targets, but Canadians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the government kept its plan secret and refused to include it as part of the rewrite of Bill C-30. Why has the Prime Minister shown Parliament so much contempt? Does he think the work of the committee is beneath him?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.

Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on the government's second budget released on March 19. On behalf of the constituents of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario, I would like to offer a few opinions.

First, I would like to point out that among the various instruments that governments have to tell voters, tell the public what it is they are about, what it is they plan to do for a country, the two main instruments are throne speeches, which we see typically every two years, and budgets, which we see every year usually in February or March.

In the span of 100 years, we would see 100 budgets from different governments. That underlines how important budgets are. Not only do they set a course, or they are supposed to set a course, but they are also supposed to provide the government's vision for the months and years ahead. They are supposed to tell Canadians how the current government of the day wishes to continue building the nation.

Quite frankly, as important as budgets are, I believe the government has missed a very serious opportunity to add its piece to the grand and important puzzle which is the building of this nation. I am not going to say that it lacks an agenda but indeed, it lacks a vision.

What I find most interesting in the budget is what the budget does to fulfill what I consider to be the hidden agenda of the government, which is to actually weaken the central government of this country. In so doing, it limits the capacity of the central government to create programs of national concern, whether they are in the economic domain, the social domain or the environmental domain. When one weakens the central government's ability to lead, to draw in the provinces and territories on national initiatives, one in fact weakens Canada.

There have been numerous surveys over the years which have indicated over and over again that of all levels of government, the public trusts most the federal government, its national government. The public sees in its national government the best tools, the best ability, the strength to keep our country together for all citizens from coast to coast to coast, regardless of where they live, whether they live in rural areas like my area in northern Ontario or in urban areas like downtown Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and so on. Fundamentally Canadians are generous. They want to share this nation with each other and with those who come from foreign shores to join us and to live in Canada. That generosity means that Canadians want, as much as is reasonable, that programs and initiatives be for everybody.

Let me give an example of the government's attempts to weaken the central government. I have to reach back to last year's budget. This budget is a continuation, in my view, of that central theme of a hidden agenda to weaken a central government. There was an announcement last year, and we were expecting to hear more about it but for some hidden reason we did not hear part two, but last year there was an announcement that the government would cut the GST by 1% and eventually by another 1%. This was against the advice of virtually every economist in the country. We have to trust our professionals. They said that giving away between $5 billion and $6 billion on a 1% GST cut would only weaken forever the central government, because we cannot get that percentage back.

Think back to governments that tried to increase taxes. We cannot get that percentage back. That $5.5 billion that was lost in the first 1% GST cut is $5.5 billion that is not available for the government to invest in health care, in municipal infrastructure, in the Kelowna accord which, incidentally, would have cost about $5 billion. One year of that 1% GST cut would have funded the Kelowna accord. We are talking about 1% every year ongoing, every year indefinitely.

It is interesting that the government in this budget did not mention what was going to happen to the second 1%. It may be that the government finally listened to the advice it received last year, or it just felt that it would prefer to do that in a majority government.

I do not think Canadians are going to be easily fooled. Frankly, I do not recall meeting any constituents in my large riding who said, “Wow, that 1% GST cut really was a great benefit to me and my family”. In fact, the opposite is the case. When I asked them, virtually every one of them said that they did not notice that 1%. I pointed out that a wealthy person who bought a $100,000 boat would receive $1,000 in GST relief and that wealthy person would notice it. My constituents replied, “Of course they would notice it, but I am an average Canadian and I am not buying a $100,000 boat”.

In fact, the average Canadian family would have to consume taxable goods for years and years to achieve that $1,000 in GST relief that the wealthy person would enjoy when buying that expensive boat. To me, what the budget really does is it promotes further the hidden agenda.

Let me speak to some of the concerns in northern Ontario in my riding. I will start with forestry and I will continue with concerns for my aboriginal constituents and aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast.

In the forestry sector, communities such as White River, Smooth Rock Falls, Chapleau, Espanola, Nairn, Opasatika, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and the list is far too long, are experiencing tremendous layoffs and cutbacks. Much of the layoffs and cutbacks are in the softwood sector. There are key industries that have suffered in the pulp and paper sector in my area as well.

There is no mention in the budget of what should be done to deal with a sector of our economy which is extremely significant not only in direct jobs and what it does for our single resource communities, but the incredible spinoffs as well. A tremendous price is being paid by families in these communities and the communities themselves as well. Those communities see the loss of their capacity to keep their schools open and in fact, to maintain their basic infrastructure because people have to leave those communities if they can.

At the very least I would call on the government to bring together all stakeholders, community leaders, unions and companies, all those who have a stake in the forestry sector. The government should bring them together in a national forestry summit so that our best minds and our best efforts can be focused on that one issue to see if something can be done for the long term of this country.

Quite frankly, when we consider what the softwood lumber deal has done to communities in my riding, I looked for measures in this budget that would have assisted them. The day before the agreement went into effect, the import tax in the U.S. was some 10 point something per cent, roughly 10.5%, but the day after the agreement was signed, it shot up to something like 15% because the U.S. import tariff was replaced by an export tax.

It will take me a long time to understand how that is good for our industry. I understand it is the Canadian government that has had to advance the duties from the U.S. back to Canadian companies, because the U.S. actually has not repaid those funds, to the best of my knowledge.

I will move on to my aboriginal constituents on Manitoulin Island and on the north shore of Lake Huron and the Chapleau and Wawa areas and up at Constance Lake near Hearst.

When the aboriginal leadership in my region and all Canadians saw their premiers, the prime minister and the senior aboriginal leadership of this country sign the Kelowna accord in November 2005, they saw the parties come together to sign a historic agreement. Funding for that agreement was put in place immediately thereafter. The money was booked, as our then finance minister confirmed and has confirmed numerous times.

For some reason the Conservative government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the validity of that agreement. As recently as last week the government voted at third reading not to support the private member's bill of my colleague the member for LaSalle—Émard, which further calls upon the government to honour the Kelowna accord.

Our aboriginal Canadians, our first nations leadership, have been severely disappointed by what they have seen from the government when it comes to measures to understand and appreciate the great heritage, the great history, the great culture that our first nations bring to this country. They are disappointed that as a nation we have still not adequately dealt with the needs of our first nations communities and people when it comes to education, health, water, and those supports that are necessary to live in a modern society. After all, it is our aboriginal youth we will count on considerably in the years ahead as the labour shortage in this country continues to increase.

I recall before the last election that our then leader and prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, made a commitment to students to pay up to $3,000 per year toward tuition fees. That was a significant offer to Canadian families. Then the election came along and we can debate whether that should have happened. However, I look at this budget and there is nothing for undergraduate students. There is a bit of money for post-grads and that is great, but it only assists about 4,000 students.

I go back to my comment about the hidden agenda and the fact that this budget has no vision. There is no overarching view of what the future of this country will be like. It is a hodgepodge of small measures designed to attract individual demographic groups within the larger society. I do not begrudge that there are certain small measures that are important to some people in the budget, and that is great for them, but even they would agree that the government should have a vision with its budget. It should have an overarching idea of where the country is going.

When we were in office great progress was being made with respect to research and development and post-secondary education. We were making sure that our best minds could do research and network with the best minds around the world. It seems that we are now taking backward steps. We must take care of the fundamentals of education. If I could speak to each of my colleagues here one on one, I doubt anyone would disagree that education is the basis of all that we do not only in our personal lives, but as a nation.

I was very disappointed to see the lack of any grand vision when it came to education and productivity for this nation. We are competing in a world that is advancing rapidly. It is our duty to make sure every day that not only individual Canadians but our nation together keeps up and demonstrates the leadership that Canada has become known for around the world.

There are about 55 small communities in my large riding of 110,000 square kilometres. The leadership of these small communities, mayors, reeves, chiefs, are all struggling to maintain the basic infrastructure of their communities.

I know the budget mentioned a short term commitment to share the gas tax with municipalities, unlike the leader of my own party who said that commitment will be an indefinite commitment. Some off my colleagues who have been here since 1993 will remember that when the previous Liberal government brought out a municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program there was tremendous resistance from the then Reform Party and later Alliance Party. In fact, MPs from those parties would not even participate in local ceremonies to launch infrastructure projects. They were dead set against infrastructure.

I know the Conservative Party is the current metamorphosis of the original Reform and Alliance Parties, but the genes of the Reform and Alliance Parties are still present and we still see a lack of real commitment to local governments.

When the Liberal government was first elected in 1993, one of the first commitments we made was to help local governments improve roads, sewer and water systems and so on because we understood that there was an infrastructure deficit in the country at the local level and that the federal government had to take its share.

It is not only local infrastructure. Where is the grand vision when it comes to those nation building projects that Canada needs to address? If there is one that stands out among others, it is the whole issue of climate change. If there is a national project, indeed, an international project, that requires our very best efforts, it is climate change.

I am very pleased that my colleagues in this party and the opposition parties have been able to craft a renewed Bill C-30 which I believe will move the standards quite considerably when it comes to Canada's responsibilities in the world with respect to climate change.

I will now talk about northern Ontario in general. Northern Ontario, like other regional rural parts of the country, is experiencing a population loss. It is not difficult to explain. Families are not as big as they used to be. Our population growth, and happily so, is made up of fine new Canadians who come from all parts of the world to our country. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is from the rural areas from which Canada was first built. If we forget where we came from, we will soon forget where we are going.

It is very important that the present government and any future government, whether it is my party or another, take measures to ensure the strength and vitality of rural Canada, whether it is through immigration measures or supporting programs like FedNor. As much as the government might say one thing about FedNor, one thing we know for sure is that there was a cut in the total funding for FedNor.

FedNor, by the way, for those who are not aware, is the federal economic development agency for northern Ontario, an agency which we were very happy, through the years 1993 to 2006, to support and to in fact increase and grow the funding and supports for.

FedNor needs to be further supported. We need to increase the funding for FedNor, as we need to do for the other regional economic development programs in the Atlantic, west Quebec and so on. I referred to the genetic predisposition against municipal infrastructure support from the federal government. That also exists when it comes to economic development. If anyone has old copies of the Reform and Alliance platform documents, it is explicit that they do not support regional economic development programs.

One cannot change one's genes. Some may try but they cannot do it. Either the government owns up to what it really believes about economic development or it can keep trying to fool the country for another little while.

I will conclude by saying that I still have constituents in my riding, some of the older ones, who refer to the Diefenbaker times and the fact that it has usually been Conservative governments that have put us into deficit.

When we came to office in 1993, we had to deal with a huge $42 billion deficit and, with the help of Canadians, that deficit was slain which put the country in the enviable position of having surpluses that could then be invested in health care, infrastructure, education and so on.

My constituents may not for the most part really think tax cuts are the most important thing that we should be doing. I am not against appropriate tax cuts targeted to the poor and middle income Canadians but these shotgun blast tax cuts, like we have with the GST, do not really do anything positive. With that kind of an attitude and the $10 billion in new spending in the last budget, which one of my colleagues mentioned, I am really worried that we will be going back into deficits. It will only take some kind of calamity to cause that unfortunate time to reappear. It would not be any surprise to see this happen under--

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I counted, I think my colleague raised four points.

First, with regard to Premier Williams and Newfoundland and Labrador, I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be speaking in a moment in more detail and more broadly on that, but we did keep our campaign commitments. I think Danny Williams will be very delighted to hear the speech from my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from St. John's, addressing that issue and how good this budget will in fact be for Newfoundland and Labrador.

On the issue of the environment, with respect to my good friend, the member for Vaughan, we will not be taking lectures from Liberals on how to get results on the environment. We have put forward the clean air act, Bill C-30, which is now before its own independent parliamentary committee. We are approaching this with open minds and open hearts on how to achieve the best possible results for our environment.

However, while we recognize that climate change is the most important issue on the environment front right now that Canadians and the global community want us to address, it is not the only front on which we need to take action on the environment, which is why I mentioned the important steps that our government took in protecting our coastal waters from the dumping of raw sewage, pollution, garbage, paint, effluent and bilge water from ships. We are banning all that to ensure that our coastal waters will be clean.

We are taking a multifaceted approach to the environment, dealing with protecting our waters, protecting our land, protecting our soil, protecting our air and also dealing with the issue of climate change internationally.

With regard to tax cuts, my colleague dealt with the issue two ways. I do not think my colleague will ever accuse Andrew Coyne and John Williamson of being good Liberals with regard to the budget, so I am surprised that he is quoting Andrew Coyne and John Williamson who are both good friends of mine, but, frankly, we have a disagreement with John Williamson and Andrew Coyne, I take it, on this budget. However, for every $3 in surplus, we put $2 toward tax relief.

The vast majority of our tax relief will go toward families, especially in suburban communities like my own, because we think the people who are facing the biggest financial crunch in our society are new and young families. I think about my sister and my brother-in-law Dave, my little niece Abby, my other sister and her husband Tony, and my other niece--

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning consultation. The member made this one of the key elements, that is, the lack of consultation by the government, particularly with a group that is most affected by the piece of legislation being discussed.

It is reminiscent of what had happened, and on which we heard testimony just recently, on another government bill, Bill C-30, the alleged clean air act, where the AFN came before the committee and was asked directly by myself and others what level of consultation it had received. The government had made a whole series of presumptions about first nations involvement around the environment, particularly around carbon sinks and the use of massive tracts of land. The AFN had a longstanding dispute with the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative one. The element of consultation had been left off the table. The government just proceeded to go ahead with legislation and decision making before consulting.

Many Canadians watching this will be confused. The reason this is such a critical point is it has been proven time and time again in the courts, from coast to coast to coast in this country. First nations have gone to seek rights and due diligence from government, and the courts have interpreted our Constitution and our laws, and said that the government has an obligation to consult prior to making those decisions.

I know the member has a number of first nations in his riding. With respect to mining in particular, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which his government brought in, had no real basis for serious and concrete consultation, which led the Tahltan and the TRT, the Taku River Tlingit, and a number of other groups, to long litigation battles, seeking just the common decency of consultation.

Is it not time that we do a broad cast across a number of pieces of legislation, not just this badly designed one, but a series of them, because government is clearly not willing to listen, no matter which political side of the spectrum it is, to the courts, to the first nations people? Should we not truly engage in real consultation with the first nations people?

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on Bill C-30, a very good bill. For the first time in Canada's history, greenhouse gases and air quality will be regulated. I hope that this bill will have the support of the Bloc Québécois because it is very important for the health of Canadians.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-288. The summary of the bill reads:

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister—to the extent that it is within its purpose—on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

I took the time to read out the summary for the House so as to be clear for the members present and the public viewing today about just what we have before us for debate. I want Canadians to understand this bill, because in essence it highlights very clearly the failure of the Liberals when they were in government and in particular of their current leader when he had control of the environment file and did not himself proceed with just the actions that are listed in this bill today.

When the Kyoto protocol was signed, I can recall very vividly my personal sense that finally there would be action on this most critical issue. One can imagine that as time wore on it became clear that the Liberal government of the day was only engaging in smoke and mirrors on the issue or, worse, did not grasp the significance to the peoples of Canada and the world that a failure to act--yes, a failure--would have and what would result.

In every sense of the word, the Liberals in control of the environment file failed Canadians by not ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were brought under control and lowered. Now we know the degree of that failure. Greenhouse gas emissions soared by 26% by 2004.

Other countries such as Germany, which was required to lower its emissions by 8%, actually got them down to 17.2% by 2004. As for the United Kingdom, we all have seen the movies about the smokestacks of England and the horrendous record it is supposed to have. It was required to reduce by 8% and got it down by 14%. Russia, which had a zero requirement, came down by 32% by 2004. In contrast, the United States rose by 15.8% by 2004. The worst of the pack was Canada, which was up by 26.6% by 2004.

Day in and day out, while the Liberals went about their self-absorbed lives of entitlement, not only our environment but ordinary Canadians paid a heavy price. Our air and our water got dirtier. Smog days grew more frequent and worse.

Throughout the years since signing on to Kyoto, Canada has lost its opportunity to assume a leadership role on this file. Somewhat like Nero, as the Liberals fiddled our air quality worsened, our rivers were dirtied, and our weather began to change, with clear patterns of increasingly worse storms, with deluges and with winds of unprecedented violence.

The Liberal deathbed conversion symbolized in this bill may well be heartfelt, I will give them that, but the Liberal record on greenhouse gas emissions is what it is. This bill will not change those facts. As late as it is, Bill C-288, also known as the Kyoto protocol implementation act, is worthy of support and will have it from our party when it comes time for a vote in the House.

However, it is deeply troubling that it is the Liberals in opposition putting forward such strong Kyoto language when they could have done it all while they were in government.

Because of the lack of action to date, we now have the forests of western Canada being decimated by the pine beetle because it is now able to survive in our climate whereas it previously could not withstand the cold here. Our winter service ice roads are now unstable and melting much faster than usual, making it difficult to get food and supplies to our isolated communities in the north.

Let us look at the damage being done to our winter resorts, which have faced green grass far into the normal tourist season. The winter sports economy is but one example of the beginning of very serious economic problems that ordinary people are beginning to face today.

I can tell this House emphatically that the NDP has always been on record as demanding that our federal government do more to ensure that it meets and exceeds Kyoto targets.

Notwithstanding this bill, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-377, entitled “a climate change accountability act”, which would serve as an effective framework to achieve science-based greenhouse gas emission controls and reduce targets beyond Kyoto.

This member is proud of the fact that it was our party and our leader who broke the logjam to get something done on climate change and on pollution.

The climate change accountability act means that Canada will start to meet the challenges of climate change today, not in decades.

The core of the NDP's Bill C-377 is based on science-based benchmarks, not arbitrary ones as found in the clean air act.

Bill C-377 has short, medium and long term targets.

Bill C-377 will get the government moving immediately, because within six months of its passage the government must develop and publish a target for 2015, and regulations to meet the bill's targets must be in place no later than December 31, 2007.

Sometimes in this House it feels like we have to drag other parties to the altar, so to speak, with the Liberals' inaction over the many years of their mandate and now the Conservative clean air act, which is euphemistically called the hot air act in environmental circles.

Today, thanks to our Bill C-30, there is an opportunity for real action on climate change. I call upon all parties to stop the posturing, stop the obstruction and get to work with the NDP to get the job done.

People often ask why I ran to represent Hamilton East--Stoney Creek in this auspicious place. I ran for two reasons: the vision and the passion of the leader of the NDP and my anger over the abject failure of the Liberal Party over the last 13-plus years. Five surplus budgets and three majority governments and still too many Canadians go hungry, still too many Canadians sleep in the streets, and Canadians face an uncertain future because of the Dion gap of runaway greenhouse gas emissions.

I could have decided to stand outside of this place and rail against the government. Instead, I came in to work with the NDP caucus to ensure we all get the job done for ordinary Canadians. I call upon this House to work with the Bill C-30 committee, using Bill C-377, Bill C-288 and the best science available to change the clean air act to effective environmental legislation.

I am getting a little too emotional here and I have to pause. This is so critical and so important to our country. We must come together as parliamentarians and get this job done.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question regarding the domestic carbon market. The minister made it very clear that he will not entertain sending billions of dollars outside of Canada. Those dollars are going to be staying here in Canada. The Montreal exchange could be set up right now. There is nothing stopping that, but what we need is a regulatory, mandatory framework and that is Bill C-30. That is part of the notice of intent.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister quoted Professor Boyd from UBC. It is unfortunate that the member was in a bad mood yesterday. He attacked the minister. He attacked the Auditor General at the committee. He must have got up on the wrong side of the bed.

The government is committed to working with all parties, including the opposition. We need to have a real plan. The plan is Bill C-30, not Bill C-288. I encourage the member to start working and stop obstructing.

Opposition Motion— Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Canadians that there is a big issue before us on the environment.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. They want clean water and air, and most of all they want action. They do not want just empty words that they have heard for so very long on the climate file. There is really no doubt about that fact.

The government is taking some concrete action that was already promised during our campaign last fall and in the first part of this year. We have actually followed through on some of those things already. We are moving forward with some pretty concrete and specific results.

The most obvious example of late of course is Bill C-30 which is the clean air act, which is now before a legislative committee of the House. That legislation lays out a very solid and workable plan. It makes a fundamental change in the approach of the federal government with respect to air pollution, and also greenhouse gases, a change which is vital and crucial to the health of Canadians.

We can compare that of course to the record of the previous Liberal government as it stalled on the environment over some 13 years actually. For many of those years I was there and served as a member when the stalling occurred. The Liberals racked up a lot of rhetoric, a lot of verbal diarrhea, as some would say over that time, and stalled due to a lack of realistic goals.

The previous Liberal government stalled because a timid government was unwilling to step up and accept its responsibility in concrete terms for fear of giving offence to others. It stalled as well because of the clear failure to accept that simple truth that Canadians already know. Canadians cannot be healthy without clean air.

The Liberal regime may not have been willing to act, but the Conservative government certainly is and is committed to do that in very practical and concrete ways. The government respects the objectives and principles of the Kyoto protocol. We are committed to making some real progress toward achieving those objectives.

However, we do face a challenge and I think we need to be honest to admit that, a challenge made greater by the inaction of the previous Liberal government as it failed to set up and then to follow up with clear priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reductions.

The path toward a new and a more realistic approach requires an approach that we have started through, in fact, the clean air act. It requires an approach based on targets that will mean immediate and also long term health benefits for all Canadians.

It is important to understand that the government is looking at clean air in a comprehensive way. We believe that we can ensure that Canadians receive health benefits from cleaner air now and we can take actions that will address also the longer term issues of climate change.

I want to comment a bit on the health considerations of our actions because this is where it really gets down to each one of us. The health of Canadians has been the focus of the government since the very beginning. Beyond the legitimate focus of our government, our partners and Canadians on health care, we understand the need to be concerned about the many determinants of an individual's health, such as genetics and behaviour. Air quality is also a big part of that.

For decades scientists have assembled and gathered evidence together on the health effects of air pollution, not just the killer smogs off in London and Los Angeles in the past but right now in our major cities across Canada as well. They know that air pollution causes premature mortality, hospital visits, lung cancer, and cardiac and respiratory illnesses. They know that air pollution results in increased absenteeism from school and work. Outdoor air pollution in Canadian cities also contributes to some 5,900 deaths per year from stroke, cardiac and lung disease. That impact is not evenly distributed throughout our society among Canadians but rather, air pollution has its greatest impact on children, the elderly and also the very frail.

In fact, in Toronto during the summer, smog is a factor in 35% of acute respiratory hospital admissions in children under the age of two. Individuals with diabetes, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and circulatory disease are at greater risk on days when air pollution is high.

Those statistics have more than personal impacts. They have impacts on our health care system and our economy. In fact, in Ontario alone the costs of lost productivity due to air pollution are estimated to be some billion dollars per year.

I think Canadians understand this. In fact, more than half of Canadians believe that air pollution will eventually have a negative impact on their very own health. A full third of Canadians believe that air pollution has already had some kind of an impact upon them.

The Conservative Party believes that these Canadians are right. We believe the scientists are right. The government introduced Bill C-30 to address these concerns. That is why the government is charting a new and dynamic path.

The government introduced Bill C-30 to kick-start effective action that was so lacking until now. On this issue, as on so many others, we know that effective action is possible if there is a will. We know that taking--

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. When we have a serious problem, what do we do? We set mandatory standards. That has never been done. Never has a government dared to do that before us. Never will the Bloc Québécois have the audacity to say it will regulate.

I currently sit on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30. We have heard experts such as Claude Villeneuve say yesterday that, in the current state of affairs and since nothing happened in the past 10 years, we cannot meet our obligations in the very short term.

We have to set mandatory targets and that is what we are trying to do. We are introducing a bill. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to help pass this bill so that we can finally set restrictive targets. However, as long as this bill is blocked, we will not be able to do anything. People need to realize that this government is determined to act in a clear, compelling and concrete manner.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, how my friends amuse me. We are talking about solving the fiscal imbalance in the next budget. It may be better to curb our zeal. If the matter was so urgent, why did our Bloc Québécois colleague vote against having additional meetings for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Why did he vote to send Bill C-288 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Was it an attempt to waste the government's time on the report on Bill C-30 that was to be tabled? Why did he invite a ton of witnesses? Again, was it to delay Bill C-30? My Bloc Québécois friends and colleagues make me laugh when they puff themselves up and turn on the dramatics because when it comes time to take action, they slam on the brakes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have today the great pleasure to speak to a motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Québécois which has to do with the Kyoto protocol. The motion proposes:

That, having recognized the principle of complying with the Kyoto targets, it is the opinion of this House that the government should provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

We also took note of the amendment introduced by the NDP, the purpose of which was to indicate clearly that the $328 million is of course a minimum and that the government should also give the appropriate amounts to the other provinces that wish to embark on the fight against climate change.

I would say that the original Bloc motion plus the NDP amendment prove one thing. The first part of the motion refers to the fact that the principle of complying with the Kyoto protocol has been recognized in this House. What does that mean? First, it means that through the House of Commons and parliamentarians, we have taken strong action to send to the government the clear message that we want a credible plan for fighting climate change that incorporates the Kyoto targets.

I will remind you that last May, the Bloc Québécois tabled a motion calling on the government to table this credible plan incorporating the Kyoto protocol targets. The majority of members in this House—from the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party—voted in favour. The principles of compliance with the Kyoto protocol that are included in the Bloc’s motion today are thus repeated, and we would like the majority of the House to repeat this support many times expressed by parliamentarians, in the Bloc Québécois motion in May, in Bill C-288 tabled by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier, and again this week in an opposition motion calling for compliance with the Kyoto protocol.

However, the reality is quite different. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 27% since 1990. So billions of dollars have been invested in Canada to fight climate change, but the results have not come. This means that, to comply with its Kyoto targets, as things now stand the government will have to reduce its emissions not just by 27%, but also by another 6% on top of that.

In my opinion, the results presented by the Conservative government in Nairobi—results that can be attributed to the Liberal efforts of recent years—must drive home to us the importance of changing our approach to combating climate change in Canada.

What is that approach? First of all, it is a voluntary approach which—if absolutely necessary, of course—would establish regulations, as proposed by the Liberal finance minister of the time, in a budget for example. But it was also an approach that would provide for regulations based on emission intensity.

What does that mean? It means that in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions imposed on industry, we would take production into consideration and not set a reduction target based on the total quantity of greenhouse gases produced by these different industrial sectors.

This approach which has been adopted by the federal government, both Liberal and Conservative, is nothing but a gain, a savings and an advantage for the oil companies and the big polluters.

We are calling on the government to base its greenhouse gas reductions and its emission targets for large industrial emitters on the total quantity discharged by the different industrial sectors. But the Conservative government, which has adopted the same policy as the previous government, an approach that is ineffective, inefficient and unfair, is perpetuating an approach that has not yielded the desired results in the battle against greenhouse gas emissions.

We are today proposing to change this approach, to adopt a territorial approach whereby the provinces would be asked to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in binding fashion, obliging them to cut emissions within their territory by 6%, while leaving them free to establish the plans, policies and programs they want.

The reason for doing this is quite simply because the energy policy of Quebec, which generates 95% of its power from hydroelectricity, is not the energy policy of Western Canada, which depends on hydrocarbons, oil sands and fossil fuels. The energy policy of Quebec is not that of Alberta. Neither is it the energy policy of Ontario, which has favoured coal in recent years, and more recently, nuclear power.

Therefore, since there is no common energy policy across Canada and since energy and natural resources are managed by the provinces, we must ensure that the provinces are involved.

Remember what the environment commissioner told us in her report on climate change programs. The provinces must be part of the solution because that is where electricity is produced, distributed and used.

The government must recognize today that we should stay away from a sectorial approach and adopt a territorial approach that will allow us to put in place an effective, efficient and fairer national policy with regard to climate change. Canada's problem in fighting climate change has nothing to do with the programs themselves, as they already exist, but it has to do with the fact that they are not adapted to the provinces' energy reality.

Tuesday, at the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, we heard from a prominent climate expert who is a professor at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. He told us, and I quote:

One of the reasons for Canada's failure is its desire to have the same approach for all the players, supposedly because it is more equitable, even though the situation is not the same for all the players.

Mr. Villeneuve also said:

It is clear that regional approaches are much more interesting since decisions regarding energy policies are made at the provincial level and natural resources are managed by the provinces.

Canada did commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. But can we adopt a so-called common approach that would be tailored to each province, something similar to what Europe did?

In 1997, Europe committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8%. That same year, Europe went to Kyoto with specific objectives and a territorial approach to meet that 8% target. Under that approach, its sovereign countries—there were 15 at the time—would have different targets where some could increase their emissions and others could reduce them, taking into account various parameters such as the climate, which has a considerable impact on energy consumption. The economic structure has to be taken into account.

Each country's energy policy and wind energy potential must be taken into account in the targets negotiated with these countries.

This is a flexible approach that would let Canada continue to demonstrate to the international community that it is determined to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its international commitments. Canada could also reach agreements with its provincial partners in order to develop a more effective climate change policy.

The third demand is the carbon exchange. Companies and industrial sectors are just waiting for greenhouse gas emissions regulations.

The government told us that it was going to base its regulation of the industry on emission intensity. In other words, in setting a target for each industrial sector, it was going to take into account production and greenhouse gas emissions. This approach cannot work.

On the one hand, this approach is unfair to industry sectors that have made efforts in the past, such as the industrial sectors in Quebec. Meanwhile, industrial sectors in the rest of Canada have increased their emissions by over 20%, nearly 30% since 1990. The industrial sectors in Quebec have succeeded in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 7%.

Sector-based intensity targets would clearly penalize companies and industrial sectors that have made efforts in the past and can show progress in fighting climate change. Not only is this intensity-based approach to climate change unfair, but it clearly jeopardizes the implementation of a carbon exchange in Canada.

The government has to understand that if it wants to set up a carbon exchange, which we support and would like to see in Montreal—I know that there is some discussion as to whether the exchange will be in Montreal or Toronto—then we must set strict reduction targets. Intensity targets will complicate Canada's implementation of a carbon exchange, a special tool allowed under the Kyoto protocol so that countries can reach their greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

This morning, the minister appeared in committee. I asked him whether he favoured a territorial approach or a carbon exchange. His response was clear. Quebec was asking for too much. That is what the Minister of the Environment said. He made it even more clear how little he understands the establishment of a carbon exchange. This morning he told us that Quebec could not call for a territorial approach as well as a carbon exchange. It is totally illogical.

How can the minister say such things when Europe has indicated it will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8%? In Europe, the Kyoto protocol targets were divided territorially and the world’s most innovative carbon exchange established. It is so innovative that the Montreal climate exchange signed an agreement with the European carbon exchange, a side agreement to the conference on climate exchange in Montreal.

At the economic forum in Davos on January 25, the Premier of Quebec, it will be remembered, called for such an exchange to be established as quickly as possible.

What is the government waiting for then? The Montreal exchange is waiting for the federal government. All of Quebec is waiting for the Montreal exchange to be established to help improve Canada’s situation generally in the fight against climate change.

The government must commit as soon as possible to formulating regulations and targets for the industrial sector. It must let Quebec achieve the Kyoto protocol targets within the province and establish a carbon exchange.

There is a fourth element: the $328 million we are demanding from the government.

The minister told us in committee this morning that he was consulting, discussing and negotiating with the Government of Quebec for the $328 million. I have been the environment critic for years. I have seen a succession of ministers. I have seen them say no to Quebec over this significant transfer of $328 million. The former Liberal Minister of the Environment, the former Conservative minister and the current minister have all turned a deaf ear to Quebec’s demands, although it has a strategy for climate change.

With Quebeckers ready to commit public funds to meeting 72% of the Kyoto targets in Quebec’s plan of action we are asking Ottawa for some 30% only of the financial effort required to meet Kyoto targets, and time is a-wasting.

It is odd that when we discuss, here in this House, bills such as Bill C-48, which gives tax breaks to the oil industry, things move along more quickly, bills get passed and there is agreement.

I am talking about $250 million granted annually to the oil industry, according to the figures from the finance department. Let me quote some of them. The oil companies will have saved $55 million in 2003-04, $100 million in 2004-05 and $260 million in 2007-08.

Does anyone realize that the $328 million is the total for just two full fiscal years that the oil industry will have benefited from through Bill C-48? For 2007-08 alone, oil companies will save $260 million, while Quebec has been negotiating for years to get $328 million to meet Kyoto protocol targets.

We, on this side of the House, are saying that the policies of the Conservative government and of the Liberal government promote nothing less than a polluter-paid policy rather than a polluter-pay policy. This is an example. While the $328 million would be used to fund a plan to combat climate change in Quebec, the government is saying no, but saying yes to the oil companies. This does not make sense.

The government needs to acknowledge that the Kyoto protocol targets are, for the opposition in this House—including the Bloc Québécois, of course—a non negotiable objective. The government need not expect that we will negotiate on achieving the targets in the Kyoto protocol or its inclusion in Bill C-30. We want the Kyoto protocol targets to be part of Bill C-30. Let that be clear. We feel that a refusal by the government to include them would be nothing short of a slap in the face in the fight against climate change.

Finally, giving $328 million to Quebec has nothing to do with the tax incentives given to the oil industry. It has to do with fighting climate change and having a sustainable transportation policy in Quebec that is in line with Kyoto targets.

In closing, I hope members will consider this amended motion and vote in favour of it.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I believe that if a province is proactive, if it is moving forward and if it has an acceptable plan that meets the Kyoto targets, then the country should support that province. For example, Manitoba has a plan. That province wants to move forward and work with the industry. We must work hard to prevent our planet from continuing to be polluted. Considering the health and well-being of our children, the health and well-being of future generations, how could we be opposed to a population that wants to take charge and to fight pollution? We must ensure that we have a planet that is clean, a planet on which we enjoy living.

I am grateful to the Bloc Québécois for supporting the NDP amendment to include the provinces. It is now up to the provinces to propose plans. If some provinces cannot propose plans, it will be up to the federal government to act. It is the responsibility of the Conservatives to take action and clean our planet—or at least take part in that cleaning—to respect the Kyoto protocol and to meet the targets set, so that Canadians from coast to coast will enjoy a clean environment. This is one of our basic responsibilities.

We cannot rely only on what the Liberals have said during their 13 years in office, when pollution increased by 30%.

We cannot trust the Conservatives, who are now in office and who want to achieve the objectives by the year 2050. We must fight pollution now. We must work hard.

A majority of opposition members support the idea of making changes to Bill C-30. We must show Canadians, who are so concerned, that we want to take action.

Earlier, I referred to the Radio-Canada news story and I mentioned how it generated concern among the public. People in our ridings often tell us that, even though temperatures may be mild, they are worried.

We must act now. As leaders in Canada and in this Parliament, it is our responsibility to act.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Québécois motion on air quality, the environment and the Kyoto protocol. I have listened to our Liberal colleague speaking of the green plan and so on. I believe he has neglected to say that their environmental plan has been a failure, and I will give him an example. Moreover, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has pointed out that, even if the reduction measures set out in the Liberal government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is hard to say whether the planned reductions would have been sufficient to allow us to fulfil our obligations. This was in the report tabled by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on September 28, 2006.

The Liberals are busy patting themselves on the back and saying that they would have solved the environmental and air quality problems if they had been in power. This raises some questions, particularly since the environment minister at that time is now the leader of the Liberal Party. Now he thinks donning a green scarf is going to change Canada's environment.

I do not want to dwell on the Liberal position for too long. I do not believe they managed during their 13 years in power to demonstrate that they considered the environment important, considering that greenhouse gas emissions increased by 30% over that period. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has even stated that the measures for 2005 could not achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives.

Regrettably, when we look at the new government—as it still wants to be called—one which was at one point totally opposed to the Kyoto protocol, we see it has been forced to set aside the Minister of the Environment in favour of another.

My congratulations to Canadians, to all those who have realized that the environment has become a priority for our country. A person cannot open a newspaper or listen to a news broadcast these days without realizing that the environment is becoming one of our priorities.

It is not a normal situation in our communities all over the country for little children to have asthma, and for children, adults and seniors to be sick because of environmental pollutants. It is our fundamental responsibility, as citizens and as human beings, to preserve our planet for our children, for future generations. How can we not make the environment a priority?

I can see that the Bloc Québécois wants to be the champion of the environment in Quebec, as if it had all the answers. As I recall, just before the election, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace said we were number one in terms of the environment. They did mention the Bloc Québécois, but never said this was the doing of the Bloc alone.

I should remind the House and the people of Canada and Quebec that we all have to work together, because environmental pollution is something that does not affect only Quebec. It is happening worldwide. We must therefore work together and collectively to prevent pollution. As a member of this House, I was very disappointed when the Bloc Québécois voted against a motion put before the House by the NDP to ban the use of pesticides on people's lawns.

I was very disappointed with the position taken by the Bloc Québécois, saying that this was a provincial jurisdiction. I find it hard to believe that pollutants fall under provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec had good legislation respecting pesticides. We even commended it for that. But in this House, in this Parliament, here in Ottawa, by voting against our motion to ban pesticides, Bloc members have prevented the rest of Canada from enjoying similar legislation. It struck me as unfortunate, especially since they paint themselves as saviours of the environment and of Kyoto. They opposed a motion going to the heart of the issue of health in the regions, as it dealt with the banning of pesticides on grassy areas in municipalities and towns. How could they oppose that?

It is almost as if they can think of only one thing: Quebec, and only Quebec. That is unfortunate. The motion before us is a case in point: it talks only about Quebec. An amendment might be put forward later. This time, one would hope that they will not vote the same way they did on pesticides. Hopefully, they will say that they are prepared to work together with the rest of Canada and agree with this benefiting all the provinces.

Let us talk about some of the amendments proposed by the NDP to Canada’s Clean Air Act. Canadians want us to act immediately to reduce pollution so their families can breathe cleaner air and Canada can do its part in the international effort to combat climate change at a world-wide level.

Re-writing the ineffective and inadequate Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada’s Clean Air Act) within a special legislative committee offers an important opportunity for Canada to get back on the road to reducing pollution and to combating climate change.

Once again, the NDP proposed the creation of a special legislative committee on the environment, on air quality, to study the Conservative bill so that we could deal with the problem immediately through this bill. A special committee would not have to follow the same procedures. So, in that sense, we could go faster. The NDP proposed that we could present amendments to the bill within 30 days.

Earlier, I listened to the Liberals telling us that Bill C-30 would do nothing to improve air quality in Canada. Unless I am completely mistaken, the opposition now forms a majority in the House of Commons and also on a special legislative committee. As a result, the opposition could present amendments to improve the bill so that it goes in the right direction.

We wanted to do that within 30 days to ensure that we had a bill before the budget is tabled in the House of Commons, because there could be a vote of non-confidence in the government after the budget is tabled. We wanted to be sure that the bill is through the House of Commons and sent to the Senate.

However, the other political parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois decided to delay review of the bill until March 31, or after the budget. This position of the other parties is regrettable. The Conservative party wanted to hear 40 witnesses in committee, and the Liberals wanted more than 40 witnesses. I do not know how many witnesses the Bloc Québécois also wanted to call.

If we do not already know what we need to improve the bill, if in 30 days we could not review the bill and agree on what needs to be done, instead of playing politics, then we are missing the boat. That is my sincere belief.

With a new bill, Parliament can ensure significant and immediate action enabling Canadians to see improvements in the air they breathe throughout their lives, in addition to protecting the planet for their children and their grandchildren.

The NDP is proposing a series of detailed changes to Bill C-30, which again commits Canada to respecting its short-term commitments under the Kyoto protocol and ensures the development of an exhaustive plan for it to meet internationally recognized scientific objectives in the medium and long term.

The NDP will continue to seek comments and other amendments from environmental experts and Canadians both during the period leading up to the work by the special committee and while it is working.

The amendments proposed by the NDP are to impose, by legislative rather than regulatory means, short-, medium- and long-term targets for absolute reductions of greenhouse gases by requiring that Canada: meet the 2008-2012 target under the Kyoto protocol; ensure an 80% reduction, based on scientific research, of 1990 levels by 2050; achieve the interim five-year targets between 2015 and 2050; and impose, by means of legislation rather than declaration of intent, an earlier-than-expected timetable for regulation of the industrial sector. Such regulations should be put in place by 2008.

The NDP also asks that Canada: impose, through legislation rather than regulation, a fixed cap for greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial sector of at least 45 megatonnes a year; require, by legislation, the establishment of mandatory standards for air contaminants in the year following the adoption of this new law, in addition to a plan for complying with these standards, including mandatory emission standards for large industrial facilities; require, by legislation, an energy efficiency standard for vehicle fuel that comes close to that of leading North American jurisdictions, which will be published by 2008 and which will be in place for production year 2011, so that vehicle manufacturers have sufficient notice concerning the expiry of the voluntary agreement. This would be accompanied by a new authority for the government to establish a fair transition fund for the automobile sector.

The NDP also asks that, by legislation, the government set a carbon cap and establish a carbon-trading system in Canada and that it eliminate key tax incentives for the gas and oil sector, particularly the accelerated depreciation deduction given for tar sands development.

I think this is a very unfortunate situation for Canadians. A few weeks ago, I listened to a program in French on Radio-Canada about the research done in Alberta. Rivers there are polluted and this has posed a threat to an aboriginal community. It seems that the government is prepared to agree to increase oil production in western Canada by five times more than current production. We are told that production today, with current technology, causes an incredible amount of pollution.

We must therefore ask ourselves the following questions. Is the Conservative government serious? Is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is from Alberta, really serious? Will he do what is best for the environment? Will he take the requests of Canadians to heart and respond to them sincerely, with concrete action?

Here is an example of concrete action: in north-eastern New Brunswick, along the Baie-des-Chaleurs, and in the Gaspé near Matane, windmills have been built to generate electricity. That is one way of combating pollution. The area I come from is ideal for that.

People always say that politicians make promises that they never keep. I can promise that there will be plenty of wind for the rest of our days and for future generations. There will always be wind. That is a promise we can keep and windmills need wind.

What sort of investments has the government made so far to fight pollution and to help the environment? Whether we like it or not, we need light, electricity and resources. However, we could be doing more. What is the government doing to encourage so-called green cars, which do not pollute? What is it doing about that? We hear nothing about it and even if they do talk, the talk is not followed by action.

In my area, for example, there is a coal-fired power plant in Belledune. Why would the federal government not invest for the longer term in natural gas in northern New Brunswick? The cuts it made in EI benefits paid in that area amount to $85 million a year. It could invest that in the environment. These are concrete measures that would do good, create good jobs and be better for the environment than coal use.

Since the Bloc Québécois introduced the motion I would like to ask its permission to propose an amendment to promote cooperation in the interest of all Canadians.

I propose, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding the word “minimum” before the word “sum”, and by adding immediately after the words “Kyoto Protocol targets”: “, and that, after negotiations, the Government of Canada should provide appropriate funds to all other Canadian provinces and territories to make the transition towards Kyoto”.

I would like to ask for the support of the Bloc to introduce that amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a wonderful opportunity to remind Canadians that it was not our party that guaranteed wait times within its first term of office and has now backed off publicly. It was not our party that promised not to undermine all those who held income trusts. The Prime Minister of Canada gave three separate speeches when he promised Canadians that he would not wreck their savings. Let us be honest about this issue.

The issue here is about partnership and whether or not the government even has a plan. Just moments ago in the committee the Minister of the Environment had several questions put to him by me and other members of all parties. After $5.6 billion in cuts in the last budget, $5.6 billion in cuts for climate change responses in this country, I asked the minister if he could please reveal to Canadians in dollar terms how much has been spent by the government in its first year of office. The minister was completely incapable of answering the question.

This is deserving of a national response. This is deserving of a plan from a government whose leader for 12 years before becoming Prime Minister was the leader of the anti-climate change movement in the country, who raised funds to undermine the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. This is a matter of record. This is not a matter of embellishment. What does the Prime Minister have to hide? Was he misleading Canadians then, or is he misleading them now? We do not know the answer to that question.

It is important for us now to move forward and find a plan for the country. We had a plan. It was disembowelled by the government. Some $5.6 billion was slashed, so now we are looking to see where the government is taking us.

Apparently we are not going to participate in the international emissions trading system, which is news to Canadian industry, particularly the oil and gas companies that are counting on the mechanism to reduce their greenhouse gases efficiently. We are not going to emulate the U.S. Clean Air Act which actually inspired the Kyoto protocol because it was there whence we derived the whole concept of a domestic emissions trading system.

We do not know where the government is going but we know there is Bill C-30, the so-called clean air act, which has been tossed to a legislative committee. When I asked the Minister of the Environment an hour ago whether he would agree to promise to Canadians that when that work came back to the chamber on March 30 he would move immediately to implement it, he said no.

My point is it is time for a plan from the government. There is no plan. The government is making it up as it goes along. What the Conservatives are really doing are jumping from ice floe to ice floe, handing out cheques across the country and re-gifting Liberal programs.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning to the motion put forward by our colleagues.

I am pleased to rise in this House today to express my views on an issue as critical as the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

First, I would like to thank all the Bloc and NDP members for supporting the motion tabled in the House last week by the leader of the official opposition. Through their votes, the vast majority of hon. members confirmed their support for Kyoto and their commitment to fight climate change.

We know that the government is now all alone in its approach to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This shows that it is headed in the wrong direction. The motion that enjoyed the support of the three opposition parties recognized that human activities are largely responsible for the disruptions affecting the climate, and demanded that the government respect its Kyoto commitments.

The motion directed the Prime Minister to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use the existing means provided in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to take necessary initiatives. The motion was adopted a week ago and the government is still not acting on it.

The Kyoto protocol is a cooperation tool that unites nations willing to address the international issue that global warming represents. It is not just a set of targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is not just a step forward, it is also, and more importantly, the right path that will lead us to results. The Kyoto protocol is dealing with the issue before it is too late, because the alarm is already sounding.

Last week, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, a group established by the United Nations, released a shocking report. It concluded that human activities are almost without a doubt responsible for global warming and are, consequently, also responsible for the major socio-economic disruptions that this warming trend could trigger in the years to come.

Despite the international panel's shocking statements last Friday, the Prime Minister cannot yet answer a question that I and many others have been asking him for over a year now. Where is his plan to fight climate change?

The only conclusion we are left with is that the Conservative government does not have a plan. The Prime Minister is trying to fool Canadians who are now more than ever concerned with the future of our planet. We cannot trust a Prime Minister who was leader of the opposition and called the Kyoto treaty a socialist scheme. He promised to battle its ratification, “whatever the cost”.

We know that if the Prime Minister were serious about climate change, he would have mentioned it in his last fiscal update, just last fall. If climate change were a priority at all for the Conservatives, it would at least have been mentioned perhaps in their Speech from the Throne or perhaps in their so-called list of five priorities during the campaign. It was absent from all those documents, from all those speeches and from all that rhetoric.

The Conservatives' record in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions is just pathetic. The Conservative government axed federal programs that promoted the reduction of greenhouse gases.

The proof? Here it is: $395 million cut from the EnerGuide program for home renovations; $500 million cut from the EnerGuide program for low-income homeowners; and $250 million cut from the partnership fund for climate change projects that the Liberals concluded with the provinces and municipalities.

Almost $600 million was cut from wind power production and renewable power production programs. The Conservatives did away with the One Tonne Challenge. They cut a billion dollars from the Climate Fund to reduce greenhouse gases. They cut $2 billion of general climate-change program funding.

The most recent victim of the Conservatives' cuts to environmental programs is the Commercial Building Incentive Program, which provided a financial incentive for the design and construction of new energy efficient buildings.

This was not a useless program; it produced results. Since its inception, this program supported no less than 541 projects in Canada that improved the energy performance of new buildings. These new buildings perform on average almost 35% better than similar buildings.

This program proved that it helped reduce greenhouse gases; every residential building, for example, built through the program emitted 182 fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. For commercial buildings, the average reduction of greenhouse gases was 291 tonnes a year.

A government that eliminates such a program cannot say that it is taking care of the climate change problem. And similar announcements keep on coming.

Yesterday we learned that the government is shutting down the Northern Climate ExChange in the Yukon, which excels in climate change research in northern Canada and in the world. Since the Conservatives are cutting off their annual funding of $320,000, the researchers and scientists at Northern Climate ExChange have to end their studies.

If we do a quick calculation of all of the cuts, we get over $5.5 billion that has been eliminated from initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases—$5.5 billion in cuts. Is this how the government shows that it is serious about fighting climate change?

If the government is serious about action on climate change, it certainly has not shown it with its widely penned and so-called clean air act.

The Bill C-30 legislative committee has resurrected a bill that was dead on arrival in the House of Commons and only resurrected it with a promise to completely and utterly rewrite it.

Experts agree that there are no significant powers, not a single significant power to regulate in the new Bill C-30, that the government does not already possess under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In short, the bill does nothing. I think we know that if the government were serious, it would have acted rather than punting the whole issue into Parliament.

Just half an hour ago, the Minister of the Environment refused to promise that the amended Bill C-30, once sent back to this chamber on March 30, would be acted on quickly by the government. He refused to guarantee and promise Canadian people that the hard work of the legislative committee would be implemented by the government. What kind of game is this when we are talking about such a serious issue for the future of the country?

Let us turn our attention to a subject that fascinates government members, the Liberal record on the environment. Project green was introduced as the centrepiece of the greenest budget in Canadian history. To paraphrase the Minister of the Environment, who said that? Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green Party of Canada.

With several key platforms for action, six greenhouse gases were added to the list of toxins under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. A proposed large final emitter system was published and draft regulations were nearly released before the unexpected 2006 election. We released a proposed set of rules for an offset credit system to award credits to large and small industries, technology companies, municipalities, farmers, foresters and individual Canadians, achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. That system would have also created a market, allowing these individuals, industries and organizations to sell their credits, which is one of the most efficient ways to get the maximum emissions reductions at the lowest cost.

Our climate fund was set to start operations in early 2006, acting as a kind of investment bank. It would have purchased reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from tangible projects. For Canadians, opportunities would have been available in every sector of the economy. Many different groups would have benefited from the fund: forestry companies that engaged in state of the art forest management practices; farmers who adopted low-till practices; property developers who included district heating and renewable energy elements in their plans for their new subdivisions; businesses that developed innovative ways to reduce emissions through recycling and energy efficiency; companies and municipalities that invested in their communities to encourage alternative transportation modes; municipalities that went further and captured landfill gas and used it to generate electricity; or courier companies that retrofitted their fleets.

We have lost a key year, 12 months of silence, 12 months of blame game. In the 12th month, what does the government do? It goes back into our green plan. It cherry-picks three core programs and re-gifts them for Canadians. Not only does it re-gift the programs, but seriously weakens all three.

In other words, at some point Canada's new government will have to deliver a plan. We will have to see a plan. The Canadian people are desirous of a plan.

Another major part of project green was the $250 million partnership fund. This fund was expected to grow to $2 billion to $3 billion as projects were expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 to 85 megatonnes by 2012.

The first project announced under the partnership fund was a three-way federal-provincial-private plan in Prince Edward Island to upgrade the province's electricity transmission system and to allow P.E.I. to take advantage of wind energy. This is exactly the kind of investment we need to leverage industry to fight climate change. It is a program that was stillborn with the Conservative government a year ago.

Our climate change plan was in fact a business strategy for Canada that generated beneficial investments across the economy. Where did that plan go?

We do not only denounce the lack of vision on the part of the government. The Liberal approach is quite different from what the Bloc Québécois is advocating. Today, the Bloc is calling for $328 million to be transferred from Ottawa's coffers, merely a transfer of money. We would prefer a partnership between the two levels of government.

When Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 1997, it joined its efforts in a cooperation agreement entered into by a number of countries to achieve a single goal. Climate change is a global problem that Canada cannot solve on its own, in isolation. We took the lead, we agreed to live up to our responsibilities and we committed ourselves to working to improve the situation.

Because we cannot ignore our allies in the fight against climate change, we must also seize the opportunity to work in close collaboration with each of the provinces, each of the territories, all of the cities and villages and aboriginal communities. We are talking here about a collective effort in which every level of government must do its part. The federal government should extend its hand to them and demonstrate its intention of collaborating. Cooperation is one of the keys to success. That is how we can be sure that our efforts are not in vain and that we are advancing toward our common goal.

Just as for all of the childcare agreements that the government had entered into with the 13 provinces and territories, just as for the Kelowna accord, the first comprehensive federal agreement with all of the major aboriginal and Métis communities, the objective of the Kyoto protocol Partnership Fund was to secure agreements between Ottawa and all of the provincial and territorial governments for fighting climate change.

We had a memorandum of agreement, with Quebec, which involved $328 million and possibly more. Similar agreements had been signed with Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. But after the 2006 election, Quebec found itself alone in its efforts to achieve the Kyoto protocol objectives. The federal government made a big mistake when it took away the $328 million we had set aside for Quebec to fight climate change.

In my closing remarks, I am going to ask the government again to table a plan for the people of Canada to honour our obligations under the international treaty called the Kyoto protocol.

As a nation and as a people, we committed to lead the world in a global response to a global problem. The government refuses to accept that although there are over 180 nation-states, there is only one atmosphere and there must be a global response. That is why 168 countries, including Canada, have signed the treaty. The government instead would like us to leave the treaty but will not tell Canadians the truth about it.

To conclude, I would like to move an amendment to the motion by the Bloc Québécois that is before us today.

I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “the sum of” with the words “a sum of not less than” and by adding after the words “Kyoto Protocol targets” the following: “in accordance with the commitment made to all of the provinces and territories by the Partnership Fund established in Project Green”.

Those are my remarks. On this extraordinarily important time in Canadian history, we support the efforts of the Bloc Québécois; we support the efforts of all provinces and we are desperately looking forward to plan which engages Canadians, provinces, municipalities, towns and villages in what is the challenge of the 21st century: to reduce our greenhouse gases and protect the only atmosphere we have.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the member has been for the last year. This government has taken action on the environment. We have accomplished more in the last year than the former Liberal government would have dreamed was even possible.

Only weeks ago in British Columbia we announced $30 million for the Great Bear Rain Forest. On the other coast, the government has invested $280 million to clean up the Sydney tar ponds. Why was this not done previously? Because of empty rhetoric and broken promises.

The Conservative government is a government of action. We will work with the province of Quebec. We want to and need to work together to see the passage of Bill C-30, Canada's legislation to clean up the environment in Canada and for the benefit of our globe.

Climate change is a real issue. We have to put down partisan politics. We have to work together for the health of our planet to stop climate change. I encourage the member to stop the rhetoric. Let us work together.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her hard work in representing Quebec well.

I would like to begin by emphasizing clearly that the government is committed to taking immediate and concrete action to address the issue of climate change and cleaning up the environment.

As the Prime Minister said in his speech of February 5, just two days ago:

--we have to have a realistic plan, not just empty rhetoric.

Our government supports a concerted global effort to deal with climate change--and such an effort [ to be effective] must include the major emitters, including the United States and China.

But we cannot ask others to act unless we are prepared to start at home, with real action on greenhouse gases and air pollution.

In short, the time for empty rhetoric is over. It is time for real action.

This government has a realistic plan. Our government has launched an ambitious environmental agenda that will have clear benefits for the environment and for the health of all Canadians.

The environment, particularly climate change, is a fundamental, multi-faceted issue that will require collaborative efforts from all levels of government.

We are committed to working with the provinces and territories in order to address shared challenges while ensuring that national and provincial efforts are well coordinated. Environment is a shared jurisdiction where all governments have a responsibility to act and to be accountable to their citizens.

Quebec is a significant player in the environment, as are all the provinces and territories. We recognize that Quebec has a comprehensive climate change plan and we commend the province's efforts. We have a good working relationship on many federal-provincial issues, not only with Quebec but with other provinces as well. The federal government is equally committed to taking action on climate change and I hope our two governments can work together to achieve shared goals and objectives.

As well, in this House, our government has decided to follow a different course of action in regard to funding of environmental programs.

The government has recently committed over $2 billion in a series of ecoenergy measures to promote both renewable energy and energy efficiency. These initiatives will complement current and future provincial and territorial efforts on climate change and support shared goals and objectives on air pollution and greenhouse gases in every region of the country, including Quebec.

In short, this funding will deliver real results. Canadians from coast to coast to coast will benefit as concrete reductions in greenhouse gases and air pollutants are achieved. I am confident that these initiatives, which will complement Quebec's climate change plan, will be well received by all Quebeckers.

We value provincial and territorial expertise in all aspects of environmental management and local considerations and will ensure that this expertise is utilized when moving forward on the environmental agenda.

In fact, many elements of the government's new ecoenergy programs will require joint efforts, including participation of the federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry, and the universities. Public-private partnerships with industry and federal and provincial governments will be forged where there is a shared interest.

In fact, ours is the first federal government to come forward with a comprehensive plan to regulate both greenhouse gases and pollutants in the industrial sector.

This government is committed to achieving real and measurable results that will produce health and environmental benefits for all Canadians. When it comes to the health of Canadians and the environment, we are not simply willing to adopt voluntary approaches, which do not necessarily lead to meaningful improvements.

We will set realistic and concrete mandatory targets for the short, the medium and the long term that will result in cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and a healthier environment.

Our approach is balanced. New regulations will be complemented by a series of new programs that will support national goals and objectives.

The new ecoenergy initiatives are a prime example of our balanced approach, as they will complement the government's regulatory measures under the proposed clean air act, Bill C-30. They will deliver real results while regulations are being developed. They will also drive the technological innovation required to support upcoming regulations.

Provinces and territories are responsible for a great deal of the day to day delivery of the environmental programs. They work directly with local business, industry and municipalities, and they manage and monitor many facets of the environment across the wide expanse of the country.

We recognize that all levels of government are currently taking action to tackle air emissions. As such, we have launched a frank and transparent process of dialogue to ensure continued exchange of information throughout the regulatory development process.

At the beginning of November last year, consultations on the regulatory framework were launched with provinces and territories as well as with industrial sectors, aboriginal groups and non-governmental organizations.

I am pleased to say that to date these consultations have been positive and constructive. Provinces and territories are generally supportive of the federal government's efforts to introduce regulatory measures and to consult on setting the targets and the timelines.

We will continue to work in partnership and will respect shared responsibility among all levels of government. Our ongoing dialogue with the provinces and territories is key to achieving consistent and comprehensive national outcomes.

Our Minister of the Environment has met with several of his provincial and territorial counterparts, including Quebec's Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks. These meetings have been productive, with a shared view that both orders of government can continue to work together.

In fact, we are pleased to say that provinces and territories recognize that this government is taking immediate action on climate change and is prepared to work in collaboration to address this shared challenge.

The government's policy is clear. We will establish targets that will result in concrete improvements in environmental outcomes. These targets will be realistic and they will be achievable.

The environmental agenda developed by this government ensures a balance between recognizing the increased federal role to act in the national interest while ensuring provincial cooperation on an ongoing basis.

This government values the work of provinces and territories and believes they are critical players in environmental management. We will work with them in a cooperative and productive manner as this environmental agenda is further developed.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my Bloc colleague, I would say that I represent Quebeckers and I am working in Quebec for Quebeckers, but I am also in Canada. I am working for everyone. Quebeckers are not the only ones with problems. Both Quebeckers and Canadians have problems. In that sense, the clean air act, Bill C-30, is a very good bill.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, why do we need the clean air act when we have the Canadian Environmental Protection Act?

Canadians are concerned about the quality of the air they are breathing, as well as climate change. Harmful atmospheric emissions are continuing to impact on our health, our environment, our economy and even our quality of life. Our government is aware that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canada. So the new government of Canada has taken measures designed to reduce air pollution and climate change in order to protect Canadians’ health and their environment.

The report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has just been released, once again sounds the alarm. Growing levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere may exacerbate climate change, and this may prove to be devastating in many parts of the world.

This government’s long-term integrated regulatory approach to the reduction of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions will be strengthened by the improvements that the bill aims to make to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA. By relying on the considerable powers already provided under CEPA, Bill C-30 will ensure a much firmer foundation for concerted action to be taken against smog emissions, acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions produced in many cases by the same industrial and vehicle sources.

Concerted action will make it possible to avoid so-called “pernicious” effects. Sometimes the technologies used to reduce air pollution have unfortunate side effects, which actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. By tackling this problem, our government will maximize the advantages for the population of Canada and Quebec. Our approach will also provide the certainty necessary to industry so that it can make the most of technology and invest the necessary money to reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases.

The previous government committed itself to meeting ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, but the emissions increased by 27% during its mandate. Consequently there was a increase in smog in our cities and an increase in the incidence of asthma and other respiratory diseases. That is why our government is taking a dynamic new path.

The clean air act creates new powers to allow for regulation and surveillance of air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Allow me to give a few examples of the effects the changes to CEPA will have.

The clean air act will be the legislative basis for a made-to-measure approach to regulate indoor and outdoor air pollutants as well as greenhouse gases. By adopting regulations based on the act, we will be in a position to impose requirements and to take enforcement measures against offenders.

Our clean air regulation initiative comes as a radical change if we consider all the missed opportunities of the past. For the first time, the environment and health ministers will be legally forced to establish national objectives on air quality, to follow closely the progress in meeting those objectives and to produce a progress report every year. This is a very strict obligation that we think will ensure that successive governments make a priority of improving air quality.

With the clean air act, Canadians will be in a position to hold the government accountable for real progress in reducing air pollution.

Bill C-30 will also amend CEPA to enable us to make full use of the emission-trading market so that industry can comply as efficiently as possible with the regulatory standards that are going to be instituted.

The bill will also improve our ability to regulate air emissions from various products.

Along with the provinces and territories, our government promised to require that the renewable fuel usage rate be set at 5% by 2010. This objective is stricter than the American one and comparable to that of our European partners. The amendments to CEPA will allow us to regulate the fuel mix and thereby institute national standards on renewable fuel content in as efficient a way as possible.

Canada's Clean Air Act will also improve the Energy Efficiency Act, enabling us to set solid energy efficiency standards for a broader array of consumer and commercial products, especially household appliances and electrical products.

Finally, Canada's Clean Air Act will amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize the government’s ability to regulate the fuel consumption of new motor vehicles. For the very first time, we will be able to regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles beginning in the 2011 model year.

We already have some legislative power to protect Canadians’ health and the environment from air pollution. That is why we do not expect the amendments to unleash new regulatory measures. The notice of intent we issued last October described a certain number of regulations that will come into force over the next 12 months under the existing legislation.

Canadians will see real reductions thanks to these regulations imposing mandatory requirements. The era of voluntary compliance is over.

In conclusion, Canada's Clean Air Act will be the first comprehensive, integrated effort that Canada has seen to fight air pollution and greenhouse gases. It will give all Canadians cleaner air while also fighting climate change. Our health has suffered long enough and our environment has been degraded enough. Canada's Clean Air Act is absolutely necessary to achieve real progress for our generation and those to come.

Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

Climate Change Accountability Act

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned previously, I only have about a minute. I had prepared a big long speech with all sorts of information, but I will just make a very quick intervention.

First, I question the sincerity of the NDP to put forward this particular private member's bill. We have a legislative committee Bill C-30, the clean air act, proposed by this government to clean up greenhouse gases and to clean up the air we breathe.

I say to the NDP and all members of this House, let us work together, put politics aside for a change, put partisanship aside and let us work for the environment for the best interest of Canadians.

Bill C-30 will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will make our air cleaner to breathe for all Canadians for future generations. I would encourage members to do that.

I would also encourage everybody listening and watching today, all Canadians, to not believe what I, or the NDP, or the Liberals, or the Bloc are saying. I ask them to look for themselves on websites, ask their members of Parliament to provide information so they can educate themselves on the great initiative that this government, the minister and the Prime Minister are doing.

We are a government of action. We are going to get results for Canadians if we can put aside partisan politics and work together for the best interest of Canadians. Bill C-30 is a great bill. It is a great initiative. I say put aside Bill C-377, put aside the other motions put forward by the other parties, and let us work together collaboratively for the best interest of Canadians today and the best interest of future generations. We can get the job done. This government will get the job done.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-377. I would like to start off by recognizing the incredible work done by the member for Toronto—Danforth, for his many years as a Toronto city councillor where he brought forward ideas to cut smog and pollution, and for his ongoing commitment in his role as leader of the NDP to make sure that Canada lives up to its commitments to the world on reducing greenhouse gases and addressing the crisis of climate change.

I would like to also recognize the Canadian public who for years have been calling upon the government to act, to clean up our air and our water, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ordinary Canadians are far ahead of us in recognizing it is long past time to take our promises to the world seriously. In 1992 at the Earth Summit, Canada urged the world to act on the looming crisis of climate change. We promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but we failed to act and instead, our emissions went up, not down. We not only failed to act, we failed our country and we failed our planet.

I want to thank the member for Toronto—Danforth for bringing this bill before the House. It lays out a plan to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and creates an accountability measure to make sure that we follow through and meet those targets.

It is important to pass this bill because we are in a crisis. We can point to many examples around the world. Scientists have pointed out these examples, such as melting polar ice caps, bigger and stronger hurricanes in the south, and longer periods of drought in many places around the world. Many people in this House and in this country have probably seen Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, which follows the trend of global warming over many years and highlights some startling examples.

I would like to talk for a few moments about what I have seen in Canada in my riding of Vancouver Island North.

My riding is on the west coast of Canada and it is typically known as a rain forest. We jokingly refer to it as the wet coast. We do not worry about smog days because we have fog days. A few years ago we noticed our summers were getting longer and hotter. Cedar trees were wilting by the end of summer because of a lack of rain and because of the intense heat.

Because the forest is drying out more quickly, there is more likelihood of forest fires. While forest fires are nothing new in British Columbia, they usually happen in July and August, but last year we had our first fire on Vancouver Island in May, not very far from where I live. We counted ourselves lucky because there was no property damage; however, the birds, the deer, the frogs and all the other creatures that lived in that forested area perished or are without a home.

Another example of how our weather is changing is the Cliffe Glacier in the Comox Valley. It is the focal point of many beautiful postcards, as well as a source of cold water for the lakes and rivers that it feeds. For the last few years we have been seeing more and more of the mountain poking out of the ice as the glacier melts a little more every summer. It is an eerie feeling when I look up at that glacier in the summer and see rocks that have been covered for thousands of years. It makes me sad knowing that if Canada had acted sooner on its commitment, we would not be in this crisis.

The most startling example of climate change on the coast is in our oceans. For thousands of years people on the west coast have relied upon the oceans for their food, for their livelihood and for their recreation. Fishermen used to be able to count on returns of salmon at certain times of the year, but with the warmer rivers running into a warmer ocean, fish migration patterns are changing.

Last year, as an example, with the warmer water salmon were returning later to the streams to spawn and die as they usually do, but the streams were low due to a lack of summer and fall rains. Then when the rains did come, they came with a vengeance, flushing away everything in the river, including the tiny eggs in many small streams. This will have an impact for years to come. Couple that with the increasing acidity of our oceans due to carbon dioxide and the impact on fish habitat is enormous.

Yes, Canada must act. Those are just a few examples right here in our own backyard. I could list many others, such as the pine beetle infestation in the B.C. interior and melting in the Arctic which has a profound impact on wildlife and vegetation. I am sure there are thousands more examples we could point to for reasons that Canada must act quickly to address the now imminent crisis of climate change.

Bill C-377's short title is the climate change accountability act. It proposes measures to meet our commitments and creates an obligation for the environment commissioner to review and report to Parliament on our progress.

This is something we did not have in the past. There was no accountability of the previous government to live up to our commitments. Because of that, our greenhouse gas emissions went up instead of down. We are further behind many other countries. Canada can afford to live up to its commitments to the world. We are a rich country in so many ways. We have the technology to act.

In 2005 the NDP put forward a plan to help Canada act on its commitments to the world. It is called “Sustainability within a generation: A Kyoto plan to clean our air, fight climate change, and create jobs”. It would save future generations health, economic and ecological costs. It is a comprehensive plan to create jobs building clean renewable energy solutions right here in Canada, incentives to reduce energy consumption for businesses and homes, invest more in public transit and sustainable transportation, retrofit federal government facilities to reduce energy consumption, and cap large emitters with a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This plan is achievable and would put Canada on the path to reverse the growth of emissions. I am proud of our party's commitment to work in this House with other parties on Bill C-30 to put some of these ideas into action.

Ordinary families want to retrofit and renovate their homes to be more energy efficient, but the constraints of everyday living and the costs of conversion are out of reach for them. This is where government could help with subsidies for families. It is unfair to Canadian families who see the oil and gas industry, one of the largest CO₂ emitters, get government subsidies while those companies make enormous profits. It is unfair to the families who are working to make our environment a cleaner place to live.

I was pleased to see the recent announcements of the government to invest money in alternative energy solutions, more money for wind, solar and wave generated power. That investment is long overdue and falls short of what is needed to help Canada achieve its clean energy commitments. I will be watching the government carefully and reminding it that it also needs to live up to the commitments Canada made to the world.

In British Columbia there are no windmills, no wind generated power. We are the only province in Canada that does not have them and it is not for a lack of desire. There are small companies working very hard trying to implement wind, solar and wave generated power, but they need help from the government to make it a reality. Solar panels for homes are expensive and working families need assistance up front to purchase clean energy solutions, not after the fact.

If we are going to make real changes quickly, the government needs to make a stronger commitment to the people of Canada and the environment.

Again, I am pleased to support Bill C-377, an act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities, preventing dangerous climate change.

I am pleased to hear that the government wants to work together, because we have an obligation to act. We promised we would act in 1992. We promised we would dramatically cut pollution. We promised we would act in Kyoto. Canadians want us to act. Our children want us to act. Our children's future depends on us. We must act now.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-377, the climate change accountability act.

I would like to begin by saying that there are some aspects of this bill that are laudable. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that Canada contributes to the stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions and to prevent dangerous changes to the climate. This is something the government has made clear that it is committed to. Canadians have sent the message that the environment is their number one priority and the government agrees.

I would also like to congratulate the Minister of the Environment on his recent trip to Paris for the release of the IPCC report. The recent report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change shone a very strong spotlight on the issue of climate change, and rightly so. Climate change is real. The scientific evidence supporting the warming of the planet has become so strong, it is unequivocal. What our environment needs and what Canadians demand is real action, not just empty talk and empty promises.

We have heard from the opposition parties that they want to improve Canada's clean air act. I would encourage them that the best way to do that is to set aside party politics and genuinely work together so that we can make progress on this important issue. Let us work collaboratively, so that Canadians can see that the representatives in Ottawa are willing to put aside their partisan differences to actually make the difference on the environment.

The appropriate venue for moving forward on this matter is the legislative committee on Bill C-30. If the opposition parties have ideas and suggestions, as expressed through private members' bills and opposition motions, bring those to the table during the amendment of Bill C-30. We have been pleased that the NDP has demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively. We hope that the Liberals and the Bloc would also be willing to move forward on this matter in a timely fashion. We do not want to waste time. We want to prove to Canadians that we can work together.

Canada's natural beauty, its rivers, forests, prairies, mountains, is one of this country's greatest features. Our natural resources also provide great opportunities and great challenges. Our government is committed to being good stewards of our environment and our resources. The state of the environment the government inherited a year ago posed great threats to the health of every Canadian, especially to the most vulnerable in our society.

Children and seniors suffer disproportionately from smog, poor air quality and environmental hazards. Poor air is not a minor irritant to be endured but a serious health issue that poses an increasing risk to the well-being of Canadians. Greenhouse gas emissions also degrade Canada's natural landscape and pose an imminent threat to our economic prosperity. That is why our government is taking real, concrete action to achieve results.

Canadians are tired of empty promises. They want and deserve action and results. Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, is a response to that. Canada's clean air act makes a bold new era of environmental protection as this country's first comprehensive and integrated approach to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Our government is taking unprecedented action to reduce both greenhouse gases and air pollutants. It is important to recognize that most sources of air pollutants are also sources of greenhouse gases and Bill C-30 recognizes that reality.

Canada's clean air act contains important new provisions that will expand the powers of the federal government to address the existing inefficient regulatory framework. It will replace the current ad hoc patchwork system with comprehensive national standards. By improving and bringing more accountability to CEPA, Bill C-30 does the following things.

It requires that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health establish, monitor and report on new national air quality objectives, it strengthens the government's ability to make new regulations on air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and it expands our ability to work cooperatively with the provinces and territories to avoid regulatory overlapping.

The second key difference in our approach to clean air lies in our focus on mandatory regulations to achieve real results now and in the future. We are the first federal government to introduce mandatory regulations on all industrial sectors across Canada to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. Voluntary approaches are impossible to enforce. These approaches have simply not delivered the results that we need.

The clean air act sent a strong signal to industries that the day of voluntary emission targets are over and that they had to adapt to this new environmental reality of compulsory targets.

We believe that clear regulations will provide industry with called for certainty and an incentive to invest in the technologies needed to deliver early reductions in air pollutants and greenhouses gases.

The government is committed to real action. It is what Canadians have been demanding for years and it is what our country and our environment deserves.

How is the government making a difference? We are moving from voluntary action to mandatory regulations. We are moving from random, arbitrary targets to logical targets. We are moving from uncertainty to certainty. We are moving from a scattered patchwork approach to an integrated national approach. We are moving from talking to taking action and we are moving from empty promises to fulfilled commitments.

That is why Canadians put their trust in us a year ago. We will not let them down. We are getting the job done.

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

moved that Bill C-377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak briefly about the legislation, I want to acknowledge that I had the opportunity to be with some firefighters in Manitoba over the weekend, remarkable men and women who are working on our behalf, and yet I have to report today to the House that a tragedy has occurred and two firefighters died Sunday night after a massive flash of heat and flames overwhelmed them in a burning Winnipeg home.

A crew was inside the flame-consumed building when they were hit by what is called a flashover, a sudden violent burst of flames at extreme temperatures. Two senior captains, both with more than 30 years of experience, did not make it out. Others are suffering at the moment in hospital. Our thoughts and prayers are very much with them at this moment. I am sure I express the sentiments of all members of the House in drawing attention to this tragedy.

It is with a certain degree of emotion that I am able to stand here today and present a private member's bill on the crisis of climate change. That is partly because I never thought I would have such an opportunity when I first read Silent Spring in the 1960s and began to become aware of the environmental crises that were facing the country, or when my dad, who later was to become a member of Parliament and in fact a minister of the Crown, told my brothers and I that we should install solar hot water heating on top of our roof in Hudson, Quebec in about 1969. He had a vision that the way in which we were conducting our activities on the planet was going to have to change. He was someone who focused very much on that work. He was involved in putting up some of the first wind turbines in Canada in the mid-1970s on Prince Edward Island and in many other innovations and initiatives as well.

I am also thinking of our reaction when the global scientists came to Toronto in 1988. I was a member of the city council at the time. They spoke about the crisis of global warming that was emerging. Members of our council from all political backgrounds came back quite shaken and decided that we needed to act. That is when we created the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, which I had the privilege of leading for a period of time.

To be here in the House and to call now for significant action on climate change is therefore an opportunity that I cherish and respect deeply. I believe that members of the House want to see action taken.

Last week in Paris, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said:

If you see the extent to which human activities are influencing the climate system, the options for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions appear in a very different light, because you can see what the costs of inaction are.

Canadians are seeing the costs now. This winter, the costs of inaction have been very easy to spot. We had the devastating storm in Stanley Park. We have had the first green Christmas in memory in places such as Timmins and Quebec City. There was the giant slab of ice that broke off in the Arctic, a slab that was bigger and broke off sooner than any scientists were predicting.

I think that ordinary Canadians have for quite a long time known what these costs are. Canadians have been seeing and breathing the consequences of pollution for years.

In an experience that far too many Canadian families have had, I remember having to take my asthmatic son to the emergency ward. He came back from a camp up north and was breathing well, but he arrived in our city on a smog day, and within two days he was in the emergency ward and they were putting the third oxygen mask on him. As I stood at his side, the doctor said, “We normally don't get to put three masks on”. We lose far too many young people and far too many seniors prematurely because of filthy air, yet we do not take action.

Another image I will never forget as long as I live was being in Quesnel this past summer, walking through the forest with the experts and seeing the devastation of the pine beetle. I then flew over the forest in the helicopter to see the extent of the damage with those who were involved in trying to harvest the forest and protect it as well.

I then travelled back to Vancouver and realized that thousands of square kilometres of the lodgepole pine had been destroyed. Virtually an entire ecosystem has been destroyed.

As is visible from satellites, the lungs of the planet in our Canadian forests have been destroyed. More recently, in Kamloops we saw the Ponderosa pine infested just this past summer. Now, virtually all of the Ponderosa pines have died. The landscape is going to be transformed.

There are impacts in the north. The first person I heard speak about this so passionately was Sheila Watt-Cloutier, of whom we are very proud today because she has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. She spoke about how streams in the north have become so torrential from melting ice that they have become very dangerous and about how new species are invading the north and having an enormous impact on the ecosystems there.

I remember meeting with aboriginal hunters in Dawson City, seniors who described how the animals they used to hunt are now being preyed upon by predators from the south. New kinds of mosquitoes, blackflies, fish and birds are coming into the north and disrupting ecosystems that have been in place for thousands of years.

The melting permafrost is having devastating impacts on buildings and of course is also having an impact on the migration of the caribou herds, which are now greatly threatened.

There is now a longer ice-free season. Ice roads are now weakened and are coming into place much later. I remember when Sheila Watt-Cloutier looked at me when we were in Buenos Aires at the COP conference and said that “global warming is now killing our young men”. She described how young men driving trucks on the ice roads were going through the ice and perishing. In fact, she felt that global warming was destroying the traditional Inuit way of life.

Canadians have been seeing these changes and are calling for action. I think we have to say that they have been disappointed to date, but they are hopeful that perhaps for this House, in this time, in this place, when we have a wave of public opinion urging us on, when we have every political party suggesting that it wants to be seen to take action and, let us hope, actually wants to take action, there is a moment in time here that is unique in Canadian history when action can be taken. It is going to require us to put aside some of what we normally do here, and we have to understand the need for speed.

When we proposed that the Bill C-30 committee move quickly to produce the best legislation possible, there was the comment by some members who were asking, “What is the rush here?”

I will tell members what the rush is. It is a polar bear population soon to be placed on the endangered species list, spotted farther south than ever before and in desperate straits.

It is about jobs in our communities, whether they be in forestry, fishing or hunting. These jobs are now at risk.

There is a decrease in water levels in rivers and lakes that is jeopardizing not only water quality but even the possibility of generating the hydroelectricity that we are going to need as part of the clean energy solution.

Therefore, the rush is about jobs, the rush is about protecting parkland and species, and the rush is about the health of our families and our kids' future tomorrow, not only here but all around the world. That is what the rush is all about. I would urge all members to realize that we have to get moving. Endless conversation and the dragging out of processes are counterproductive.

Over the years we have seen the Conservatives and the Liberals subsidize the oil and gas sector to the tune of over $40 billion. We need to end this practice. We need to start putting those precious Canadian taxpayers' dollars into the solutions, not into accelerating the problems.

We have to invest in clean energy and in energy efficiency projects.

We can create jobs through retrofitting the homes of low income Canadians. That would create work all over Canada, not just in one part of the country's economy having to do with energy. It would also help Canadians who are struggling, whether they are seniors or families with modest incomes. It would enable them to burn less, pay less and create work in their local communities as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has to happen and it has to happen now.

We have to put in place fuel efficiency standards for the auto sector so that the automobiles on our roads can be much less polluting than they have been historically.

As well, we must honour the obligations that we have undertaken to the world under the Kyoto protocol.

Let us consider the scientific facts and data. The report by Dr. Pachauri from the international panel of experts released in Paris concluded that global warming was caused by human activity. It is clear that we have caused this problem, and we now have a responsibility to tackle it, a responsibility to our planet and a responsibility to our children and grandchildren.

The Paris report also predicts that the temperature will rise by up to 6.4^oC by the end of this century; that is unacceptable, and quick action is required. This will mean more droughts and intense heatwaves, more tropical storms and hurricanes, and sea level rising by half a metre, which in itself is quite phenomenal.

Those certainly are alarming predictions and, as David Suzuki has said, “the scientists have done their part and the burden has now shifted to the politicians”. Let us take on that burden and let us do Canadians proud by taking action in the next short number of weeks.

We tabled the bill to ensure that Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing climate change. It is only part of the solution. There are other elements that we have an opportunity to move on through Bill C-30, through the budget and through other processes. However, this is a very important piece of the puzzle because it is particularly rooted in what science tells us to do if we are to avoid the dangerous levels of global temperature increase.

The science tells us to do everything that we can to avoid a two degree rise in surface air temperatures. These targets that have been established and laid out in bill are based on a report by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation and they build on Canada's obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

Canada must honour its obligations under the Kyoto protocol. Canada has to be involved in international efforts to combat climate change. We must be involved every step of the way, and we should play a leadership role.

Under the climate change accountability act, action to reduce greenhouse gases would begin immediately. A full range of targets at five year intervals will need to be in place within six months of it being adopted. This is speeding up our entire process in the House and in Canada to achieve our goals.

Also, to ensure compliance, the bill proposes that we give the authority to government to make strong regulations and to ensure there are offences and penalties for those who contravene the regulations passed under the act. It is time to get tough on the polluters.

The bill also proposes to mandate the environment commissioner to report on the government's selection of targets and the measures it adopts to reach those goals. We continue to believe, in fact more so in the light of recent events, that the environment commissioner should be an officer of the House and report directly to the House of Commons.

With the bill, Canadians would see action in their lifetime. They would not need to hold their breath any longer for action by the House of Commons.

I would like to speak briefly to the companion effort that we are all undertaking through the special committee that has been established. This is a unique opportunity for each of us, for each of our parties, to put forward our best ideas and to vote on them. It is perhaps a rather radical idea the notion that each party would simply put its best notions forward, would, on a fair and reasonable basis, assess the proposals of other parties and would raise their hands in the committee and, ultimately, in the House in favour of the best ideas that Canadians have been able to bring forward to this place on the biggest crisis facing the planet.

The time for action is now, and we will continue to push for these measures. The NDP will press on with clear targets and goals. We will try to get this bill passed and we will lobby the parties represented on the legislative committee struck to rewrite the clean air act to meet the goals for strong, tough, meaningful and innovative measures.

That is something we can and must do.

Our commitment to the House and to all Canadians is to do everything that we can to produce results from the House in the very short period of time before we find ourselves having to go back to Canadians. I do not want to go back and tell them we were not able to get it done. I want to go back and tell them that we all got together and we got it done.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate. It seems to be, and I hope it is not the first and only, a week of talking about the environment.

It gives me particular pleasure because the issue has been one on which I do not think Parliament has been seized with the proper energy over the last number of years, certainly over the last number of decades. While the debate today is somewhat representative of where we need not to be on this issue, Canadians have heard the Liberals time and again claiming that the Conservative Party members do not believe in climate change or that they are climate change skeptics. While I do not necessarily doubt the allegation, the fact is that they need to respond.

I am not sure any party in this place has a choice any more. We cannot stand on the side of the biggest polluters or on the side of those who wish to continue to be irresponsible in their decisions. We must stand on the side of responsible governance.

We saw the report out of Paris today that was made by 1,200 leading scientists, more than 2,300 contributors of the best and brightest our world has to offer and more than 113 countries. For those of us who have been involved in the United Nations process, we know that getting language into a document can be onerous because it needs to be done by consensus. When we have all these different views and countries represented with their own narrow national interest, it is hard to establish strong language. However, even under those conditions, the language that came out of the United Nations today compels every one of us to work within our parties, to work within our constituencies and to work with all the groups and businesses on this issue for a common cause, which is the reduction of the amount of pollution that is produced by our economy.

We have had many witnesses. For more than two and a half years the former environment committee heard witnesses and now the present environment committee, which was looking at Bill C-288 and is now looking at Bill C-30, will hear more witnesses. Something that has been consistently brought to the attention of members of Parliament is that Kyoto is not so much an environmental protocol as it is an economic one. It goes to the very heart of the decisions that are made about our economy and about the way that certain costs are captured.

The costs for pollution have never been properly captured in this country. That has been true for many other nations as well but they have been moving ahead of us, particularly on the European front but other nations as well, to capture the actual costs of production, one of those costs being how much pollution is emitted into the air.

If anyone remains doubtful of the science or doubtful of the impacts I would gladly invite them for a tour of my riding in northwestern British Columbia where the foresters have come to me and said that they are witnessing the impacts of climate change. The forestry experts have said that the changes they have seen in their weather are causing an infestation of parasites that they have never see the likes of before. They are losing virtually every pine tree in the province and it is now sweeping over the Rockies into Alberta into the boreal forest. The consequences are serious.

We have also heard in the debate today, which I am not sure is helpful, the Conservatives disclaiming the record of the Liberals. Something calls to my mind when I look at Bill C-288. Where was this bill in 1998 and where was it in 2000? Where was the demand for an accountable plan? I know the hon. member was not here but his party was in power.

This is important to point out because timing is important when we talk about the adjustments we need in our economy. I had an excellent meeting with a group of mining executives in the last Parliament. They were upset and frustrated with the government at the time on the question of energy. They were smelting a great deal of ore and it is very energy intensive.

They watched us go through the Kyoto debate, sign on in 1988 and ratify later on. They saw this coming, because they heard from the government that this was coming, and they started to make some changes to the way they used energy and the way that they were polluting. They have been reducing that pollution and their energy uses, which was mostly natural gas in their case, and yet they were not getting any credit for it. There was no level playing field created because the government kept waiting and waiting.

Meanwhile, their competitors in the industry were allowed to continue business as usual. They were not making those types of investments. They became frustrated, and rightly so. The timing of the thing, the fairness and the certainty that businesses have been requiring for so long is critical for moving across our economy.

Despite all the failures of the previous government to set a fair and level playing field for all those competing, on their way out I asked the Liberals one last question: “By the way, how is it going? How is business?” They said, “It is great. Natural gas prices went through the roof in the last couple of years. We used far less than our competitors and we are beating the pants off some of them”, and then they walked out.

At some point we need to debate the environment versus the economy. I often hear some of my colleagues on the benches to my left ask what we have against Alberta and what we have against jobs. That type of thinking needs to end. At some point, with the water crisis that we had in Alberta and when the mayor of Fort McMurray and her council pass a unanimous resolution begging, pleading with the provincial and federal governments to put a halt to any new projects in their area, one begins to question the economy versus the environment debate and see that it is not true.

We see the IPCC report today, the UN's report. We are no longer debating if the seas are rising, we are debating how much. We are no longer debating if the earth is in fact warming, we are debating how much.

An important thing for Canadians to realize, when they look at the numbers and the estimates go from a little less than two degrees to potentially as much as six degrees average temperatures, is that the average temperature for the entire globe is felt most in the northern hemisphere. The further north one goes the more intense those degrees move and the greater they are. For the people who live in the far north and who depend on the resources for resource extraction, we have seen the number of permafrost days and ice road days go down. Mining companies are closing up shop for longer and longer periods of time.

We need to understand and appreciate that this is a battle we must all be seized with. We need to realize that to continue this ping-pong debate back and forth in question period and in debates like this between who is doing worse on the environment between the Conservatives and Liberals, I do not think Canadians are all that interested, to be frank. I do not think Canadians are as interested anymore in hearing that the Liberal record for 13 years led to 30% above, which is true, or that the Conservatives are not seized with the issue of the environment, which is true.

I encourage my colleague who is introducing this bill to hand over some of the amendments that exist in his private member's bill and we can stuff them in, or cram them in or force them into the government's bill. I constantly hear some opposition members at the committee and here in the House say that they want to hear more about the government's plans before they can make decisions about the government's bill. My goodness, courage my friends. The opposition parties have a majority on the committee, as they do in this place, and we should tell the government what we want to do. We should not be waiting for government plans or for this hopeful Kyoto strategy that may or may not come from the government. I am not holding my breath. I waited a long time for the previous government to do it, and I kept waiting and waiting. One gets bored of waiting and just wants to make the changes and do the things that we know are right, in particular, in the debate around Kyoto and whether we are staying in.

Kyoto is a contract that we have with the international community. We are in this protocol. Unless the government steps forward and says that it is tearing it up, we are in this protocol and we must honour our commitments. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister have not said that we are tearing it up. However, if the government is not suggesting that we step out of it, then we are in, and, if we are in, there are penalties that are incurred for missing the targets. That is how it was written.

The world community thought this was so serious that we could not just have another international meeting, have more politicians standing up at more microphones making more pronouncements and yet continuing down a disastrous path when it came to pollution and to climate change. Because they knew this was not an option, the leaders of the day, who signed on to this agreement and drafted this, made sure there were penalties. They are the penalties we abide by.

The debate over the science of climate change is over. The debate over whether Canada is in this protocol must be over. The only debate that now exists is on the measures we as parliamentarians together need to take to change course in this country to once again be proud of our international reputation, particularly when it comes to the environment. We absolutely owe it to ourselves, to the constituents who sent us here and to future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to discuss Bill C-288, which proposes that Canada adopt the Kyoto protocol. What better time to discuss this bill than the day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases its fourth report on climate change.

Today, this report has made it clear that climate change is happening faster than expected. The 2001 report forecasted temperature increases ranging from 1^oC to 1.4^oC, with 5.8^oC being the extreme.

Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us that global temperatures could rise as much as 6.4^oC.

Another important fact in the report is that Canada and Quebec could be facing even more dramatic temperature increases in the next few years.

Experts tell us that temperature increases could be 3% to 4% greater than they currently are in northern Quebec and that we could experience increases exceeding 10^oC within years. Danger is at our doorstep. The situation is alarming. This is an emergency.

Remember that an eminent former economist with the World Bank, Mr. Stern, had predicted that a 5^oC temperature increase was a critical threshold beyond which significant economic impacts would be seen around the world.

A few minutes ago, I listened to the Minister of the Environment say he was surprised by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You really would have to be in another world not to have predicted accelerated climate change and the findings in the IPCC's fourth report.

On this side of the House, we are not surprised at the minister's surprise, because this government has denied the fact of climate change for so many years. With climate change accelerating, the government needs to bring forward a plan to implement the Kyoto protocol in Canada sooner. Of course, the government will say that its solution to climate change is Bill C-30, the clean air act.

When we look at this bill in detail, the first thing we notice is that it does not include the Kyoto targets, which many of us feel are the first step in the fight against climate change. The government is proposing a long-term strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050. This is not enough.

In the coming weeks, could the government table a plan based on the most recent scientific data, which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tabled today, and, when it comes to combating climate change, stop applying a policy from the stone age, which always suggests that to them these climate changes do not seem to be having an impact and are simply a naturally occurring phenomenon?

The report has been validated with 90% scientific certitude. The links between climate change and human activity have now been proven, and this threshold of certitude is currently at 90% in the report that was tabled.

Therefore we must move forward with a bill, such as Bill C-288, which reaffirms the importance of respecting the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and proposing measures for the short, medium and long terms in order to combat climate change.

Furthermore, in this bill we have proposed a new approach that, in our opinion, will maximize every dollar invested in combating climate change, in order to ensure that we reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible.

Until now, the approach proposed by the federal government has been a sectoral approach that sets reduction objectives per industrial sector. This voluntary approach has not produced the expected results. Increases of over 27% in greenhouse gas emissions were observed compared to 1990 levels. That is the federal government's record, including the current government and the previous government. This has lost Canada its role as leader on the world stage.

What is the approach being proposed today by the Bloc? It is a territorial approach much like the one used in Europe, which has allowed that continent to plan and present to the world an environmental record that will see it achieving its Kyoto targets more quickly than anything Canada has proposed to date.

How did they achieve these results? By negotiating an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions among the 15 countries which, at the time, were members of the European Union—now consisting of more than 25 countries, by setting a single negotiated target and assigning different targets to individual EU members.

How were these different targets established? They were established on the basis of climate, for example. Can we agree that the climate is not the same everywhere in Canada? Can we recognize that the Canadian economic structure is not the same across the country? In the western provinces the economic base is oil and in Ontario it is the automobile industry. We know that the federal government has done everything it could to consolidate the automobile industry in Ontario. In Quebec, manufacturing is the economic base and for years has been overlooked by the federal government. The situation varies depending on where we live.

The Quebec industrial sector, as a whole, has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec by 7%. Imposing an across-the-board reduction for greenhouse gas emissions for all industrial sectors in Canada would penalize Quebec industry, which has already made an effort by changing its industrial processes or implementing action plans in various sectors and businesses. Quebec is prepared to sign an agreement with the federal government regarding a target of a 6% reduction within its borders. What we are saying here today is that Quebec must be given the opportunity to implement its own policy to address climate change. Why? Because in Quebec, further efforts are not needed in the industrial sector; efforts are needed in the transportation sector. This how true decentralization could be used to make the most of every dollar invested in the fight against climate change, in order to reduce greenhouse gases as much as possible.

What we are asking for is simply a more effective approach. Personally, I do not believe that a single, coast-to-coast plan to combat climate change adopted in Ottawa is the way to make the most of every dollar invested. Various realities must be taken into consideration. In Canada, a common approach can be adopted concerning the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. We must ensure that the provinces respect their commitments. If necessary, a regulatory system could be introduced, but the provinces must be allowed to implement their own policies. That is the only way to maximize the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in relation to every dollar invested.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the environment commissioner also said that “good intentions are not good enough”. She went on to say:

When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal [Liberal] government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

Before I continue, I would like to reiterate what the Minister of the Environment said yesterday during his speech, which is that our government acknowledges that climate change is taking place and that it is a serious issue facing the world today.

Canadians have also told us that they are extremely concerned about climate change. That is why this government is taking concrete action so that Canadians can see clear results for the environment and for their health.

This government also recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and here in Canada. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not get the job done.

The environment commissioner also went on to condemn the previous government, saying:

Even if the measures contained in the previous government's 2005 plan had been fully implemented, it is difficult to say whether the projected emissions reductions would have been enough to meet our Kyoto obligations.

The Leader of the Opposition admitted that his plan was inadequate. He said, “I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

Canadians do not want fancy talk and pretentious rhetoric. They want real leadership and a sensible, practical plan for taking action now.

Canadians do not want unrealistic commitments that we cannot achieve. They want to see cleaner air, cleaner water and a healthy environment.

Canadians do not want billions of their hard-earned tax dollars sent to buy foreign hot air credits in a vain attempt for optics to meet Kyoto targets. They want their tax dollars spent on getting Canada on the right track so that we can make real progress in addressing our greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions for the long term.

Climate change is a serious environmental problem that needs immediate attention. The previous government decision to do nothing over the last decade was a serious mistake. Our government will do better.

Bill C-288 is a mistake. It will not solve the problems that the Liberals left behind. Our government will do better through some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution: Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

We need a new approach, an approach that will get concrete results which will protect the health of Canadians and the environment, an approach that is achievable, affordable and practical.

We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries for both greenhouse gases and air quality in Canada. We have made a very good start and we are going to do more.

Canada's clean air act will enhance our capacity to address the concerns of Canadians and strengthen the government's ability to take a coordinated approach to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

The clean air regulatory agenda will regulate both the greenhouse gases and the air pollutants from all industrial sectors and transportation in the short, the medium and the long term. Our short term targets for greenhouse gas reductions will be more aggressive than those proposed by the previous Liberal government. Our short term targets for air pollutants will be among the most aggressive in the world.

We are regulating the energy efficiency of 20 currently unregulated products, such as commercial clothes dryers and commercial boilers. We are tightening requirements for 10 other products, such as residential dishwashers and dehumidifiers.

We are also providing $1.5 billion for incentives for projects to generate clean energy from renewable sources such as wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal.

We are providing $300 million to help Canadians make their homes and business more energy efficient.

We are providing $230 million to accelerate the development of clean energy technology, including CO₂ sequestration and storage, clean oil, clean coal, clean oil sands, renewable energy, advanced vehicles, next generation nuclear, and bioenergy.

We have provided Canadians with tax credits of 15.5% on public transit passes, which will offset the greenhouse gas emissions of about 56,000 cars.

We have provided $1.3 billion to the provinces and territories for urban transit infrastructure improvements.

We are regulating a 5% average renewable fuel content in Canadian gasoline and a 2% average renewable fuel content in diesel fuel and heating oil. We have provided $345 million to bolster farmer participation in the production of biofuels.

This is the kind of leadership needed to achieve affordable and practical action. That is what Canadians want.

The Liberal plan was to buy hot air credits and then have inaction. Canadians now know that it did not work and it will not work.

Canadians want action on the environment and that is what they are getting. That is what we will continue doing. We are getting the job done.

Opposition Motion—The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's intentions with respect to solving the problem of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted by certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially industry.

On October 19, 2006, the government introduced Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, which gives the government additional, greater powers to take the necessary action to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. The bill strengthens the government's ability to regulate air emissions, including greenhouses gases and other air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The bill is currently before committee and I am eager to work with the opposition to move forward with this important piece of legislation. Immediately after introducing Canada's clean air act, the government published a Notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions, which clearly establishes the government's plans to reduce the greenhouse gases and air pollutants caused by industry, transportation, and commercial and consumer products, as well as to adopt measures to improve indoor air quality.

The notice of intent highlighted the importance of regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution given that industry produces about half of all emissions in Canada, both greenhouse gases and air pollution.

The government will propose mandatory targets for the reduction of emissions in the short, medium and long term. We also plan to adopt an integrated approach to emission reductions so that measures adopted by industry to reduce one type of emission, such as air pollutants, will not lead to an increase in another type of emission.

With regard to short-term targets for greenhouse gases, we are committed to targets that will produce results that are better than those proposed prior to 2005. For air pollutants, we plan on establishing fixed emission ceilings that will be at least as rigorous as those of governments that are leaders in environmental performance. This is an important measure that no previous federal government has implemented.

We are attempting to find the best means for industry to achieve the targets. We wish to ensure that we are putting in place a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost-effective means of attaining emission targets while continuing to meet environmental and health objectives.

We also strongly believe that it is important to support the development of transformation technologies to reduce greenhouse gases—technologies we need to achieve the necessary reductions so we can prevent irreversible climate change.

Fighting climate change and reducing air pollution is not a short-term undertaking, and these problems will not be solved by short-term policies. Fighting climate change and air pollution requires long- term solutions. That is why we have asked the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise us on specific emission reduction targets for the medium and long terms for Canadian industry so that we can reach our health and environmental goals while maintaining a stable economy.

At the end of last year, officials from my department, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada travelled across the country consulting the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups and environmental groups about how best to establish such regulations. We also received over 800 comments from the provinces, industry, environmental organizations and private citizens about the proposed regulatory regime. Nearly all of the comments supported the government's short term measures to fight climate change and air pollution.

I would like to emphasize the fact that we are currently putting all of our efforts into developing that regulatory regime, which will establish realistic short term emissions targets for industry, as well as compliance mechanisms.

The purpose of this framework is to set short-term targets that will put us on the right track to achieve our long-term objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% to 65% by the year 2050, which would improve air quality all across Canada.

We are working relentlessly to complete this regulatory framework. For example, we reviewed the standards set by other governments regarding air pollutant emissions for all industrial sectors, in order to identify primary environmental standards in the world. We organized workshops with experts to discuss two main compliance options: an investment fund to support the development of technologies, and the exchange of emission rights. The discussions that took place at these workshops are helping us make an informed decision on the development of compliance mechanisms.

These measures clearly illustrate the government's intention to regulate the industry's emissions. We have made a lot of progress and we will soon release our proposed regulatory framework. We will be the first federal government to make regulations to help the industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

We intend to continue cooperating with the provinces and territories, the industry and other groups as we develop the regulatory framework and the regulations themselves.

We are not doing this in an unreasonable fashion. We have emission reduction targets that are logical and that will not jeopardize our country's economic growth. Indeed, experience shows that environmental protection can also generate economic benefits.

The industry is not the only source of emissions, but it is a major one. My colleagues will talk about recent announcements on programs and measures to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in other areas, including the residential, commercial and transportation sectors.

So, the government has already taken the first steps towards regulating greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and other measures will be taken in the coming weeks. Through Canada's Clean Air Act, we are also working to strengthen the government's ability to implement such regulations in a cost-effective fashion. We are looking forward to working with opposition members to further this critical issue.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat as a town councillor going to Winnipeg to plead the case alongside my other colleagues from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to have the former government support and sustain the transfer of gas tax money to municipalities so that we could support public transit, act on not only the demand side but also in order to be able to do it and increase the offer.

Those are two elements that my hon. colleague should remember. He should know it full well because he did exercise this task within the previous government. He should also know that congestion is a major problem. He should also know that when we talk about greenhouse gases we are also talking about air pollutants. He should also know that he should be giving his support, like the Canadian Medical Association, to Bill C-30 that helps reduce greenhouse gases. That is what he should be doing and not systematically saying--

“Take it or leave it”, “we fight climate change or we do nothing”. We have seen where doing nothing has gotten us. It has embarrassed Canada on the international stage. It was the previous government, led by Paul Martin, that created that situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is totally muddled on this issue. The member for Timmins—James Bay just told us that Bill C-30 was the worst piece of legislation ever to hit the House. We agree with him, as did the Bloc Québécois and the major environment groups. We said to kill it dead.

Why then would the NDP wish to revive the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? The NDP agreed with us that we do not need the legislation. We can legislate and use all the regulatory power of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act now. We do not even need the bill.

Therefore, why would the hon. member suggest reviving something his fellow member described as the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? We can do it better with existing legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do today is discuss three points. One of them is very much inspired by the intervention by the Minister of the Environment this morning who described Kyoto as a distraction from better ideas like Bill C-30. He said, as well, that Kyoto was a 50 year marathon.

Today I want to do three things. The first is to show why Kyoto is not a distraction; far from it. It is a crucial and essential component to any climate change plan in Canada.

Second, I want to say that if we are going to have a 50 year marathon we need to get out of the starting blocks sooner rather than later and now is the time to do it.

I also would like to describe what the elements of a real climate change plan would look like as opposed to the dribble of reannouncements in a weakened form of things that we introduced, as well as Bill C-30, which, as the member from Timmins pointed out, is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to hit this House, even though he decided to bring it back for reasons that are not entirely clear to us.

If time permits, my third point will be to set out four criteria by which any climate change plan can be judged for its effectiveness.

I will begin with the necessary connection between Kyoto and a climate change plan in Canada. By definition, climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. The Kyoto protocol is the only global forum in which the world can come together. Despite the imperfections of the protocol, it is the only global forum in which we can collectively advance this file.

It is true that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are only 2% but if we expect others, as the government does, such as India, China and the United States, to do their part, we need them to join in, not for us to leave Kyoto or to ignore Kyoto. We need to stay in and we need to stay in in good faith, as we did under the previous government, to do our part and to help others, particularly developing countries, do their part as well. A global problem demands a global solution and the only global structure for doing that is the Kyoto protocol.

Kyoto will help a Canadian climate change plan. First, it puts our targets and goals into an international framework. It gives us a sense of deadlines, a sense of urgency. If we do not set these targets and these deadlines we will take no action whatever.

Second, if we in good faith attempt to meet our targets and timetables, we leverage our success and results to get other countries to do their part. It also sets in perspective what is our fair share of this problem. We cannot do this in isolation for a global problem.

The third point is that the Kyoto protocol is the only one which gives us access to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, to help other countries, particularly developing countries, meet their targets. It also has the effect of making life easier for Canadian industry.

We forget that when we agreed to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, which allows us to work with other countries to get credits, it was at the request of the Canadian business community.

It is interesting that in one of today's newspapers Stavros Dimas, who is the environment commissioner for the European Union, said this of the clean development mechanism:

This [mechanism] allows national governments to meet part of their Kyoto target by financing emission-reduction projects in the developing world. One tonne of carbon dioxide has the same effect whether it is emitted in Montreal, Mexico or Mumbai. Currently, 168 countries, covering over 90 per cent of the global population, can engage in this emerging carbon market.

Using CDM allows the EU to meet its Kyoto target at lower cost. Most importantly, it also supports investment to boost clean growth in developing countries, demonstrates the potential of new, clean technologies, allows developing countries access to modern technologies and gives EU companies access to new markets. It also means that many more countries benefit from participating in the global effort to limit climate change.

That is why we need to be in the Kyoto protocol and that is why there are these references in the motion today that we must do our part within that framework.

The second question I asked was: What were the elements of a plan B, a serious plan, as opposed to dribs and drabs of announcements in a feeble form of projects that were cancelled a year ago, and of a bill which confuses climate change with air pollution?

The problem we face in reducing greenhouse gases can be divided into more or less six equal components.

Greenhouse gases are produced by electrical generation, upstream oil and gas, heavy industry, residential and commercial, transportation, and agriculture and waste. Each one of those, if we are going to have a solution, takes a treatment and a set of projects, and a set of programs to deal with. They are interrelated, but they are also separate.

How do we imagine undertaking this great enterprise?

It seems to me that if climate change is the problem which every scientist in the world describes and has the economic consequences which Sir Nicholas Stern has described if we do not take action, we need to imagine ourselves mobilizing as we did during the second world war, mobilizing our economy, mobilizing our industry.

It is worth noting that we did that in a five-year period. We went from zero military production to full military production in a five-year period. We knew how to do it as Canadians. That happens to be exactly the same time that remains between now and 2012, the first Kyoto implementation period.

When we did it in World War II, it had the effect of totally transforming the Canadian economy, of creating a great industrial power. That is the way in which we need to view our tackling of the six great challenges, the six more or less equal slices that will require our solution.

What we need, in effect, is to couple our meeting of Kyoto targets, a response to global warming as a new industrial and, I would add, agricultural strategy which will transform Canada's economy for the 21st century, based on energy saving, innovation, and new techniques for agriculture and natural resources.

This will be a great project for Canada. It is never a mistake to undertake measures which save energy, and a great deal of what we are talking about, five-sixths of those slices, are directly about energy.

Finally, I said that there were four criteria by which any plan which addressed these six issues would be judged.

First, does it actually lead to measurable greenhouse gas reductions?

Second, is it efficient economically? Does it help us to be competitive and innovative? Do we undertake measures which are the cheapest way of getting there, as the European commissioner suggested?

Third, which is of concern to all of us, is, is it politically saleable? Is it socially just? Are we being unfair to certain segments of the population? That political test, which is our business, is hugely important, but I think the Canadian people want us to show political will. I think the climate, in every way, has changed not only the natural climate but the political climate.

Fourth, whatever measure we undertake, is it administratively feasible? Is it the simplest way of getting there? Which leads us to market-based regulation solutions like cap and trade which is probably, as we have learned in the fight against acid rain, the simplest, most elegant way of bringing around real reductions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.

We know that if industry is set a target, given a cap, it will find a way, without our telling it what it is. It will be incented to produce surpluses, to trade and sell to other industries. This is the success, to date, of the European model.

So, with those words, I heartily endorse this motion and wait for questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to point out that we need to work together in the House to tackle this very important issue. However, he knows that his own Liberal Party has decided to put politics ahead of real action on the environment, by working with the Bloc to drag out committee hearings on Bill C-30 for another two months. This means the clean air legislation cannot pass before the federal budget, which will obviously be a confidence vote that could mean another election.

It is one thing that the previous Liberal government did not get the job done when it had 13 years, mostly in majority as my colleague pointed out, to accomplish virtually anything it wanted. It is far worse, though, that the Liberals are trying to correct their mistake by holding up legislation that would fix the problems they created.

What does the member have to say about the roadblocks his party is putting up, for purely political reasons at committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will find out one day the Bloc's position on liquefied natural gas imports into its region, but perhaps not today.

It is today that we are addressing the debate that has been put forward by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the leader of the official opposition. It is a topic and a debate that I engage in with great interest and passion.

This chamber can be seized with many different topics. Members from all sides can get quite excited and brought into the consequences of the decisions that we take in this place. Perhaps no other issue and no other topic facing the country, facing all of our individual communities and, indeed, facing the international community, than the topic of climate change and the pollution that we allow into our atmosphere and our environment has seized us more.

Certainly, this past week for me and other members in this place who work on the issue of the environment has been quite a busy week. There have been many suggestions and proposals put forward, and a constant challenge for members of Parliament to rise above partisan interests, and to rise above the rhetoric of daily question period that plays to specific partisan interests. Our challenge is to grasp the ideas, the concepts and the actions that are required for our country to once again be proud of our standing in the international community, for our economy to change course, and for our communities to develop in such a way that we work within the context of this environment and this planet.

I think it may have been Mr. Suzuki himself who said we must understand that conventional economics, as it is understood, is a form of brain damage. The reason he said this is because of the concept that we can continually grow exponentially within a finite structure is not sane; it is counterintuitive and makes no sense.

The motion that has been brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition is a motion and a topic which I believe sincerely the future generations will judge us. They will judge all of us as leaders in this country, not in the strict definition of the word politician or act thereof but as leaders in this country, to make decisions, make pronouncements, and to take action at long last that Canadians so desperately want to see.

It is important to take a small walk through history.

There were some discrepancies between the member for Ottawa South and the Minister of the Environment, so we will clarify the numbers, just to ensure we are all on the same page.

The Earth Summit at Rio in 1992, and some members in this place were there, brought together the world leaders. With great conviction, they produced much rhetoric and pronouncements, and announcements and press conferences. However, one of the substantive things that came from that debate, that crisis that the world was seeing with respect to our environment, was the decision to go on and negotiate an international pact, a treaty that would be binding, that would connect the countries of the world into a common cause, and that cause was to reduce the effects of climate change.

At that time, some of the more progressive climatologists and scientists in the world were saying that this is a serious matter, but the skeptics and the naysayers were far and wide. Yet over time, the debate has gained momentum and with the exception of some backward-looking members in this place and a few narrow pockets of self-interest in this country, the debate has been settled that human-caused anthropogenic climate change is a fact and a reality, and is having an effect on our world.

I know the minister will be going to Europe later this week and will hear directly from the more than 2,000 leading scientists on this issue. They will claim the debate is over as to whether the effects are happening; the only question now is how much hotter is the world getting, and how much of a great change is facing us in our environment?

Kyoto was negotiated by a former Liberal government in December 1997. Parliament ratified that decision, under a Liberal government, in 2002. One would think with all that history behind it that when it was ratified in February 2005, after Russia ratified it in 2004, the government would have had plans in place. One would think that the government would have taken action, would have been making the systemic changes that are required in the way that we produce and use energy primarily in this country to allow us to fall into compliance to the agreements that we made, but there was more cynicism at play than that.

We have heard from Conservative members that protestations were made to executives in Calgary by the former leader of the Liberal Party to not worry, that Kyoto was more of a protocol and an exercise in public relations, but that it was not serious. The oil and gas sector in Alberta would face no hard times or no encumbering of its business.

Lo and behold, the surprise came upon us and the protocol was ratified. Now we look to the record. The record is important to establish including the numbers and the comments that I am using here, none of which are under dispute.

For eight of the nine years since this protocol was ratified the Liberals were in power. They negotiated the targets. The Leader of the Opposition was the environment minister for 18 months of those eight of nine years. Plans were delayed and it was the Commissioner of the Environment herself, Johanne Gélinas, who said that “--the measures are not up to the task of meeting our Kyoto obligations”. That is a direct quote. She also said:

When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground. The federal government seems to have trouble crossing the finish line.

This again was stated by Johanne Gélinas, someone who members of the Liberal benches, the Bloc, and the NDP, all opposition parties praised her work as a true fighter for the environment and auditor of this country.

Under the Liberals and Conservatives, the most recent numbers we have, and these are not disputed, say that we are almost 35% above the targets that we set for ourselves. For Canadians watching this that is a staggering number. It is a staggering condemnation of inaction and dithering that has gone on too long.

The time for action is now. That action has been decided through agreement by all four parties in this place to take place in a legislative committee set up to redo, rewrite, and redraft Bill C-30, a bill that was misnamed as the clean air act. When the details were looked at by members of the opposition, environment groups and Canadians, it was found seriously lacking.

Lo and behold, the New Democrats made a suggestion. I remember the day we made the suggestion. The NDP leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, stood in this place and asked whether the Prime Minister would give this bill to a special legislative committee and allow it to be redrafted from top to bottom. Some of my Conservative colleagues guffawed, laughed, chuckled, and said things I could not repeat on the record which were directed toward the NDP leader. It is true. It was incredible. The guffaws were loud.

Yet the Prime Minister, in a state of desperation, reminded us of similar times when the Liberals were in power and needed to have a budget rewritten because there was a massive corporate tax cut included that was not campaigned upon and the budget was redrafted. The NDP, pushing to redraft a flawed piece of legislation, got agreement from all the parties to do this. How quickly the parties have forgotten.

We need to go through the record because it is important. The Liberal leader voted with the Conservatives against mandatory fuel efficiency standards for cars in February 2005. This is not distant history. This is recent. He voted against an NDP proposal for mandatory fuel efficiency standards. He was absent from the vote in fact on Bill C-288, the bill we will be debating tomorrow to implement the Kyoto accord. He was busy with other things.

He voted against the NDP proposal to include the precautionary principle in CEPA in November 1999, a strange thing to do, the precautionary principle being something that is known and understood. I know the member for Ottawa South is a great champion of such a cause and concept. His own leader voted against it recently. He voted in favour of allowing oil and gas companies to deduct an even greater portion of their royalties. He did that in October 2003.

We are going in the wrong direction. Science warns us that a rise in the average global temperature of 2° by 2050 or sooner will have catastrophic impacts. That is the record from the one who cast a green scarf around his neck and claimed to be champion of the environment. He may wish to rename his dog at some point in this debate.

The riding experience is something that is important to me. I come from the northwest of British Columbia and we all need to take this experience back to our homes and understand what it means for our constituents. We in the northwest of British Columbia have seen the devastating impacts of climate change.

The forestry councils of British Columbia and Canada have said direct causal links between the change in climate created by human activity has caused the pine beetle infestation to spread right across B.C. It is now headed over the Rockies. The foresters, and no tree huggers by their own admission, have said this is what is going on.

We have seen a change in the temperature of our rivers and our waters. The salmon migration has changed and the quality of life enjoyed by first nations people from time immemorial in our region and by the people who have since moved there like myself has changed.

There was a suggestion by one of my staff some months ago that we may wish to screen An Inconvenient Truth, a film by the defeated former presidential candidate in the United States. I said it has been out for months, no one will come, but let us try it anyway. We showed it in five different small communities in my riding and there was standing room only in every single community. The most interesting thing was not that more than 500 people came out to watch it, but they stayed afterward because they wanted to talk about these issues. They wanted to talk about what was happening not only in our communities but at the federal level.

When I would explain the process that the NDP had negotiated for Bill C-30, they were encouraged and told me to go back there and get it done and make the proposals. For months the NDP has had front and centre on our website, ndp.ca for those viewing at home with access to the Internet, those proposals out in the public domain so that the other parties can critique them or add to them. What have the other parties done? They brought forward nothing except an extensive witness list, more than 100 witnesses for something we have been studying for more than two and a half years. Let us bring more witnesses to discuss climate change. Let us talk about the nuance of the debate.

Every party in this place, every platform will claim to have the answers to climate change, and yet when we ask for those answers to be brought forward in amendments and suggestions, in concrete ideas, they are found wanting. Not a single party has brought forward an amendment other than the New Democrats. Not a single party has made a constructive suggestion of how to make this bill better. They have just said it is no good and that is not good enough.

I remember when Bill C-30 was being tabled, the ministers of the Crown, one by one, it seemed there was a roll call, approached me and said this bill is going to knock our socks off, this clean air thing is going to be so good the NDP will have to support it. It was so disappointing to see the eventual reality for that bill was dead on arrival.

The Liberals and Conservatives have decided to stall on this. The sincerity of their action on this is found seriously wanting. The Conservatives delayed debating it in Parliament in December. The Liberals did not even name the members to sit on the committee until the 11th hour, the last possible moment. Only then did they slip in their member list. They were confused. They were not sure anyone wanted to be there and then they all wanted to be there. They got themselves in a snit.

Both parties refused to meet during the winter break as the NDP suggested. They were busy. At committee the Liberals refused to agree to a quick process. As the member from the Bloc has pointed out, members of the Conservatives and Liberals are interested in extensive debate. To their credit there is one thing the Liberals have been very good at throughout the entire environment debate and that is the ability to seek consultation and more consultation, and more meetings and further consultations.

When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the environment, I would sit with him and say we need to get such-and-such done. He would shake his head and say, “I have a real struggle at cabinet with this, I cannot get that done. I cannot get mandatory fuel efficiencies. I cannot get any connection between research and development connected to the environment. I cannot get it done. The cabinet is resisting.”

Yet, the Liberals will stand in this place and I am sure members will say it again, that we have the ability to do it right now, we could make these changes right now. That is incorrect. We have had that ability for more than five years, four of those years under the Liberals. They had that ability if they claim it to be true for all of those years and they could not get it done. The reason is they needed to return to the cabinet table. They needed to enter back into the political fray behind those closed doors to make the types of progressive changes for the environment that were needed and they could not get it done.

They could not do it, whether it was the minister of the environment, now the Leader of the Opposition, or other ministers of the environment. I know Mr. Anderson from Victoria has made public statements about his inability to get it through cabinet. We have said join with us, have the courage of the convictions to put this into legislation, to draft this in such a way that it can no longer be done behind the closed doors of cabinet. It must be done in this place.

Parliament and the public must see what parliamentarians are up to when it comes to climate change and the environment. If there is no other issue that must be in the public discourse, it is this one, but instead we have had delay and dithering.

I will read an important letter, which was sent on January 22 and signed by seven of the largest and most important environmental groups in the country. It is an important quote and it states:

We believe that all parties understand the need for urgent action on climate change and clean air, so the committee should have no need for lengthy debates. A time period on the order of four weeks should be enough to debate the wording of any amendments and to consider C-30 clause by clause.

This was the very motion the NDP brought forward at committee and members of the House from the other three parties voted 11 to 1 against us for such a suggestion. They said that we should take our time. We do not have the luxury of time. Of all the things at our disposal right now, time is not one of them.

The letter also said:

As you know, we are interested in the most efficient possible Committee process with respect to C-30. The issues involved with this piece of legislation have already been studied extensively, and it is our view that the Committee needs to hear from a minimum of witnesses in order to gather the necessary information for its report.

Canada needs aggressive action on these issues.

More than 100 witnesses were proposed.

I am not sure Liberal members would know aggressive action on the environment if it came up and smacked them on the head.

The rush is on. Every day we ponder, consider, navel-gaze and have speculative conversations about the impact of climate change, but greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the case becomes impossible. In fact, the Liberal Party might even be in collusion with the Conservative Party to ensure that nothing happens. Maybe they want to roll it all in to the debate around the budget. Maybe the Liberals want to roll it into confidence debates and perhaps at some point in some future imagined and wishful thinking, they will regain power, get it to cabinet and delay more.

The record is absolutely solid in this respect. The very member who was elected a short time ago to lead the Liberal Party claims a new conviction to the environment. I remember the green scarves fondly. My goodness, look at what he named his dog. It seems the solutions are found wanting. When his members show up at committee, they have absolutely no solutions as to how to reach the Kyoto targets or how to reset Canada back on the track. They come wanting. They come lacking.

We must understand that we will be judged by future generations about our actions now. We have proposed a course of action to which all parties in this place agreed. All parties recognized it as a way forward and chose to involve themselves in the committee process. We must act beyond narrow partisan interests. We must act in a responsible way, in a way of leadership. We must take command and have the courage to seize the opportunity in front of us.

At committee, Liberal members said that they needed to hear more plans from the government. They needed to understand the greater context of the plan. That is incredible. Waiting for a Conservative plan on the environment might even take longer than the time we waited for the Liberal plan on the environment. They need to put those partisan interests aside. They need to come forward with serious and honourable recommendations, solutions they all claim to have.

We are all intelligent members in the place. We have studied this issue for quite a number of years. We need to get tough. We need to make the hard decisions. We can make those decisions. The people in northwest British Columbia demand that we start to make changes. As Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist from the World Bank and who we have all quoted in this place, has said that the cost of inaction is significant, perhaps as much as 20% of the world's GDP. Perhaps worse in terms of economic catastrophes in the first world war and the Great Depression combined, he has called what has happened with pollution perhaps the world's greatest market failure.

It is important that we take a progressive stance. It is important that we move to a place where this issue no longer gains interest for one party or another.

Therefore, I would like to suggest that the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word “action”: (f) understanding the importance and urgency of this matter, this House calls on the legislative committee currently dealing with Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act) to complete its work and report back to this House on or before March 2, 2007, in line with the recommendation of leading environmental organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, Quebec is not asking to have lower Kyoto targets. Quebec is ready and has every means at its disposal to enforce the Kyoto protocol within its borders and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990, for the 2008 and 2012 periods.

However, what the government and the hon. member must recognize is that a coast-to-coast, Canada-wide approach will fail to make the most of every dollar invested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec businesses have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 7% compared to 1990, but it is the transportation sector that has a dismal record. We are proposing that Quebec maintain its target of a 6% reduction compared to 1990—and there will be a firm commitment from the Quebec government and the National Assembly—and that Quebec receive $328 million to reach its target. Thus, Quebec could implement its own, more efficient policies.

These funds for fighting climate change would very likely not be used in the industrial sector because it is doing very well in Quebec in the fight against climate change. In contrast to the rest of Canada, these public funds would likely be invested in transportation. This territorial approach is more effective and equitable and maximizes the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for each dollar invested. This is the approach that the federal government should adopt, and in this way we will certainly be able to achieve our Kyoto protocol objectives.

In regard now to Bill C-30, I want to remind the House that the Liberals wanted to study it in committee for some three or four months and the Conservatives for a month and a half. We are going to study Bill C-30 for two months now, but during these two months, we will be taking two weeks off.

The Bloc Québécois has remained true to one principle, that of urgency and effectiveness. That is how we behaved in committee, as a responsible political party that facilitated the compromise we see today.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the remarks and speech given by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. For the first time in 40 years, we had a green Christmas in Moncton. This worries me, because it is clearly one of the effects of climate change. I am sure the hon. member knows this and that he was appalled by the parliamentary secretary's comments when he said he would not adhere to the Kyoto protocol.

I have two questions. First of all, does the member believe that the Kyoto targets should be different for Quebec and why? Second, a work plan is now in place for the committee that is studying Bill C-30 and I know the hon. member supports that plan. Can he explain the Bloc's support of that legislative committee's work plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to distinguish between Bill C-30 on air quality and the measures announced by the government.

I would like the member to explain to me how the programs he announced—which are nothing more than recycled programs from the previous government—will enable Canada to reach its Kyoto protocol targets.

I have known about the programs and announcements he referred to for years. They were announced years ago by the Liberal government. This government's proposed strategy to fight climate change mimics announcements made by the previous government. I would like the member to explain to us how things that did not work under the Liberals will work under the Conservatives to help us meet our Kyoto protocol objectives.

I would rather see the member adopt a new approach. For example, he mentioned the WPPI program. He reminded us that the government is committing to allocating 1¢ per kilowatt-hour produced by wind energy, an amount similar to what the previous government promised. Why not double that financial incentive to 2¢ per kilowatt-hour produced rather than offer generous financial incentives to the Alberta oil industry? Since 1970, the federal government has invested $70 billion in Canada's oil industry. Instead of doing that, we should take the public funds allocated to the oil industry and improve programs for Canada's renewable energy sector. That is what the government should do to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the member for his question and in fact the participation of the Bloc in the legislative committee on Bill C-30.

The members well know that the plan is to deal with the health of Canadians and the health of the planet.

We well know that the science of climate change is certainly irrefutable. We have a very important issue globally and in Canada to deal with climate change and the health of Canadians. That is what our plan is. It is a plan of action. It is a plan to move from voluntary programs by the previous government which did not work. Ours is a plan of action; it is plan of notice of intent. We appreciate the involvement of the Bloc in the committee.

However, we need to move forward. I trust that in the spirit of cooperation we will strengthen the clean air act to deal with the issue of the health of Canadians and the health of our planet.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, Bill C-30 with the notice of intent to regulate deals with many of the questions that he has asked. The hon. member sits on that committee.

We are looking forward to receiving the cooperation of all members of the opposition to move forward on Bill C-30. It is a good piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the member sits within a party which when in government had 13 years of inaction.

I have asked his party, and in particular the leader of the Liberal Party who has presented today's motion to the House, why there were 13 years of inaction. If the environment is as important as it is and as all Canadians know it is, why did the Liberals not do something for 13 years? Why are they trying to stall and obstruct this government from moving forward on the environment? With Bill C-30 the Liberal members are trying to delay, delay and delay.

We are moving forward in cooperation--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and to participate in this debate.

I begin by thanking the environment minister for the hard work and the great achievements he has made. The government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and our minister, is making headway. It is a shock to the former Liberal government that progress can be made on this file. It is ironic and hypocritical that the Liberals present this motion to us today.

The motion presented by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville calls into question the government's commitment to the environment. That contention is just plain wrong. The government is committed to delivering real solutions to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. The government is about action and real change.

Canada's new government has said before that it accepts the science of climate change. We understand that it is real and we know that it is here. That is why we are taking real action to preserve our environment and to protect the health of every Canadian.

Canadians demand leadership from the federal government, and that is precisely what they are getting now.

We understand that to make real progress on the environment, we need real cooperation on all fronts, between all parties and all stakeholders. If the member opposite really cared about the environment the way he says he does, he would be looking to cooperate. Instead, we are mired in the minutiae when we should be pushing the agenda forward, making a real difference for Canadians.

The motion brought forward today says, “the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action” Canadians covet on the environment. I can assure members it simply does not do enough.

The fact is that Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, is a necessary addition to CEPA. It would set in motion Canada's first comprehensive, integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gases. In doing so, it would deliver better air quality for Canadians and it would take substantial aim at the issue of climate change.

Our proposed clean air act would create a new clean air part in CEPA that would provide a tailor-made approach to enable integrated regulatory approaches for the reduction of indoor and outdoor air pollutants as well as reduce greenhouse gases.

The proposed amendments to CEPA will require the ministers of environment and health to establish national air quality standards and to monitor and report annually on the status and effectiveness of the actions taken by all governments in Canada to improve air quality.

Finally, proposed amendments to CEPA will also strengthen the government's ability to enter into equivalency agreements with the provinces and their territories. This will prevent regulatory duplication by more clearly allowing for recognition of provincial permitting and licensing regimes for industrial facilities as equivalent, in effect, to federal regulations so long as they meet the same environmental objectives.

The hon. member's motion states, “our government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety”. Had the previous government not left us in such a precarious position, perhaps we would have been able to do that by the 2012 deadline.

The debate is not on the merits of Kyoto; it is on the time required to achieve the objectives. The government must deal with the fact that we have lost 10 years due to Liberal inaction.

When Canada's new government took office a year ago, it quickly became apparent that our Kyoto commitments would be impossible to meet. Because of the previous government's inaction, today Canada stands at 35% above the Kyoto target, with only five years remaining to meet the imposed deadline.

Some critics, including the member opposite, have said that we should simply push harder and make our mission to meet the 2012 reduction targets, no matter what the cost. They are wrong.

Yes, we must act to put Canada on the path to achieving sustainable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, but in reality, years of inaction between 1997 and 2006 have left Canada in no position to do so.

Canadians can be certain, however, that this government is committed to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, but we intend to do so prudently while promoting sustainable economic growth and prosperity.

Canada's new government knows that Canadians are concerned about poor air quality so we have made it a priority to clean the air that Canadians breathe. By introducing Bill C-30 we have put forward a number of tools that will help Canada address its air quality by reducing greenhouse gas and smog emissions simultaneously.

Soon we will announce aggressive short term targets for industrial greenhouse gas emissions with sector by sector regulations, all coming into effect between 2010 and 2015. This is the first time that Canada has regulated reductions in both air pollution and greenhouse gases. Internationally, we are the first country to regulate all sectors in an integrated and cohesive manner.

Using existing authorities, we will regulate emissions from all major industrial sources: electricity generation, smelters, iron and steel, cement, forest products, chemical production, and oil and gas.

By giving clear direction we are providing industry with the incentive and regulatory certainty it needs to invest in greener technologies and to deliver early reductions in their emissions. While we have been listening to industrial concerns, we have also made it clear that the days for soft rhetoric are over. Making progress on the environment requires hard work and tough decisions.

We realize that the best way to reduce our global emissions is to address the issue here at home. Using taxpayer money to buy credits halfway around the world is not a solution. It is barely even a band-aid. So we have taken a number of steps and we have taken a number of approaches to be a constructive player in the international efforts to address climate change. We know it can be done because we have done it before.

In 1987 the Conservative government was instrumental in pushing for the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Twenty years later, with 191 nations now signed on to the treaty, atmospheric CFC concentrations have either levelled off or decreased considerably. The Montreal protocol is widely viewed as an example of exceptional international cooperation. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has even called it perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date.

Our challenge has broadened since then. So too has our commitment.

That is why in addition to the proposed clean air act, we introduced a clean air regulatory agenda which supports effective regulations on both indoor and outdoor pollutants as well as greenhouse gas emissions.

Under this agenda, we are providing stronger energy efficiency standards on consumer and commercial products. We have already established new emission standards for on-road motorcycles. We are paving the way for setting mandatory fuel consumption standards on vehicles that Canadians buy. We will also regulate 5% average renewable content in gasoline and 2% average renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil.

To help individual Canadians and communities do their part, we have already taken action by providing a tax credit to those who use public transit and by increasing the funding for public transit infrastructure.

We also announced a number of other initiatives that will help to reduce emissions at home, at work and even in our communities.

In the last two weeks alone, we invested $230 million in the research, development and demonstration of clean energy technologies. We announced more than $1.5 billion in funding for the ecoenergy renewable initiative to boost Canada's renewable energy supplies. We unveiled our plan to invest approximately $300 million over four years to promote smarter energy use and to reduce the amount of harmful emissions that affect the health of Canadians. Without a doubt, action by our government on the environment has been driven by our goal to protect the health of Canadians.

We took action to help ensure that mercury switches are dealt with safely before cars are recycled and scrapped. This alone will prevent the release of as much as 10 tonnes of mercury being admitted into the atmosphere.

It is obvious that Canada's new government is committed to the environment by our action alone. It is clear that we are taking concrete action to address climate change. Quite frankly, by any standard of comparison we are moving quickly with action and not the hollow promises that we saw from the former government.

We have a plan, we intend to stick to it and we will achieve the plan.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is tremendously important that we begin to tackle this problem and that voluntary compliance is not enough. We actually have to regulate. Those regulations have to be enforceable.

The Liberal private member's bill on greenhouse gases has no effect. If one does not comply, there is no compliance mechanism. There is no problem or consequence. It is like a speeding ticket with no fine, or one does a crime and there is no time. That is why we think it is important in Bill C-30 that there are compliance mechanisms to force industry to follow the regulations to be presented.

We have said very clearly that the reductions we will propose for the industrial targets will be greater than those promised but never delivered by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in power. We have also said that on air pollution issues like SOx, NOx and VOx, particulate matter, indoor air quality, the quality of the air we breathe and the huge effect it has on asthmatic children have to be among the best in any jurisdiction in North America and in fact the world. Those are the two big commitments we are making.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to identify myself with your remarks on the passing of the Hon. Lloyd Francis, the former member of Parliament for Carleton and Ottawa West, a riding I am privileged to represent. On behalf of my constituents, I wish to acknowledge his great service not only to our community but to Canada. Mr. Francis was a great man and was a great adviser to me on a number of key issues over the last year.

I was most fortunate to have met Mr. Francis and to have known him. I want to pass on my party's condolences to his wife and family. I attended the memorial service for Mr. Francis. It was not really a funeral but a celebration of not just one life well lived, but of probably about 12 lives well lived. He was a great man. I want to acknowledge his great contribution.

Let me begin my remarks today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat we are facing.

Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most important, for us right here in Canada.

While we share the disappointment of many Canadians and people from around the world that the former government did not meet its obligations or accept its responsibilities, let me indicate that Canada's new government will take real action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time as we make our air more breathable.

That brings me to my next point. I am glad the Liberal Party brought forward this motion today because it is an opportunity to remind the Liberals of their shameful record of 13 years of inaction on the environment.

To make things worse, the track record of the Leader of the Opposition is very regrettable on environmental issues. People do not have to go far to read about his party's record. Let us look at the quotes from the 2006 report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. It states:

In 2005, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Environment...found that actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were ad hoc, lacked an overall strategy, and did not have an accountability framework. Environment Canada, in a risk assessment..., found that there was no central ownership of the initiative, leading to non-integrated policies.

That is from Chapter 1, page 10. The report goes on, stating that:

Canada is not on track to meet its obligations to reduce emissions...The [Liberal] government's own 2004 data revealed that our greenhouse gas emissions were almost 27 percent above 1990 levels and were rising, not declining.

The levels were going up, not declining. That statement is from the overview chapter, page 8.

Clearly, this is a sad track record of failure on the environment from the party opposite. To have the Liberal Party now lecture the House on environmental policy is like a Liberal trying to lecture other members on ethics. That party has no credibility.

Then there are the confusing statements from the Leader of the Opposition himself. On September 17 he told the globeandmail.com, “We don't know if the greenhouse gas emissions went up when I was Minister of the Environment...”. Less than three months later he told the Globe and Mail, “Greenhouse gases are going up, that's for sure”. These are not my quotes. These are quotes from the leader of the Liberal Party.

I must say that I am in complete agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on one point. He told Canadian Press on January 17, about action on the environment, that “...I would agree with you that it wasn't enough”.

This lack of action on the environment is something I like to call the Dion gap. It is a gap between what we were supposed to be doing to reduce greenhouse gases and where we actually are.

The Liberal Party is a party of power, a party dedicated to staying in power and nothing else. That is why the Liberals have no credibility when it comes to the important issue of the environment.

Fortunately, there is a new government in Canada. We are the first government in the history of Canada to say that we are going to start regulating industries, not only for greenhouse gas emissions, but also on the important issue of air quality in Canada.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition has had some problems in the Liberal Party with the efforts that his party made in this area. The Liberals had an opportunity to act. They failed to do so. In the dying hours of a 13 year regime, a regime that had been found guilty of corruption, money laundering and stealing money from taxpayers, so guilty that the Liberals had to return more than a million dollars in cash to the public purse, to say after 13 years that in those final hours they were finally ready to act is simply not credible.

It is very interesting to read the text of the motion by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that regulations through CEPA are the only way to go. The Liberals did not go there in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005. They had the chance to act and they did not.

Is that not just like the Liberal Party of Canada, a party that does not like transparency or accountability, a party that prefers to work in the shadows? That party would prefer that cabinet, behind closed doors, make these decisions rather than have important legislation on the statute books of this country. That is exactly why we brought forward some of the toughest legislation ever tabled in the House on greenhouse gases and air pollution, Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

What has been the response of the Liberal Party? For a long time, Mr. Dithers, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was running the show over there with the Liberal Party, and now he has been replaced by Mr. Delay, the Leader of the Opposition, with his sidekick, the member for Ottawa South. They have no interest in getting things done for Canadians. In fact, they want long, drawn-out hearings on Bill C-30, months of hearings, in fact. They want to study and have meetings, events and conferences rather than get to work.

While Conservatives voted for getting down to work and a quick session, Liberals voted for time extensions. Why? Perhaps the quote from the Liberal environment critic, the member for Ottawa South, says it best. He asked the committee studying Bill C-30, “What's the rush here?” Let me tell members what the rush is: greenhouse gas emissions are a priority. It is important that we tackle this problem as soon as possible, not as soon as possible plus 10 years.

Canadians sent us here to work together with all parties to get the job done on the environment. Some parties in the House, I think, get it more than others. Others clearly have not got it. The Liberal Party is the party that does not get it.

I think this motion is an attempt to derail the toughest regulation of greenhouse gases in Canadian history, and we are leaving behind the important issue of air quality, especially in regard to indoor pollutants. I think it is important that we do not lose any time and that we get to work on Bill C-30. Commensurate with that study in committee, the Department of the Environment and the federal government are actively working on the numbers and targets and the architecture and design to make this system work.

Tomorrow, some of the world's leading scientists will gather in Paris to outline what will be some very significant additional scientific research, something that will only encourage us to do more, not just around the world but hopefully here in Canada.

I look forward to receiving the contents of that report. From what I have read so far in reports, we hope to learn from world renowned scientists, and regrettably, the news is not good. Global warming and climate change are serious issues. Not only do they face us here at home, but they must bring the entire world community together.

For far too long, Canada has not accepted our responsibility when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This government intends to do something about it. Clearly, the Kyoto protocol is a 15 year marathon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When it was signed in 1997, when the starter's pistol went off in that race, the Liberal Government of Canada began to run in the opposite direction. That is shameful.

As a result, we have a lot of catching up to do. It will not be easy. It will take focus. It will take Canadians working together. It will take members of Parliament from all political parties working together.

But I believe the challenges of global warming and climate change are the challenges of the 21st century and we must respond. We must respond by also addressing clean air. We can do both at the same time. Let us respond without sending $5 billion of taxpayers money to Russia, to China and to India, which will not help the quality of air in Canada at all.

This government will act. The government will deliver real results on the environment for Canadians. We owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the next generation.

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear that scientific evidence tells us to act as soon as possible. That is our goal.

The committee studying Bill C-30 met on Monday and we saw that the Liberal Party is not comfortable with the idea of working harder and passing Bill C-30 as soon as possible. It wants to analyze and conduct more studies. That is not the best course of action in a file that is so important for Canada.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, last October, our government was the first in Canadian history to say that it would deal with industry. This is very important.

It was very clear in October that this government would regulate greenhouse gas emissions and air quality. Last week, the Prime Minister said that this announcement would be made in the coming weeks or months. Bill C-30 is a very important part of this.

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the Conservative Party continue to struggle against the idea that they are little more than laggards when it comes to the environment. Whenever they make this claim, one of their senior ministers makes a public statement to remove any lingering doubts.

First, the Prime Minister suggested that it was difficult to predict next week's weather, so how could he possibly believe global warming was a threat to Canadians. Now the Minister of Public Safety was “begging for Big Al Gore's glacial melt when the mercury hit -24”.

The same minister went on to prove his utter misunderstanding of the pine beetle crisis and the impact that global warming had on it. I wonder if the same minister also still believes there is not enough evidence to prove that smoking actually causes cancer.

We are at the beginning of a legislative committee that will rewrite Bill C-30 and create what could be the most important environmental legislation in years. The NDP will fight hard to create hard targets and real timelines to ensure we change the course that Canada is on.

My fear is the Conservative members may have a lot of catching up to do. I strongly urge them to do much study over the Christmas holidays.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

The Environment

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the hon. member to recognize in Bill C-30 the elements that are necessary to have a biofuels industry. If Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, does not pass, we will not have the regulatory authority to blend fuels to have a biofuels industry.

I would encourage him to recognize the things that are presently in the bill and to make sure he protects those so that we can have a better environment and also a better economy.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in fact we are working with the large final emitters right now to look at regulations, so I look forward to working with the committee.

I would suggest to the hon. member that he recognize there are things in Bill C-30 that we would like to also protect, things like making sure that we address air pollution. Right now the bill that is in front of the House from the Liberals and from the NDP does nothing to address air pollution in particular. It also does not address indoor air pollution, which is a real issue in terms of the health of Canadians. I would ask him to do the same thing and work with the government to make sure that those issues are addressed and protected in Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the House of Commons voted to send Bill C-30 to a legislative committee to be completely rewritten. In committee we will be able to take the Conservatives by the hand, as we would with a child, and teach them how to make this bill effective in the fight against global warming.

Does the Prime Minister promise to respect the committee's recommendations, even if they involve Kyoto protocol obligations and serious limits on the biggest emitters?

Canada's Clean Air Act

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to support Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act

By introducing this bill, the government is laying the groundwork for one of the strictest atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gas emissions regulatory regimes in the world. Previous governments focused on voluntary measures. That approach failed. From now on, all industrial sectors will have to comply with strict regulations that we will enforce.

This evening, I would like to demonstrate to my colleagues how Bill C-30 can help achieve significant energy savings. Canadians are aware of steps to use energy more wisely. They know they can save money by keeping heat in their homes in winter, or cooling them more efficiently in the summer. And there is a growing awareness that saving energy also helps reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Many businesses and institutions have saved considerable sums by upgrading or retrofitting their existing buildings to promote energy efficiency. The University of Calgary put energy efficiency upgrades in place in 1999. Since then, it has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by over 1,000 tonnes per year.

Ivanhoe Cambridge is one of Canada’s prominent property developers. Since completing energy efficiency upgrades in 2004, it has saved more than a quarter million dollars per year. The Toronto Dominion Centre in Toronto completed energy efficiency upgrades in 2001. It has saved over $4 million per year. These are big savings, Mr. Speaker. They are dramatic. They catch our attention.

But there are other more subtle ways to save energy and reduce emissions. There are ways to lower our energy use on a very small scale. But when you look at the big picture, these efforts quickly add up. They represent a potentially huge contribution to energy efficiency and cleaner air.

Every second of every minute of every day, Canadians are using very small amounts of energy called standby power on various devices. We use standby power in home entertainment products, such as home theatre systems, stereos, and DVD players. We use standby power in imaging equipment, such as printers, fax machines and photocopiers. We use standby power in computer equipment, including laptops, desktops, and workstations. We use standby power in cordless phones and battery chargers. And most of us are unaware of using that power.

A typical Canadian home has more than 25 devices that constantly use standby power. We use this electricity through standby power when the appliance is switched off or not performing its primary functions. It enables features such as clocks, timers, and remote controls.

Standby power consumption for most devices is small. It ranges from as low as half a watt to as much as 20 watts for some home entertainment products. But the number of devices drawing standby power is large. If you take the typical home, with its 25 devices consuming standby power all day and all night, and multiply by the number of homes on a city block, it is starting to add up.

If you multiply that again by the number of blocks in your community, and the number of communities in Canada, the use of standby power, every second of every day, has become enormous. In Canada, some 5.2 terawatt/hours is used per year by appliances in standby mode.

Now, when you consider the number of countries that have a market for consumer electronics, the problem is very serious indeed. In fact, there has been considerable discussion and action at the international level to reduce the amount of energy that is used on standby power around the world.

In 1999, the International Energy Agency proposed a global one-watt strategy. Appliances using standby power would seek a standard of one watt per hour. This one-watt initiative was endorsed by the G-8 leaders at the summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, in July 2005. Canada is a signatory. At least six governments—Japan, Korea, the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand—have enacted or announced plans to regulate some aspect of standby power use.

It is time for Canada to join their ranks. Canada's clean air agenda sets in motion a series of initiatives that will meet the commitment we made at the Gleneagle summit. We will move to a one-watt target.

We will build on some of our recent successes. Natural Resources Canada administers the Energy Star program in Canada. The international Energy Star symbol helps consumers identify products that are among the most energy efficient in the market. Only manufacturers and retailers whose products meet the Energy Star criteria can label their products with the symbol.

Energy Star standards include standby power. Since 2001, Natural Resources Canada has promoted voluntary efforts by manufacturers and retailers on standby power as part of the Energy Star program. We will continue to promote consumer information through Energy Star.

But with Bill C-30, we will do much more. The revisions to the Energy Efficiency Act included in this bill will enable the government to deal with classes of products that use standby power.

In the coming months the government will meet with stakeholders who have an interest in standby power, and we will encourage the formation of an interest group to deal with the regulatory framework we want to create. We will develop standards for standby power, and test methods. We will use internationally recognized test procedures. We will evaluate the economic impact of the measures we will take. By 2008, we will have established regulations for a minimum allowable standby loss. These regulations will apply to consumer electronics, external power supplies, and digital television adapters. We will establish these standards to the same level as those implemented in California this year. In other words, they will be the best-in-class in North America.

By January 2010, we will have established regulations for a minimum allowable standby loss of one watt for consumer electronics, with an additional one watt allowance for clock display or other specific auxiliary functions. These standards will be equivalent to the current Energy Star levels.

In other words, we are taking the Energy Star standard—which is a tool to help consumers choose the most energy efficient product—and we will apply that standard to all consumer electronics. We will raise the bar on energy efficiency. Today's best practices will very quickly become tomorrow’s minimum requirement.

Every day, Canadian home-owners and Canadian businesses are taking important steps to use energy more wisely. You can see the results in their electricity bills and other energy costs. But every day, without realizing it, we are leaking small amounts of energy through standby power. These amounts may seem minuscule, but they add up. Nearly every household and every business uses standby power.

If we can use standby power more efficiently in every appliance, we can have a big impact overall. If all devices that consume standby power met the one-watt target, we could save about 3.9 terawatt-hours or the equivalent of removing over 480,000 households from the grid. Think of it: that is roughly equivalent to taking a city the size of Ottawa off the grid for home electricity use.

The regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act are the cornerstone of our proposals on energy efficiency. They will be cost-effective and provide lasting benefits, and they will help Canadian business compete in a global marketplace.

Let me close by saying we are focusing on much more than standby power consumption. More than 30 products now have regulatory standards based on the Energy Efficiency Act. Under the new regulatory agenda, there will be new minimum energy performance standards for another 20 products. These new products range from commercial refrigeration to traffic signals, from commercial clothes washers to battery chargers and from lighting products to industrial heaters. We will also increase the stringency of the existing standards for 10 products, ranging from residential furnaces to dishwashers to air conditioners.

Thanks to this legislation, Canada will be a world leader in terms of the number of products that are subject to energy-efficiency standards, and we will regulate 50 products, representing 80% of the energy used in households.

The savings from these standards are enormous and will help lower not only energy costs for Canadians individually, but also energy use on a national scale. And that means cleaner air. I urge hon. members to join me in taking the first steps in achieving this outcome and support a bill that will have such a major impact on energy consumption.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the detailed document introducing Bill C-30 announces three consultation phases, which brings us to 2010. I cannot believe that the previous government did not leave in its boxes some notes, some sheets, software with information that would allow the government to proceed much more rapidly.

Conservatives are right when they say that the Liberals dragged their feet, that their speeches were extremely generous, but that concrete action was not forthcoming. Finally, they never really came about. Nevertheless, some work had been done. I know, through discussions I had with industry sectors, that negotiations were ongoing.

We do not want to go back to square one. Let us give ourselves not three years but rather six months to implement a series of standards for achieving the targets of the Kyoto protocol and also—we totally agree—for reducing air pollution, which is another matter.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in this debate because I think that anyone who has children, nephews, nieces and loved ones, is worried about global warming. To stay calm, one truly has to live in a cocoon, somewhat the way Howard Hughes cut himself off from the world a number of years ago. To hear the Conservatives I am often under the impression they are completely cut off from the world, that they have stopped watching television and reading newspapers. There is danger in waiting. Experts—scientists in particular—are constantly telling us that.

It is therefore rather sad to hear what we hear and to see Bill C-30, which is obviously a tactic to postpone making decisions that will have to be made inevitably .

I regularly receive letters from young boys and girls in elementary and early secondary school, who write in near panic about the images they see on television and who are well aware that we are playing with their future. I imagine that all the members in this House receive such letters. I always try to reassure these young people by reminding them that we live in a democracy and that in a democracy usually the common good prevails. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have been the case for the past nine months. That said, nine months in the history of Quebec and Canada is relatively short and everything can change if common sense ends up prevailing.

This bill, as I was saying, includes a series of regulatory powers that the government is giving itself, powers for which this type of legislation was unnecessary and that could very well have been included in the regulatory changes to the existing Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This bill also has provisions on energy consumption labelling and the authority to make regulations on fuel consumption standards for new motor vehicles sold in Canada.

To achieve those ends, the government has introduced a bill that clearly must go through the usual series of steps: first reading, second reading, referral to committee and return to the House for adoption at third reading. Then, we will have to wait for the regulations. This bill, which outlines the government's intentions, details a three-stage consultation process. All that will lead, at best, to the coming into force of mandatory standards in 2010 and the achievement of Kyoto protocol targets in 2050. This is particularly disturbing.

What will happen after the next three years? We do not know. As they have done since they came to power in Ottawa, the Conservatives will no doubt find a way to tell us that, unfortunately, it is 2010 and greenhouse gas emissions have increased so much that the targets that had been set are far too strict. Now we have to find ways to reduce these weak requirements again, because we have to demonstrate economic realism. Meanwhile, the problem will grow.

When I hear the Conservatives say that it is the Liberals' fault, because they did nothing even though they talked a good game when it came to the Kyoto protocol, I think they are right, but that is no excuse to put off making the necessary decisions even longer. Neither is it a reason to throw out all the work the previous government had done.

As I said, I am convinced that, in a few years, the government is going to invoke economic realism and tell us that we bit off more than we could chew and we are going to have to take smaller bites. Clearly, then, the bill as it stands is unacceptable. We will support referring the bill to committee, because we have reached that stage. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, in a spirit of openness and helpfulness, will try to bring us closer to the Kyoto protocol targets with this bill. They will try to prevent this bill from serving primarily to buy time so that those in power can give their friends in the oil industry more tax breaks or more time before mandatory standards take effect.

As I said, we will agree to second reading so that Bill C-30 can be sent to committee. However, we are extremely concerned about both what is contained in the bill and what is not in the bill, in particular, anything about achieving the Kyoto targets.

Concerning the Kyoto protocol, I remind you once again that this government has only one concrete target, the year 2050. Earlier, my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi was showing a lack of optimism, but that would be understandable if he were 106 years old. He may not be sitting here in this House at that age, but he should at least still be able to enjoy some great years. One never knows with the advances of science.

It is certainly true that when he reaches the age of 106, he will have many more years behind him than in front of him. However, that would also be the case for me. In my opinion, we all have an objective interest in immediately ensuring that Canada not only respects our signature on the Kyoto protocol but that we take measures to reach the objectives of the protocol.

Moreover, the bill makes no mention of the first phase of reductions from 2008 to 2012 set out in the Kyoto protocol, nor of the second phase that was supposed to begin in 2012. Obviously, this was discussed at Nairobi. In addition, Bill C-30 contains a provision that gives the government the discretion to respect or not respect Canada’s international commitments in terms of the environment.

Could the facts be any clearer that they are providing themselves with both belt and suspenders in order to avoid our international obligations?

The government promised us a made in Canada plan, obviously to gain more time. Nine months after the Conservatives took power, we still have nothing. The Canadian and Quebec public are worried, young people are worried, with good reason, and even older people, like my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi and myself, are worried. As I said, it is no excuse to say that the Liberals did not implement the measures that were needed to achieve the objectives and that during that time emissions actually increased significantly, by over 25% if I recall correctly. It is the Conservative government that is in power now, and it is the one that must take responsibility and commit itself not only, as I said, to honouring Canada’s signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol, but to putting effective measures into motion quickly.

In this debate, we see that on the government side they are going to think about it. However, they do not seem to be giving any consideration to what has been done in other countries. For example, a number of European countries are on their way to achieving the Kyoto targets and honouring their signatures at the bottom of that international commitment, specifically concerning the use of better technologies.

We must therefore require industry and industrial sectors to use the best technology now available. Obviously, when there is no better technology that can be used to reduce greenhouse gases below a certain level, we could allow industries to purchase greenhouse gas credits at their own expense. That is the approach that has been taken by the European countries, and it has proved itself. I do not see why we would choose to take a different approach in Canada, particularly when we consider how far behind we have fallen.

In my opinion, we have to be very clear about this. There are things we can learn from countries that have achieved or are about to achieve the Kyoto objectives, and I believe that we must take our inspiration from them, and also from the territorial approach. This is something that is extremely important, particularly in Quebec, because our manufacturing sector has made significant efforts in recent decades. Those efforts have to be recognized for what they are and so Quebec has to be allowed to actually establish an emissions permit exchange—a carbon exchange, as I was explaining—for North America as a whole.

I will conclude, because I do not think that the Conservatives spend a lot of time reading the daily La Presse. Galbraith, the American economist who died not long ago, used to say that “Democrats only read Democrats, but Republicans do not read at all”. I am under the impression that it is somewhat the same situation in this House, in that the Conservatives do not read at all.

The report of Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the Wold Bank, was released barely two or three weeks ago, at the request of the British Prime Minister, who is an ally of Canada, particularly in its mission in Afghanistan. He is a traditional ally and the leader of a country which, in the past, has been the source of many of our traditions, including our parliamentary traditions.

A study was done and Prime Minister Blair is taking it very seriously. What does that study tell us? It predicts a series of catastrophes if we do not put a stop to global warming, meaning if we do not take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In conclusion, I invite Conservative members to take a look at the Stern report and to inform the Prime Ministerthat the reality of global warming and the effects of greenhouse gases has now been scientifically demonstrated, and even recognized in terms of its disastrous effects on the economy. This might lead him to think about taking a different approach.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to discuss Bill C-30. When this bill was first introduced, it was roundly condemned by all the environmental groups and all the parties in the House. That is why it has gone back to the drawing board after first reading. Even the Prime Minister has sent it there, basically so that a new bill can be built.

We Liberals will be supporting this effort to try to bring back some of the many advances that were made in this area by our previous government and to bring back some protection for Canadians.

I am not going to go through all the problems. They were very eloquently listed by the critic for the Liberals and I am sure others did so in their speeches today. There are problems with the lists in the new bill, the double lists that we do not need, and with the lack of equivalency in the new bill and the lack of reference in the bill to Kyoto. In the notice of intent to regulate, the fact is that there are no targets.

As the health minister said this morning, there are millions of people who are in trouble with bronchitis, respiratory diseases and heart disease, but this bill is leaving the problems alone for five years, and it will not be until 2012 that there even are targets. There is the three or four years of duplicate consultation that excellent government employees working in those departments have already done. There is the removing of greenhouse gases and pollutants from the list of toxins, needlessly calling into question the authority of the federal government to regulate, et cetera.

I am not going to talk about that. I am going to talk about some of the successes of the past, successes that we have to try to get back to in order to limit greenhouse gases in the way they were being cut back in the past. Canada's greenhouse gas intensity is already 13% below 1990 levels. The Liberal government was able to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in 9 of the last 10 years. The environment minister mentioned these past programs in the opening speech on this topic, so I am going to follow up in the rest of my speech by giving more details in that area.

I do not think it is any secret, and all scientists agree, that under the Liberal government Canada has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases. During those years, as we know, Canada also had, under many parameters, the best economy in the world. This of course paid great dividends to Canadians and allowed us huge increases for students, for the biggest environmental budget in Canadian history and for seniors, health care, equalization and transfer payments, foreign aid increases, research and development increases, and increases in funds for the disabled.

Of course when the economy is so good, it also leads to huge increases in greenhouse gases if there is no action, and of course there were huge developments like the oil sands going on in that period. I am not sure what the exact figure was. It was perhaps 150% or 200% in greenhouse gases being produced by the country, but having this successful and expanding economy also gave us the largest challenge of any nation in the world in trying to reach our Kyoto targets.

That was why we developed a very aggressive plan. Today I am going to break down the plan into a series of plans. In spite of this increase of 150% or 200% or whatever it was in greenhouse gases at the time of the economy going so well, we still kept it down to roughly 135% of the previous amount. So far, the major and very complex programs that took so long to carefully put in place and negotiate are on the verge of reducing greenhouse gases more substantially toward our targets if they are kept in place, but we see that has not been the modus operandi of the present government. I will outline these plans quickly because if I do not I will be not be able to get them all in.

These plans are basically two-pronged. First, we have been dramatically cutting emissions in reducing the use of energy. There are a number of programs for that. Second, there is support for renewable technologies. The new technologies do not emit any or as much of the greenhouse gases.

Much of this was achieved by our new Liberal leader when he was environment minister. He got great credit from environmental groups and across the nation for being able to achieve this and overcoming the difficulty of working with finance ministers, which we know is always difficult to achieve. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was able to achieve the largest environmental budget in the history of Canada. It was hailed by environmental groups in Canada as the greenest budget.

The environmental budget was composed of initiatives that I will break down into about 20 plans. The first one was a $1 billion green fund that would support green projects to reduce greenhouse gases. It was a catalyst for new technologies. We cannot compare that $1 billion to any other programs of that magnitude that have been announced today. Once again, under the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, it was a huge increase.

The second plan was up to $2 billion for partnerships, which would lever up to $4 billion. These numbers are huge in cutting greenhouse gases and reducing pollution. That involved partnerships with other levels of government. This problem is so big it cannot be done by just the federal government. Once again, there is nothing from the new government to match what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville achieved in this area.

Plan three provided $200 million for quadrupling the wind power incentive Canada. That was enough for a million programs, which is another under the great stewardship of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan four involved $97 million for renewable power production. Some examples are support for small hydro, for biomass and landfill gases. What is happening in this area now? Nothing new.

Plan five was incentives for biomass. In that area there were a number of incentives. As members know, we have supported a number of new ethanol plants. Not only do they cut greenhouse gases but they offer big support for our farmers. This gives them another area in which to sell their products, again under the great stewardship of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan six was the quadrupling of the EnerGuide. Another $225 million were provided to improve the energy efficiency of houses. It allowed Canadians to participate. The government itself cannot deal with this huge challenge. Why would it have been recommended that the program be quadrupled if it was not working? There were 500,000 homes in Canada in the program. Some parliamentarians spoke about not hearing of Canadians cutting greenhouse gases, but 500,000 Canadians, half a million of them, were aware of it. In fact, the government has now cut that program, which is incomprehensible to all members in the House.

The Conservatives are saying that there is too much greenhouse gas emissions or too much pollution and then they cut the programs that are cutting them. That is like saying that we found starving children with not enough food and we will solve the problem by taking some of their food away.

Plan seven under the previous minister of the environment, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, provided $200 million for sustainable energy, science and technology. When research and development are slashed for things such as this in this country, like the last budget did, it will be very critical to the future of our children.

Plan eight was the green municipal fund. It is a great success story, as everyone in the House knows from their own communities. For over a decade the leader of the NDP was very complimentary of this program. The former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was a real champion in funding this program for municipalities across the country, as was the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. Again, thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases were cut.

What I am most proud of, in the tough times when a number of areas had to be cut to put this country back in order, when there were huge deficits, the Liberal government did not cut the green municipal fund. In fact ,it doubled it.

Plan number nine had funds for brownfields. What has the new government planned to clean up the brownfields and to match the vision of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

Plan 10, made in Canada, was to cut greenhouse gases with clean power generation. This has been inspired through tax cuts. Again, we put the capital cost allowance for clean power generation up from 30% to 50% under the inspired leadership of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I have seven more plans but I see that I will not have time to finish them so I will just mention what they are. Plan 11 was clean coal, plan 12 was biomass, plan 13 was carbon sequestration initiatives, plan 15 was landfill waste projects, plan 16 was east-west grid, plan 17 was EnerGuide for low income Canadians, plan 18 was for large final emitters supporting 5 megatonne cuts, plan 19 was auto emission reduction, plan 20 was the one tonne challenge, plan 21 was Biocap and plan 22 was solar.

Those are the reasons that we had the greenest plan in history. The environmental budget was the inspired leadership of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville when he was the environment minister. We are nowhere near that but we will do everything we can to work, hopefully, with all parties in the House on this new act to achieve some reductions in pollution and emissions, which is what all Canadians have demonstrated they really want.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's first question was on the Kyoto protocol.

Right now in the environment committee we have been debating Bill C-288, which is the Liberal re-enactment of their Kyoto plan.

For 13 years the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the environment. They received a scolding by the Commissioner of the Environment. We have now heard that they are not going to be able to meet those Kyoto targets. This is what our environment minister has said very clearly. We would like to but unfortunately, the situation left by the previous Liberal government has left the environment in a real mess here in Canada.

This government is taking action. We are not going to continue on with the Liberal plan of inaction. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is part of Bill C-30 that we are debating today.

The experts who have come to the committee have said that we cannot meet those Kyoto targets. We need to set new targets. Those new targets will be set in spring 2007, which is just a few months away.

I encourage the hon. member to work with us to set those targets. Let us have realistic targets that will reduce greenhouse emissions and reduce pollution for the health of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Canada's environmental performance on air quality has lagged and there is a need for the Government of Canada to take stronger action to protect human health and the environment. The impacts of poor air quality continue to be a concern for Canadians. Smog can worsen existing heart and lung problems and contribute to thousands of premature deaths yearly. Acid rain remains a serious threat to biodiversity, the forests and fresh water ecosystems.

The levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are simply not acceptable. Our new government has introduced Canada's clean air act, Bill C-30, to strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take coordinated action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Mandatory regulations will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed in the past. We will ensure the regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved. We will focus on improving the health of Canadians and their environment. Compliance options are one of four components of our proposed regulatory approach. Emission targets and timelines, monitoring and reporting and equivalency agreements are the others.

Our government is meeting almost every day with industry and the provinces and territories to develop the regulatory framework. By spring 2007, our objective is to have finalized initial discussions on a number of important issues, including short term reduction targets, compliance and reporting options and timelines.

Regulations will set realistic emission targets that will reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions across the country for the benefit of the health of Canadians and our planet.

To minimize the cost to industry of complying with regulatory requirements, the Government of Canada is considering a number of compliance options. The objective is to provide industry with the flexibility to choose the most cost effective way to meet its emission targets. These include emissions trading, offsets, opt ins and a technology investment fund.

Emissions trading would allow facilities the flexibility to meet their emission reduction target in three ways: by reducing their emissions to the level of their target; by reducing their emissions below their target then sell or bank the surplus emission reductions; or emit more than their target and buy emission reduction credits from the other entities. Emission trading does not replace regulation. It gives facilities more flexibility in how they can meet their regulatory obligations. As a result, emissions trading can reduce the cost of achieving a given target.

In an emission trading system the environmental objective is set by regulators, not by the market. The government is consulting on options surrounding an emissions trading regime. That is why the government is proposing, through sections 27, 29 and 30 of Canada's clean air act, to ensure that we can make regulations that are flexible enough to allow trading and that align our compliance regime to support the implementation of trading systems.

However, any trading system should be self-supporting and not reliant on taxpayer dollars. Our government will not purchase credits or otherwise participate in the emissions trading market.

Offsets are emission reductions that take place outside the regulated sectors or activities. They are usually verifiable projects that result in emission reductions beyond a baseline and are additional to any other regulatory requirement.

To ensure real emission reductions have taken place, Canada's new government will ensure that the requirements for monitoring and reporting emission reductions are rigorous and verifiable.

Opt ins are entities that are not covered by the regulations, but that choose to voluntarily adopt targets. Entities that exceed targets could earn and sell allowances, but would not be penalized for failing to meet the targets. Opt ins could be a vehicle for municipalities and other non-regulated entities to be a part of our clean air regulatory agenda.

Offsets and opt ins will work well within an emissions trading system. Offset emission reductions generate tradeable credits that can be sold by the offset owner to the regulated facilities, which the use of credits can then be used against their regulatory obligations.

Both offsets and opt ins broaden the scope of emissions trading to otherwise non-covered facilities. By broadening the pool of emission reduction sources, compliance cost can be further lowered. More participants also help to develop a more robust emissions trading market.

We are also considering a mechanism to credit early actions taken before targets enter into effect. One key mechanism to be considered is a means to facilitate industry compliance with the regulatory system that will be the establishment of a technology investment fund.

A technology investment fund is a compliance mechanism where a facility can pay a contribution rate per tonne of emissions to achieve compliance. The emission credits from these payments would not be tradeable or bankable. The funds generated would be used to accelerate technological development within the regulated sectors to promote long term emission reductions, particularly in the development and deployment of technologies that have the potential to achieve the greatest emission reductions.

We are committed to consultations, negotiations and collaboration to ensure that the most effective regulatory system is developed and implemented. We have and will continue to involve stakeholders throughout the development process to ensure that regulations achieve real results for Canadians, but do so in a way that minimize the cost to Canadian industry.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories toward a single harmonized system for mandatory reporting of all emissions and related information. This system will underpin the proposed regulations. It will also respond to industrial concerns that multiple measurement methodologies and multiple reporting regimes would cause an unnecessary and costly administrative burden.

At the end of the day, our regulatory framework will be guided by what is needed to protect the health of Canadians and our environment.

Bill C-30 is a good bill. I encourage all members of the House to support it. When it goes to the legislative committee, I encourage healthy debate.

We have heard from the environment commissioner how important the environment is. To this point we have had obstruction from the Liberals. I hope that ends. I hope we now move past that. The leadership race is over for the Liberals. They have a leader, who is the former environment minister under whom emissions rose 35%. We heard a week ago that a 47% increase was their ultimate plan, then buying down those emission increases by sending billions of dollars out of Canada. The number have heard is $20 billion.

That is not what Canadians want. They want a government that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and cleans up the air that we breathe. Bill C-30does that. It gives Canadians what they want.

I encourage every member in the House to support Bill C-30, and I am open to questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about dry cleaning solutions and engine cleaners. All these pollutants will affect the quality of the air we breathe, both indoors and outdoors. If she has read the clean air act, then she is aware that we are the first government in Canada to provide not voluntary measures but regulations to the clean air act that would require clean air both indoors and outdoors and with greenhouse gas emissions.

The members asks for regulations in that way and that is exactly what the clean air act does. It addresses greenhouse gas emissions, the air quality we breathe and the water. If the clean air act, Bill C-30, would provide regulations to deal with what she has asked, why would she not support the clean air act? It does not seem to make sense. On one hand she asks for these regulations to be provided, which the clean air act does, then she says she does not support it.

Also, she is not correct when she says it will not be until 2010. She has heard announced many times, providing she has listened while in the House, that it will be in the spring of 2007, just a few months away, not 2010.

I encourage her to read the act and answer this question. Why would she not support the bill that provides exactly what she has asked for?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to create regulatory powers in relation to air pollutants and greenhouse gases. I will note that these are not new powers, because they exist at present in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

To begin, I will say that, like my party, the Bloc Québécois, I support sending this bill to committee before second reading. Given that we are in the very first stages of consideration of this bill, this will give me an opportunity to inform the minister and the members who will be examining amendments to this bill about the health problems that are associated with certain toxic substances.

This bill is a statement of intent, in which the government sets out details of the regulations that it intends to make in the years to come and the timetables it is adopting for that purpose. I am indeed talking about regulations with timetables. This document shows that the government is wiping the slate, starting over at zero, and initiating a series of consultations in three phases which will, we are told, lead to mandatory standards being put in place by 2010 at the earliest.

The minister has not told us whether this “clean slate” means a slate clean of all the regulations we may have made since 2000. Regulations made since 1989 have been laid down and brought forward to protect both the environment and health. We do not know whether those regulations will or will not still be in force in 2010. We have no guarantee.

This bill amends the Energy Efficiency Act, and that is why I am speaking today. At first glance, we would assume that the proposed amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act are an improvement, because they cover substances that are not regulated and they raise the standards for other substances that are already regulated.

It is impossible to know whether this is genuine progress or simply an update to the standards that the Agence de l'efficacité énergétique regularly makes. One of the substances already regulated is tetrachloroethylene (TCE)—or perchloroethylene (PERC)—and I would like to talk about that. I will talk about that in a moment.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act already provides for the power to limit emissions of toxic substances and to fine those who exceed the limits and even provides for creating a tradeable permit mechanism. Unfortunately, if the past is any indication of the future, there is no guarantee that the new act will truly control greenhouse gases or air pollutants.

I would like to come back to the examples I just cited. Perchloroethylene (PERC), also known as tetrachloroethylene (TCE), is used as a degreasing solvent. This means that it is used in garages, but also, and mainly, in dry cleaning establishments. It is estimated that there are over 700 dry cleaners in Quebec.

PERC is extremely toxic. In 1989, it was one of the 44 substances placed on the Priority Substances List, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, because it destroys ozone. PERC, or tetrachloroethylene, is even the subject of specific rules enacted by the House of Commons on January 1, 2004.

PERC is toxic to human health and the environment. It is also carcinogenic. It is very volatile. It remains suspended in the environment and causes problems for the liver and the central nervous system. It has been found in the breast milk of women who work in dry cleaning establishments and even in food coming from adjoining restaurants. Studies have been conducted showing, for example, that if there is a dry cleaner in a shopping centre PERC has been found in adjacent businesses.

From January 1996 to March 1997, Environment Canada carried out a demonstration project on a wet cleaning process. However, the department did not invest sufficient funds and as a result the project was abandoned. It must be said that the toxicity of PERC or TCE has been known since 1989. In 2001, Environment Canada conducted studies and carried out interviews with people in the industry, including workers in the sector as well as the companies that produced PERC. Following those steps, the department ordered a reduction in the use of PERC. Alternatives procedures and technologies were supposed to be used because they are available. The companies were supposed to provide annual reports on their use of PERC and TCE in vapour degreasing.

Unfortunately, Environment Canada did not enforce that policy. Instead it came up with a new regulation in 2004, which limited the release of TCE and PERC in all solvent degreasing operations. That decision resulted in additional expense for equipment and operating costs for the big companies and substantial investments for the small businesses. Those small operators were short on resources. They were hard pressed then and they still are now. The new regulations would have required them to use new technology anti-pollution measures. How could they do that when they did not have the money to invest in machines worth more than $100,000?

So, we find ourselves today with a regulation that is not being enforced. It must also be said that the Department of the Environment did not send out the necessary inspectors to verify whether people in the industry, the big companies as well as the small operators, were complying with the regulations.

I would remind you that PERC is the odour that you smell on your clothes when you pick them up at the cleaner and that is the smell of degreasing. That is what is toxic and carcinogenic and that is what you should not smell.

There is an environmentally friendly dry cleaner in my riding. When I pick up my clothes, they do not smell like PERC because they have other ways to dry clean. Currently, businesses and small dry cleaners are not using the right equipment. They dispose of PERC directly into the environment—there is no monitoring. PERC is a greenhouse gas. It is a toxic gas.

My point is that it is very nice to start by putting forward ideas and conducting consultations. We know that the industry has been consulted, as have the people. However, those regulations, which were adopted at great cost, were never implemented. I wonder what the government will really do. They have introduced a nice bill. They will conduct consultations and implement it in 2010. Between now and then, people will be aware that they are working in places full of greenhouse gases. They have known since 1989. They are waiting for the government to act. Will the government wait until 2010 to do something?

The Kyoto protocol covered PERC and TCE. This bill does not. What am I supposed to say to my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Cloutier? Mr. Cloutier has a degenerative nervous system disease because he worked with PERC all his life.

What am I supposed to say to a dry cleaner from Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines who is just waiting for us to help him? What am I supposed to do about that?

I have serious questions about Bill C-30. I am speaking on behalf of people in my riding who are suffering, who have problems and who are waiting for the government to act faster and guarantee that the law will protect them and their health.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to Bill C-11, which will indeed take effect in 2011, I will point out to him that there is nothing about hybrid locomotives in that bill. There is no stated requirement for all train engines in rail yards to be hybrids by 2011, and there is nothing about the type of oil to use in order to reduce sulphur and particulate emissions either. None of that is covered.

What is this legislation, which I am very familiar with and have discussed previously, all about? What more does it do?

Perhaps we should put that in Bill C-30, because we did not in Bill C-11.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, since I have been involved in the issue of air quality in buildings and the environment for years. Thirty years ago, I started talking about hypersensitivity. I was in fact the first person in Quebec to talk about that. I am therefore pleased to speak to this bill.

We in the Bloc Québécois are asking the Conservative government to honour the Kyoto protocol and its 6% reduction target, within a plan that incorporates our international obligations. The Conservative government must also implement the action plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois to combat climate change. That plan is based on the principles of fairness and polluter-pay, it is based on a geographic approach and it includes a financial contribution to be given to the provinces and the Quebec nation by the federal government.

The federal government has rightly made commitments at the international level, but it must not undo that work by handing the bill to the provinces.

The Conservative government says that it does not want to send taxpayers’ money outside Canada. The Bloc Québécois certainly agrees with that. However, in the case of the oil sands, it seems to us that at present, the government is refusing to impose limits on the greenhouse gases produced by the processing of the tar sands into gasoline, into oil. The profits produced by the oil sands appear to find it easy to emigrate to other countries, particularly the United States. We could keep a bit of that money, and capture and bury the CO₂.

We therefore cannot say that this bill and what the government has in mind are for Canadians only. It seems fairly obvious to us that it is also designed with the big corporations in mind.

We agree with this bill, but it needs to be reworked and improved. We will nonetheless harbour a little hope that once this bill has been studied there will be some degree of quality left and there will be clear standards with regard to the Kyoto protocol. At that point, we will be able to say that we are doing our part to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada.

Certainly, we could look behind us and realize the extent to which nothing has been done, but there is still time to act. Nonetheless, this bill can be considered to be a drop in the ocean. We would not want it to be a smokescreen that will prevent us from joining the Kyoto protocol and adhering to its objectives.

Obviously, we agree with regulating air quality. We even think that this bill does not go far enough in that direction.

This is a fine thing, this Bill C-30, an Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada’s Air Quality Act). That being said, is this act really going to allow for regulation of the quality of indoor air—as my colleague opposite has said—the air quality that hypersensitive people need? Hypersensitive individuals are increasingly being recognized as people who have a need. I will return to this in a moment.

With regard to indoor air quality, it is absolutely necessary that we approve the LEED rating system and incorporate it into our laws and regulations. We will then benefit from all areas addressed by the LEED rating system: energy efficiency, indoor air quality, exterior environment, lower GHG emissions and sustainable development for buildings overall.

LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and is based on a rating system known as the Green Building Rating System. It was made in Canada—let it be known—by the Canada Green Building Council.

The government cannot say that we are sending our money elsewhere and that we are not doing anything for Canada by adopting the LEED rating system. It is very Canadian.

The clean air bill seeks to regulate motor vehicles. But what about off-road vehicles, locomotives, pleasure craft or transport vessels? In addition, the Minister of Transportation told us that he wants to reduce sulphur emissions of boats, but he did not say that he wants to reduce GHGs. There are also buses, trucks, road trains and tractors. There are hundreds of thousands of them. Then there are cranes, construction equipment, planes, snowmobiles and ATVs.

Why not add lawn mowers, too? A two-stroke lawn mower used for one hour causes more pollution than an automobile travelling from Ottawa to Toronto.

Furthermore, this legislation absolutely must include a verification and improvement program covering existing and future motor vehicles for as long as they are in use. Even though some cars do not pollute at first, they might do so eventually if they are not monitored. This has to be an integral part of the legislation. Another verification program is needed for all the other existing combustion engines, otherwise we are improving one aspect and ignoring the rest.

There needs to be an integrated system for industry. This is very important because this integrated system could also be a standard for the major oil industries. In accordance with our international commitments and air quality standards, greenhouse gases and air pollution have to be reduced at the same time. Such an industrial directive already exists in Europe and it works quite well. This directive, initiated by Great Britain and adopted by all the European countries, is called Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, or IPPC.

This directive establishes a series of modules including assessment of emissions and local and international impact, and it takes into account global warming, the ozone layer and all waste management provisions. In our society, waste is a major source of pollution.

An integrated system is a must, because the IPPC is a sophisticated tool. It monitors all industrial emissions.

Every industry has a code and a potential for reducing pollutants, whether for global warming or garbage or the ozone layer. Even visual pollution, the risk of accidents and noise are taken into account.

We need to acquire some tools and not reinvent the wheel, which is what this bill does. Clause 46 speaks of reviewing things and holding consultations.

I want to remind hon. members that things have already been done elsewhere and that it would be a good idea to adopt those measures instead of reinventing the wheel and putting off good regulations to 2010.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, the clean air act, but I wonder why such a bill has been proposed by the government since the previous Liberal government had the most aggressive plan of the G-8. As the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, I challenge anyone in this House to name one country that had a more aggressive plan than Canada.

In April 2005, the previous government unveiled project green. It is somewhat disingenuous for the Conservatives to suggest that somehow we did nothing for 13 years. It is an absolute farce. Had they read and had they in fact continued on the road with what this government had started, we would be much further ahead today than this hot air plan that we are getting from the government.

The first myth we hear from the Conservatives is that we were going to buy hot air credits from Russia. That is nonsense. All the credits were Kyoto compliant. The second myth is that we do not support this because we are not putting any money into this. Last year we had the greenest budget in Canadian history of $10 billion.

The government is proposing to take action but it has done nothing for the last 10 months. When it unveiled this clean air act, it was recycling some of the things that we had proposed had it not been for the federal election. We do not need to do some of these things because the legislation is already there. I will talk about CEPA in a moment.

In September 2005, the previous Liberal government proposed adding six greenhouse gases, GHGs, to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999. They included carbon dioxide, methane, fluoro carbons and sulphur, but unfortunately an election came. These GHGs were included in the Kyoto protocol. Our government was committed to ensuring that we reached our targets.

Now some people said that those targets were not possible. They are not possible if we do not do anything. We had an aggressive plan. The former minister of the environment, now the leader of the official opposition, went to Montreal to COP 11. I had the privilege of chairing a session of parliamentarians from around the world at the G-8+5. We were able to get an historic agreement. We were able to get countries onside with regard to the post-Kyoto period.

Regrettably, the official opposition at the time, the Conservative Party, said that it did not believe in Kyoto. It was because some of those members, I believe, belong to the flat earth society. They do not believe the earth is round. If they do not believe in the science then naturally they would assume that this is not a real issue. They should tell that to the natives of the north. They should tell them about the melting of the polar ice cap or the floes that are now happening. My good friend from the Northwest Territories will certainly attest to the fact that we are finding problems in terms of habitat. Polar bears are now being disoriented because of the melting.

It may be good for some of us not to have to walk in the snow in the south but it is a tragedy for those in the north. I have to say that I believe this is the most important issue facing Canadians and in fact people around the world. We need to deal with this.

The government proposes this clean air act and yet that is the party that has always opposed Kyoto and always said that we could not do this and we could not do that. The reality is that we did a lot of very positive things.

We had an agreement in the 14th MOU with the Canadian manufacturers of automobiles. The government claims that this was a voluntary measure. We had 13 MOUs with the auto sector and every one was fulfilled. In fact, in the 14th one, we can measure the trajectory to ensure that the measures to reduce GHGs by 5.3 megatonnes would occur. If this did not happen, we could bring in and use a regulatory back stop, but the reality is that we have not had to. To suggest somehow that there is a problem, when we have already had 13 MOUs that were lived up to, I am not sure what the issue is.

We had 700 final emitters, the largest ones in the country, and we made an agreement with the 700 largest final emitters. Again, we hear from the Conservatives that this side did not do anything. Maybe they should talk to some of their friends in the flat Earth society because maybe the doubters over there just do not get it. They do not get it that the environment is extremely important and that we need to take action. What they have proposed under the clean air act is not action. It has a 2050 target. They now want to add things that they opposed back in September 2005, the things that this party proposed. Now they are saying that they are not bad ideas but that they need to change things because they do not have the proper tools. However, they do have the proper tools.

The amendments they are proposing to CEPA are completely and utterly unnecessary. We already have the vehicle but the members across the way said that it does not work so they opposed it. While they were opposing that vehicle, they have not read and do not understand what we already had in place. We do not need more legislation. We already have the legislation that we had adopted but the Conservatives refuse to use it.

We have a Minister of the Environment, and I do not know if she can spell the word, but she has not articulated a plan that will address the pressing needs. We were the government that dealt with taking 95% of sulphur out of gasoline. We were the government that was well respected on the international stage because of what we had done. As a member of Globe International, G-8+5, which is global parliamentarians for the environment, when I go to international meetings they now ask me what has happened in Canada when we were making such progress, moving forward, had the legislation and had the people on side.

We did not need to go to court as they did in California with the auto sector. We had an agreement on the reduction of 5.3 megatonnes. While the Conservatives were fiddling over there, we were taking action. While they were complaining, I did not see a plan during the federal election on the environment. I guess that is why we did not see anything until recently in the House called the clean air act or, as I like to say, the hot air act.

There is no question that we had programs. The present government is the one that gutted programs that we had brought in. In the one tonne challenge program, everyone had a responsibility to participate and to be involved. What did the Conservatives do? They cut it.

We did environmental audits so people could improve their homes, whether it was insulation for their windows, their doors, new furnaces, et cetera, but suddenly in the middle of the night the program was cancelled. Not only was it cancelled, it was not grandfathered. I, and I am sure others in this House, had constituents phoning and saying that they had just spent the money they thought they would be getting as a rebate and now suddenly they have nothing. We had to investigate this because the government was not clear. It talks about a clean air act but it cannot even come clean in here about the programs it gutted.

The real spokesperson on the environment is the Minister of Natural Resources. I went in October to the ministerial meeting in Monterrey, Mexico where all the environment ministers from the G-8+5 were there except our minister. It was the Minister of Natural Resources Canada who was the lead spokesperson. That is a travesty.

I will say again that everywhere I go around the world people are asking me what has happened. They want to know what happened to the leadership and the vision of the Liberal government in the past that took the lead and was the lead at the COP 11 in Montreal. I say that the best the Conservatives can up with is a hollow clean air act. I must say that it makes me very sad when they will not even try to embrace the positive things that were done and that because they were done by a previous Liberal government they must be bad.

However, according to those around the world, they were excellent and Canadians thought they were excellent.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for his comments. I also want to thank him for working so closely with the leader of the NDP to come up with the solution to the logjam that we found in this Parliament on issues related to the environment.

We all know the importance of Bill C-30. This was the attempt by the government to get these important issues on the agenda of this Parliament, but we also know that this bill was going nowhere, that it was ill-fated, and that the opposition parties could not support the legislation, but we could not miss that opportunity in the House.

The House needs to take some action on the environment and meeting our Kyoto obligations. I am glad that the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the leader of the NDP put their heads together to come up with this process where, before second reading, the legislation can be referred to a committee, and there all parties in the House can bring their ideas to the table. We can then build a piece of legislation that truly reflects the urgency of this issue.

We cannot afford to see this matter delayed and the House has to take action. I am very pleased and proud of the action that was taken here in this corner of the House to ensure that in a non-partisan way, this agenda can go forward.

I wonder if the member might just comment further on that process whereby all the ideas that pertain to this important legislation can now be debated because of the referral to committee before second reading.

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it. I am really not sure whether I should take what the leader of the NDP said personally.

It was at the request of the leader of the NDP that the government agreed to put Bill C-30, the clean air act, before a parliamentary committee at second reading. Because we want to make concrete progress, we invite the constructive participation of all opposition parties. I would encourage the leader of the NDP to return to that constructive tone.

Canada's Clean Air Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill on air quality would amend three existing statutes, the first of which is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Based on our observations, however, these are not new regulatory powers that the government plans to grant itself, because they already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bill would also amend the Energy Efficiency Act. We find it strange that this amendment is being introduced after the EnerGuide program was eliminated. The third part of the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

The Bloc Québécois currently supports sending this bill to committee before second reading. In our view, the amendments proposed by Bill C-30 are unnecessary. They would only slow down the process of taking concrete action against climate change. This is simply a delay.

The bill is also accompanied by a notice of intent, which lists the regulations the government intends to adopt over the next few years and the deadlines it has set for doing so. This document shows that the government is starting from scratch and beginning a new round of consultations in three phases leading to new standard that would not be mandatory until 2010.

Bill C-30 in its current form is unacceptable. It practically means the end of the Kyoto protocol objectives. The bill would incorporate into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the statement that respecting Canada's international commitments on the environment is a matter of government discretion. We agree with referring the bill to committee before second reading because that will give us the latitude we need to consider the admissibility of amendments to this bill.

We will work in good faith in this committee, but the Bloc Québécois will make no compromises because respecting the Kyoto protocol targets is what is important. We will also present amendments to address the fairness of the polluter-pay rule, Canada's respect for its international commitments and, most of all, the urgent need for action to fight climate change. I want to remind hon. members that the Bloc's priority is still Bill C-288, which clearly respects the Kyoto protocol objectives and for which the legislative agenda is controlled by the opposition and not by our government.

Thanks to past investments by the administrators at Hydro-Québec in the area of hydroelectricity, Quebec has a non-polluting electricity production network. Quebec's plan mainly targets transportation and pollution reduction in certain industries.

As far as transportation is concerned, the bill would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to create the regulatory power to impose mandatory vehicle consumption standards on the industry by 2011, after the voluntary agreement expires. This does not seem soon enough.

The government has announced that Environment Canada and Health Canada also intend to hold detailed consultations with the provinces and industry starting in the fall. This consultation is late. It is planned in three major phases: the first will end in 2007, the second in 2008 and the third in 2010. Therefore, no regulation will come into effect before 2010.

What is important to the Bloc Québécois is that targets are established. These targets are in our report on the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, production of greenhouse gases in Quebec was about 12 tonnes per person, or half the average rate of production of 24 tonnes per Canadian. As for the other provinces, per capita emissions totalled almost 69 tonnes in Saskatchewan and 73 tonnes in Alberta, or five to six times greater than in Quebec.

If we compare increases between 1990 and 2004, we note that Quebec emissions have risen by 6% since 1990, compared to 39.4% for Alberta and 61.7% for Saskatchewan.

As I was saying earlier, opting for hydroelectric energy certainly was a significant factor in Quebec's enviable performance. However, the collective choices made by its citizens, industries and the National Assembly also made it possible to achieve these results. The Quebec pulp and paper industry alone reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

The excellent performance of the Quebec manufacturing sector also made a substantial contribution to Quebec's positive results. Between 1990 and 2003, this sector reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8% and emissions arising from industrial processes by more than 15%. These reductions were made possible by significant strategic investments by Quebec companies in innovative technologies allowing them to improve their processes and their energy efficiency.

The Minister of the Environment refuses to acknowledge the efforts made by Quebec or the value of the Quebec plan. It was again obvious in Nairobi, where she failed to mention Quebec's green plan in her official speech to the international community.

Rather than revise its international obligations by calling the Kyoto protocol into question, the Conservative government must implement the climate change action plan. That was the Bloc Québécois' proposal, founded on the very important principles of equality and polluter pays. With respect to the polluter pays principle, studies have been done on Canada's emissions and it is generally accepted that responsibility for reducing emissions should be shared non-proportionally based on population or gross domestic product. It should be shared by the provinces and the territories. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a three-part approach to distribute the burden across Canada and give each province quotas to comply with.

The European Union succeeded in reaching an agreement on distributing greenhouse gas emissions among 15 European countries. The negotiations took two years to achieve concrete results. Each country has its own targets to reach.

In Canada, negotiations went on for almost five years and were suspended. We have not yet reached a compromise on distributing responsibility among the provinces and territories.

According to this three-part approach, Quebec's goal would be 0% relative to 1990 levels. The province could therefore simply address its 6% increase since 1990 to reach its goal: 1990 production levels.

Other provinces' goals are much higher because of their energy choices.

In conclusion, over the next few weeks, the Bloc Québécois will propose amendments to this bill.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on Bill C-30, the clean air act. It is a major step in meeting Canada's new government's commitment to introducing an environmental agenda that is national in scope, achievable and will provide the foundation for improving the health of Canadians and the environment of Canadians for generations to come.

It is through this act that we can address a problem that has a profound impact on the health of Canadians and, as Minister of Health, that obviously is a prime objective for me.

The health of Canadians is affected by the quality of the air that we breathe. The clean air act also provides Canada with a realistic and, we believe, an affordable plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously. Our government's objective is to minimize or eliminate the risks to the health of Canadians posed by environmental contaminants in the air. It goes without saying that clean air is important and imperative to the health of all Canadians.

I represent the constituency of Parry Sound—Muskoka. I also consider myself a so-called green Conservative. My constituents are concerned about clean air and clean water but they are also concerned about the water levels in our constituency that are directly affected by environmental change.

People want to see action. They have heard lots of talk in this chamber and elsewhere at the federal level and a lot of talk by the previous Liberal government but they have seen no action. As the hon. member said a few moments ago, what we have seen from the previous government and the previous environment ministers has been an increase of 35% or more above the Kyoto targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a sorry state of affairs, which is only exceeded in the embarrassment by the fact that the United States of America under George Bush was able to do better than us here in Canada under the previous government. The Auditor General has said that the previous Liberal government should be ashamed of its record and she condemned it for it. I believe we can and we must do better.

As a starting point, Bill C-30 rightly draws attention to the fact that we must challenge the old ways of doing things, ways that have produced no tangible benefits, and voluntary approaches that have produced more hot air than true commitment and results. We must follow up with action to address air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously and directly.

Unfortunately, as I said, we have been lulled into a false sense of security, which was created by the former Liberal government when it agreed to unrealistic targets that were impossible to achieve. The clean air act is the first step toward a true regulatory agenda that can and should be supported by all members of Parliament in order to protect the health and environment for future generations and a legacy that can be built upon to create better progress and, of course, be supported by a sound economy.

While I would like to focus today on a number of key areas that highlight the importance of the bill, I would also like to say that it has been designed to meet objectives which I believe are shared by most members of the House. The first of these objectives concerns the protection of the health of Canadians.

The clean air act recognizes the fundamental relationship between environment and health and identifies the health of Canadians as a key driver behind the regulation of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

As we all know, the quality of the air Canadians breathe is vital to their health. The air quality bill will lead to solutions that will improve the health of Canadians, and it recognizes the importance of protecting the health of vulnerable populations.

Air pollution can affect us all, no matter who we are, where we live, or how healthy we are. The World Health Organization recently estimated that air pollution caused two million premature deaths every year around the world.

Using data from eight Canadian cities, Health Canada scientists estimate that of all the deaths in these cities every year at least 5,900 deaths could be linked to air pollution. Research also shows that poor air quality sends thousands of Canadians to hospital each and every year.

There has been an increase over the past few decades of certain diseases affecting Canadians. It is a well-known fact that the prevalence of asthma among children has increased over the years. According to the 1996-97 national population health survey, over 2.2 million Canadians have been diagnosed with asthma. Asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease afflict over 3.7 million Canadians.

Breathing problems are not the only thing we should be concerned about. Air pollution also affects the heart. Cardiovascular disease is responsible for 40% of all mortality in Canada.

These illnesses are exacerbated and, to some degree, are caused by air pollutants.

Most people think only in terms of outdoor pollution but I want to talk today about the air we breathe indoors, where we spend as much as 90% of our time.

One particular indoor air pollutant is radon, which occurs naturally in the ground in many areas of Canada, particularly northern Canada. This is an air pollutant for which this government is planning immediate action. Radon is the largest source of radioactive exposure to Canadians. New scientific evidence demonstrates an elevated risk of levels of radon found in many Canadian homes. Exposure to radon accounts for 1,900 lung cancer deaths every year in Canada and is second only to tobacco smoke as the primary cause of lung cancer.

The government is currently preparing to roll out a new indoor air quality guideline for radon as a basis for taking action to reduce expose and associated health impacts. The clean air act would provide important authorities which can be used to ensure that we have the tools to effectively manage and promote the actions required to reduce or eliminate this health risk.

Clearly, we have to take steps to reduce all the potential factors that increase the incidence of illness and death, especially in our children.

Canada's clean air act will give us the powers and the tools we need to deal with sources of indoor and outdoor air pollution.

Our proposed new clean air act, the centrepiece of the clean air regulatory agenda, would also amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and strengthen the Government of Canada's ability to take action to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases, as I said, simultaneously, and provide explicit authority to regulate air pollutants and greenhouse gases without requiring that they be designated as toxic substances.

In the past there has been opposition to designating greenhouse gases as toxic, which impeded constructive discussions about their management. Canada's new government would no longer have to wait for an air pollutant to receive an official toxic declaration.

I believe all governments must act effectively and in unison with their respective jurisdictions but clearly there is a need for national leadership. We must put politics aside and finally move forward on real concrete solutions so we can manage air quality and service Canadians today and in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a clause in Bill C-30 about equivalency.

Would the Leader of the New Democratic Party be prepared to amend that equivalency clause to integrate a territorial approach that would enable provinces such as Quebec to implement their own greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, as the government is calling it. This bill amends three existing acts: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.

We have been waiting a long time for the Conservative government to tell us what it plans to do to fight climate change and smog. We waited a long time because up to now, the policies of the Conservative Party, a political party on the verge of taking power more than a year ago, had nothing to offer in terms of measures or an effective plan to respect Canada's commitments under the Kyoto protocol signed in that Japanese city in 1997.

The bill before us here today is a far cry from what we were expecting. First of all, we were expecting a plan and a bill that would integrate the targets for greenhouse gas reductions set out by the Kyoto protocol, especially during the first phase of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Similar to Bill C-288, which is currently in committee, we were expecting this bill to include a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012, compared to 1990 rates.

Not only does this nearly 36-page bill never mention Kyoto, it also never refers to this target for reducing greenhouse gases during the first phase of targeted reductions. I would remind the House that this target was endorsed by Canada.

The bill also contains nothing about the second phase of reductions or the government's intentions. The only target the government is proposing here today to fight climate change is a target somewhere between 45% and 65% in greenhouse gas reductions by 2050, as though we can continue to produce greenhouse gases without worrying about short-, medium- and long-term targets for reductions. This is no different than presenting a business plan to a board of directors of a private company—and I wonder what the government would do—with no short- or medium-term goals, but only one objective for 2050.

Personally, I think that board of directors would send its managers back to do their homework, so that they could present a realistic plan that respects the international commitments signed by Canada.

Not only does the bill set a target for 2050, but the reference level for this 45% to 65% reduction in emissions is 2003, rather than 1990 as set out by Kyoto.

What does that mean in reality? It means that we will start calculating the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in 2003, as if nothing happened in the provinces or certain industrial sectors before 2003. Yet the Province of Quebec—sadly, we are just a province, even though we are now a nation—is one of the first provinces to have tabled a plan to fight climate change.

Quebec is prepared to comply with greenhouse gas reduction targets that use 1990 as the reference year. But the government is proposing 2003 as the reference year, as if it were possible to emit more greenhouse gas before 2003. In addition, this bill does not provide for offsetting credits for industrial sectors that have reduced their emissions in relation to 1990 levels.

This bill therefore does not comply with the international commitments signed by Canada. In introducing Bill C-30, Canada has flip-flopped on its international environmental commitments.

This government has also decided to set aside something that is vital to Quebec: the principle of equity. Past efforts by the provinces and territories and by industries should be recognized under the government's bill, yet there is nothing in the bill that does this.

In addition, we are expecting major efforts in transportation, an important sector in Quebec. What is the government proposing? Essentially, it is telling us that the voluntary approach that the government has agreed on with the auto industry can continue on its merry way until 2011. After 2011, the government will consider regulations based not on the most effective criteria and standards in North America—those in California—but on standards comparable to those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

They have decided, in terms of automobile manufacturing standards, to use lower benchmarks, and thus lower the standards, when Canada should be using its regulations to raise them. Worse yet, we learned just this morning that the government will have two systems for the industrial sectors: one that will be based on the intensity of emissions and another on the absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

It has been decided in Canada to spare the oil and gas industry at the expense of the industrial sectors that have made some efforts in the past. This is the second unfair factor: after the territorial aspect, or the non-recognition of the efforts made by Quebec since 1990, this is unfair to the industrial sector, in that Canada's oil industry is being spared.

We are indeed in favour of referring Bill C-30 to committee, but we believe that fundamental improvements need to be made to this bill. Recognition of the Kyoto targets, especially in the first phase, must be seen in the very essence and spirit, the principle and preamble of the bill.

We need stronger commitments and an immediate plan that will allow us to take action in the second phase of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, a year from now, in Bali, when the international community will begin to reflect on the system that should be applied in this second phase. The only debate we are having in this House is on the reduction objective for 2050.

Let me say again: if executives were to present this plan to a board of directors, they would be sent back to the drawing board to come up with reduction targets for the short, medium and long terms.

I will close by addressing a major aspect that we will defend in the parliamentary committee: this principle of acknowledging the territorial approach. We have not, thus far, been able to achieve our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets because the proposed plans require reduction from coast to coast and Canada's economic structure differs from one province to another, while Quebec's energy policy also differs from those of the other provinces.

In committee, we will be working on having this territorial approach recognized within Bill C-30.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville on his victory in Montreal on the weekend. He won because of his passion and credibility on the issues of the environment and sustainable development. He made the environment the main pillar of his program and rightly so in light of climate change. It is in the spirit of this victory for the environment that we will be studying Bill C-30 starting today.

What is our approach? The role of the official opposition is to be responsible and take action based on principles. Our role is to identify—together with the other opposition parties, the government and the environmental NGOs— practical solutions that will improve this bill.

We are not insisting on the fact that this bill is a Liberal initiative so that we can take all the credit. That is not how we do things. What we will insist on is that this bill be the best possible bill for the environment, for Canadians, especially with regard to the fight against global warming.

What is at stake here in this bill is nothing less than the greatest challenge facing humanity today, the first order of business: dealing with global warming.

Our position since the government first introduced the bill has taken the following lines. First, that this bill is not necessary and that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act contained all the necessary power to combat climate change and, indeed, air pollution.

Second, which I think was demonstrated by the minister's speech, with all respect, that to bring the two elements together is deliberately confusing. Air pollution and climate change are not the same thing. They can be linked and they can be related but they frequently and most often require different strategies and different solutions.

Climate change is primary, a precondition for every other policy that any government would want to bring forward. If we do not deal with it first and foremost, we will not get around to the rest of it, whether it is air pollution or anything else that the government might bring forward.

Our third criticism is that this bill is not Kyoto compliant nor is it even Kyoto relevant. There is no reference in the bill or the notice of intent to regulate to Kyoto standards. It is important to consider the bill and the notice of intent to regulate as a package.

Fourth, there are no short term goals for greenhouse gas reductions. We are not talking intensity. We are talking reductions. There is no reference to Kyoto's first implementation period of 2008 to 2012. There are no regulations for greenhouse gases coming into force before 2010, unlike project green which saw regulations, not voluntary measures, coming into place for large final emitters by 2008.

The fifth point is that goals for greenhouse gas reductions in the medium and long term are not ambitious enough.

The sixth point is that the bill, as written, actually weakens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act by creating unnecessary and ambiguous alternate lists for greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

The final point is that the provincial equivalency agreements are not as strong in the proposed bill as they are currently under CEPA.

Our original intent was to vote against the bill at second reading since we could not accept its fundamental principles or the accompanying notice of intent to regulate. Our current intention, now that the bill is at first reading and can be amended, is to produce amendments which meet our original criticisms, as I have outlined, and work with the government, opposition parties and environmental groups to produce a serious piece of legislation.

I will not today speak to the air pollution sections because we can work to improve those sections. However, air pollution is not where the problems lie.

I will begin by simply suggesting the key deletions that need to be made to this bill. First, the changes that weaken the provincial equivalency provisions of CEPA and, second, the creation of unnecessary new categories of greenhouse gases and air pollutants and the parallel regulatory authorities created along with those categories that put the federal power to regulate these substances at risk.

As to the targets and purposes of this legislation, for Kyoto, Bill C-30 must be amended to make explicit reference to Canada's obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto protocol. This should include a reference to Canada's 2008 to 2012 target from article 3, paragraph 1 of the Kyoto protocol of a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below Canada's 1990 level.

For medium and long term targets, Bill C-30 must be amended to include a long term target for Canada of at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2050. For the periods 2015 to 2050, interim targets should be established at five year intervals, with a 2020 interim target set at a level of at least 25% below the 1990 level.

Through Bill C-30, the following principles should be added to the preamble of CEPA. Canada's climate policy must be guided by the ultimate objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic climate change. This means keeping global average temperature increases under two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels.

Canada needs to commit to doing its fair share to combat this global problem. We need the use of hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions that increase in stringency if the science shows that further efforts are needed. There should be no trade-offs between cleaner air and greenhouse gas reductions.

For more detail, we need some sectoral amendments. For heavy industry, we need an amendment requiring the governor in council to limit greenhouse gas emissions from heavy industry through regulations that take effect no later than January 1, 2008 for the period 2008 to 2012. The amendment must include a hard cap on emissions that impose a Kyoto target on heavy industry. This means working toward a reduction to 6% below industry's 1990 emission levels for all final emitters. We need an auction of permits with the option of revenue recycling for economic efficiency.

We also need a linkage to other Kyoto compliant emissions trading systems. For vehicles, we need an amendment that would require the governor in council to impose regulated vehicle emission standards set to match or exceed the California vehicle standards, with those regulations coming into force for the 2009 model year.

On energy efficiency, a preamble should be added to the Energy Efficiency Act that supports setting continuous economy-wide improvement targets in energy efficiency in Canada, with two new sections to be added to the Energy Efficiency Act. First: the governor in council would be required to prescribe energy efficiency standards for all energy using products that are responsible for significant or growing energy consumption in Canada. Second, the governor in council would be required to review all energy efficiency standards within three years after they were introduced or amended and every third year thereafter. Through this review, every energy efficiency standard must be made to meet or exceed the most stringent levels found in North America.

On the issue of governance, we need a budgetary policy that would require the Minister of Finance to table an analysis of the projected greenhouse gas impacts of the Government of Canada's budgetary policy, disaggregated by measure, at the same time that the minister tables the annual budget.

Finally, we need the creation of an emissions reduction agency that would draw on the model of the California air resources board and create an arm's length agency responsible for climate research, regulation and the development of science based, interim, greenhouse gas targets for Canada.

With this package of amendments, we would turn Bill C-30 into a real bill for climate change and a real bill for air pollution reduction. However, we must remember that the first order of business must be global warming and climate change without which no other government activity will matter if we cannot start by saving the planet.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, all of the hon. member's questions raise exactly the point as to why we should get this bill to a legislative committee as quickly as possible to address these issues.

I would submit to him that we should not have to choose between regulating air pollution and regulating greenhouse gases. What we have learned from other jurisdictions and from the measures put in place by the last government is that it is not enough. We did not go far enough. We definitely did not go far enough when it comes to air pollution.

We know now that taking an integrated approach to addressing both of these issues is key to the health of Canadians and key to the health of our environment, because one technology to reduce greenhouse gases may in fact result in increased air pollution, and vice versa, depending on fuel choices and many other related issues.

On the issue of Kyoto, Bill C-30 is a piece of domestic legislation so that Canada can finally make emissions reductions here at home. Obviously the discussion at the committee will involve whether or not this legislation is going to contribute to our overall Kyoto compliance and how, but what I will say is that we can finally say something positive to the international community, and we did deliver this positive message in Nairobi, which is that because Canada is finally moving toward mandatory, regulated emissions reductions, we will be able to make a contribution to the global effort to reduce greenhouse gases. We also delivered the message to the international community that we will also be reducing air pollution, which is obviously a priority for all of the member countries as well.

Again, in Nairobi, Canada was one of over 162 countries that led us to a consensus, and the consensus was that the Kyoto protocol needs to undergo a review. Canada supports a review of the Kyoto protocol to make sure that as we move forward to the next compliance period we make sure that we do not make the mistakes that were made previously.

We also introduced strong accountability frameworks around some of the international programs that the member raises. Again, the member needs to make a distinction between taxpayer funded programs and programs that are market driven. The Kyoto protocol has some mechanisms that are supposed to be used by the market, but the previous government was using taxpayers' dollars to invest in those projects. We believe that if it is industry led, that is fine.

The bottom line is that under the Liberal plan the taxpayer was paying and under the Conservative plan the polluter will pay. That is the substantial difference.

On short term targets, I welcome input from all parties leading up to January and through our legislative committee to help us set short term targets that are achievable and that will not ruin our economy but will instead encourage our economy to make a transformation into a green economy. I would thank the member for whatever he would like to add to the committee.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

moved:

That Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act), be referred forthwith to a legislative committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today in my capacity as Canada's Minister of the Environment to speak to Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, which marks a bold new era of environmental protection as this country's first comprehensive and integrated legislation to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases.

I welcome all who are present today to discuss Canada's clean air act, understanding that our commitment to a better future for all Canadians is unwavering.

The environment is a sacred trust, bestowed on us by our ancestors to embrace and preserve for our country's future. Canada's new government intends to uphold this responsibility, which is why it is important that consideration of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act, begin as soon as possible.

The environment is a concern to all of us. Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants transcend borders and affect the health, environment and well-being of all Canadians.

Since taking office, our government has undertaken a number of important environmental initiatives. These include: action to reduce the release of mercury into our surroundings; reductions to the release of toxic substances from base metal smelters; new tax incentives for the banking of environmentally sensitive lands; funding for the development of renewable fuels; and the introduction of new infrastructure funding dedicated to public transit, as well as tax credits for the people who use public transportation.

The opposition has criticized Canada's clean air act, but have yet to identify one single clause in the act with which they disagree. Instead, the opposition has introduced two private members' bills that ignore the issue of targeting air pollution.

Not surprisingly, after decades of neglecting air pollution, the state of the environment this government has inherited from the newly elected Leader of the Opposition jeopardizes the health of every Canadian, but especially the most vulnerable in our society, our children and seniors, who suffer disproportionately from smog, poor air quality and environmental hazards.

Our government shares the concerns of Canadians about the environment and the quality of the air that we breathe.

Addressing only greenhouse gases is not enough. We must also address air pollution. Poor air quality is not a minor irritant to be endured, but a serious health issue that poses an increasing risk to the well-being of Canadians.

Again, Canada's clean air act is the first legislation to address both air pollution and greenhouse gases in an integrated fashion. Greenhouse gas emissions degrade Canada's natural landscape and pose an imminent threat to our economic prosperity.

Canada's clean air act represents real, concrete action to achieve results through mandatory, strict regulations.

We are sharply focusing our efforts on addressing the greatest threats to the health and well-being of Canadians. We need tough pollution regulations that measurably reduce asthma, chronic bronchitis and lung cancer by improving both indoor and outdoor air quality. This is why our government will take unprecedented action to regulate indoor air pollution, the second highest cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.

Canada's clean air act is the first legislation to recognize that most sources of air pollutants are also sources of greenhouse gases and they must be addressed together. Canada's clean air act proposes a comprehensive set of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, to the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Consumption Standards Act.

Canada's clean air act contains crucial new provisions that will expand the powers of the federal government to address the existing inefficient voluntary standards and move to strict enforceable regulations.

By strengthening and bringing more accountability to our existing laws, Canada's clean air act requires the Ministers of the Environment and Health to: establish, monitor and report on new national air quality objectives tied to the health of Canadians; report to Parliament on the effectiveness and the progress of our programs; and move from voluntary to mandatory, enforceable regulations.

Canada's clean air act is needed to ensure that renewable fuel requirements can be implemented in an efficient and effective manner to provide cleaner fuels for our cars. A biofuels industry will lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution and unprecedented economic opportunities for Canada's agricultural industry.

The government is also consulting on options surrounding an emissions trading regime.

That is why the government, through Canada's clean air act, is consulting on options that allow trading and that align our compliance regimes to support the implementation of a trading system that results in the lowest cost opportunities for emissions reductions for industry.

We have been clear that any trading system must be market driven, not subsidized by taxpayer dollars. Unlike previous governments, our government will not purchase credits or create an artificial trading market subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

The second key difference in our approach on clean air lies in our focus on mandatory, strict regulations. Past governments relied on voluntary measures, satisfied that industry could set its own standards.

The environment commissioner confirmed that this is not acceptable or workable and condemned the former environment minister, the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, by stating that the measures were “not up to the task of meeting the Kyoto obligations”. She went on to say that the Leader of the Opposition's efforts were inadequate, lacked accountability, and would have never reduced greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 targets.

Canadians will be glad to know that those days are over. From now on, all industry sectors, including the auto sector, will have mandatory requirements, and we will enforce those requirements. Our plan puts the health of Canadians and the health of our environment first.

Any polluters that go over their air pollution targets will be fined and all money will go toward an environmental damages fund.

We also have an ambitious long term target aimed at absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, up to 65% by 2050, as recommended by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

The previous government signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol without an implementation plan to achieve results. That inaction and those empty promises have left Canadians with a 35% increase in greenhouse gas emissions above the targets set by the Liberals.

We must move beyond the arbitrary and unattainable targets set by the Liberals and work together at setting achievable targets. We must lead the world by example and show them that through government cooperation with industry we can make vast improvements for the health of Canadians and the health of the planet while still maintaining one of the most robust economies in the world.

By spring 2007, the government will announce short term targets for air pollution and greenhouse gases, and industry will have to meet these regulations within four years.

Our approach also encourages technological change. Technology plays an essential role in reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and provides us with huge economic opportunities.

We will also introduce mechanisms to encourage and facilitate investment in new technology, but we will not use a carbon tax, because the only people who end up paying are Canadian taxpayers and we think that they have paid enough through their health. Under a Conservative government, it will only be the polluter that will pay.

Any industry that goes over its greenhouse gas limits will have the option of paying into a Canadian technology fund to comply with the regulation. The money paid into the fund will be reinvested in technology to reduce greenhouse gases.

The third key difference in our approach on clean air is that we are taking action right here in Canada. Canadians will be able to hold our government and industry accountable for achieving results.

We will be accountable to Canadians by reporting on our progress in a public annual air quality report and we will be held accountable through measurable outcomes linked to the health of Canadians. We will also be accountable to Parliament by mandatory annual reporting to Parliament on our actions and their effectiveness to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Rest assured that Canada will continue to be a constructive player in global efforts to address climate change, but we need to clean up our own backyard and set an example for the rest of the world. We will set an example by leading here at home and we do not plan to do this by purchasing international climate change credits to meet unachievable targets as a substitute for a concrete regulatory agenda to reduce Canada's own emissions.

This government has charted a fundamentally new course on the environment. Canada's clean air act and Canada's clean air regulatory agenda will set strict, enforceable regulations that will result in concrete, realistic action to protect the health of Canadians and the environment for generations to come.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will do better than just tell the hon. member what will happen next week, I will tell him how we will conclude this week.

This afternoon we will be on the report stage of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. As you may know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and Friday the House will be adjourned for the Liberal leadership convention, and we will all be watching that with interest.

On Monday it is my intention to call ways and means Motion No. 12, a motion to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading. We will continue that week with Bill S-5, on tax conventions, and Bill C-34, on the first nations education agreement.

On Tuesday we will then consider the third reading stage of Bill C-24.

Later on that week it is my hope that we will begin the debate on the marriage motion. I will continue to consult my colleagues with respect to a date for the final vote on that. After that it is my intention to proceed with Bill C-28, the budget tax measures.

I hope that is of help to the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will be calling that debate that the hon. member just mentioned in due course.

Today, we will continue the debate on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders act.

There is an agreement to complete Bill C-25, proceeds of crime, tomorrow. In a few moments I will be asking the approval of the House for a special order in that regard.

When the House returns from the Remembrance Day break, we intend to call for debate a motion in response to the much anticipated message from the Senate regarding Bill C-2, the accountability act. As well, we hope to complete the report and third reading stages of Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act.

Thursday, November 23 will be an allotted day

I want to inform the House that it is the intention of the government to refer Bill C-30, the clean air act, to a legislative committee before second reading.

The Environment

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the opposition to read sections 27, 29 and 33 of Canada's clean air act, which allow for a North American trading system. Like the acid rain agreement, what we need is a North American solution. We are therefore consulting industry and the provinces regarding short term targets.

Canada's Clean Air Act--Speaker's Ruling

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Speaker for his ruling. I accept it totally. As it turns out, it is really somewhat inconsequential, since Bill C-30 was dead on arrival in Parliament.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member forMississauga South on October 19, 2006, concerning the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform for his comments on October 23, 2006.

In raising this question of privilege, the hon. member for Mississauga South claimed that a breach of the privileges of the House had occurred as a result of the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act. He stated that copies of the bill had been distributed at a press conference held on October 13, 2006 by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. The bill itself was not introduced in the House until October 19, 2006.

In response to this question of privilege, the hon. government House leader contended by Bill C-30 had a much broader scope than the document tabled by the hon. member for Mississauga South. He noted that the bill proposed amendments to three statutes rather than only to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. He went on to indicate that, even with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Bill C-30 proposed amendments not identical to those in the document referred to by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

In response to this intervention, the member for Mississauga South stated that the basis of his complaint was not that the two texts were identical, but that they contained, “substantively, the same critical provisions”.

This is not the first time a question of privilege has been raised about the premature disclosure of a government bill. In cases where prima facie cases of privilege have been found, there has been divulgation of the actual bill prior to members having been made privy to its contents. Members may wish to consult the ruling delivered by Mr. Speaker Parent on February 21, 2000, at pages 3766 and 3767, of the Debates where such an issue is discussed.

When looking carefully at the document provided by the hon. member for Mississauga South, it is evident to me that it is not a copy of the bill which the government placed on notice. In addition to the differences pointed out by the hon. government House leader, an examination of the two documents shows numerous other differences. These include not only differences in the organization and numbering of its parts, but more extensive textual differences as well, since there are various provisions in the bill not found in the document provided by the hon. member for Mississauga South.

I have also looked at the press release issued by the Sierra Club in conjunction with the October 13 press conference. The press release clearly indicates that the Sierra Club's comments relate to, “...an August version of the proposed amendments...”. The Sierra Club further notes in the press release that its comments on the legislative proposal will remain valid, and again I quote, “...(a)ssuming that this draft is what is introduced into Parliament...”.

The fact that the document distributed by the Sierra Club contains blacked-out passages also indicates that the document as circulated by the government was a consultation document and not an advance copy of Bill C-30.

As has been noted in previous Speaker's rulings, the government is free to consult whomever it wishes in preparing legislation for submission to the House. It is not for the Chair to determine what form these consultations may take or what documents the government may circulate for comment.

The key procedural point, as I indicated in a ruling delivered on March 19, 2001, at pages 1839 and 1840 of the Debates and to which the government House leader made reference, is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House. In the present case, I can find no evidence that there has been any premature disclosure of a confidential document to which the House has priority. I, therefore, must rule that no breach of privilege has occurred.

I would again like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his vigilance in drawing this matter to the attention of the House.

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader has again asked me to refer Bill C-30 to a committee before second reading. We are prepared to do so, and I hope that the opposition will contribute positive and constructive ideas to such a process.

The NDP leader has tried to do that with a private member's bill, and I am waiting for members of the other opposition parties to do the same. When criticizing a plan, it is important to have a plan of one's own.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we met with the promoters of the Montreal carbon exchange. In order for this market to be truly effective and flexible, it requires the support of the House for the clean air act. This legislation will establish the responsibilities and the review required to obtain real reductions.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the comments of the member across the way thought-invoking. Most of what he shared I found dishonest or misleading. He started by speaking about waiting for the plan and saying that we do not have a plan.

That is not true. Last Thursday, a week today, seven days ago--and I believe he was in the House--Bill C-30 was tabled. Actually, if he would take the time to read the Order Paper and Notice Paper, he would see that Bill C-30 is on page 22. I encourage him to look at that. The fact is that I encourage him to read the bill, our clean air act.

He talked about the transit tax credit and said it may not work. That is his premise: that it may not work. In reality, the Bloc and the Liberals have joined together to obstruct Bill C-30, the clean air act. This is an act that will move--

Canada's Clean Air Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I gave notice to the Chair of this point of order. I would like to take a moment to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Mississauga South on October 19, 2006. The hon. member alleged that the government was in contempt of the House due to the premature disclosure of Bill C-30, Canada's clean air act.

After reviewing the document that the hon. member provided to support his argument, it is clear that the document provided by the hon. member is not the bill introduced by the government on October 19. I will give the House a number of examples.

The title of Bill C-30 is “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act)”, whereas the title of the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is “An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to add provisions providing for clean air”.

Consistent with the title, Bill C-30 consists of three parts: amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act; amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act; and amendments to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Act. The document provided by the member for Mississauga South only refers to amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Not only do we have documents that have a different title and would be dealing with different pieces of legislation, but there are numerous other differences between Bill C-30 and the document provided by the member for Mississauga South with respect to the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

For example, Bill C-30 includes amendments to sections 72, 93, 95 and 98 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are not referenced in the document provided by the member for Mississauga South.

In short, the document provided by the member for Mississauga South is simply a different document than Bill C-30 and it is not a document that the government ever intended to introduce in Parliament. I therefore submit that no contempt or breach of privilege exists.

However, there is more.

Members of the House may recall the Speaker's rulings of March 19, 2001 and October 15, 2001 when you ruled that there were prima facie contempts of the House when the Liberal minister of justice at the time and her officials briefed the media on the details of bills prior to the bills being introduced in Parliament. In those instances, the improper disclosure of information was in relation to bills that the government at the time intended to introduce.

Mr. Speaker, in your ruling of March 19, 2001, you stated:

In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government's discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence. Once a bill has been placed on notice, whether it has been presented in a different form to a different session of parliament has no bearing and the bill is considered a new matter. The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

The previous findings of contempt in relation to the premature disclosure of government legislation concerned the disclosure of legislation that was put on the notice paper and intended to be introduced into Parliament. Here, there are no suggestions that the document provided by the member for Mississauga South was put on the notice paper and, indeed, it was never intended to be introduced in this House.

Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no contempt of the House and I look forward to your ruling.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act (Canada's Clean Air Act).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)