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.

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?