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.

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.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I genuinely had hoped that we could have found a balanced approach with Bill C-30. I think you know that. I think you know I made best efforts to try to find a bridge to get a bill that all parties could support. We didn't find that consensus.

The premiers—

[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.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Let me speak very directly to that.

We do believe that technology is a major component in helping us reduce greenhouse gases. So does the Liberal carbon budget proposal. It has this technology fund, these green accounts, which are not compliant with Kyoto and won't deliver anything, as you've suggested either, immediately.

So here's what we've done. With our technology fund, we're capping it at 70%. You can only put up to 70% of your investments into technology, and it goes down each and every year. By 2020, no contributions can be made to technology. It is capped and it goes down, and it gets stronger and tougher and better each and every year.

What we hope is that those investments in technology will begin to yield real reductions in greenhouse gases, things like carbon capture and storage, things like more renewable power, things like different industrial processes and harnessing that.

Bill C-30, which you voted for, had an unlimited licence to pollute. I don't agree with that. I think it's wrong. That's why our plan is tougher.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No sector is exempt from the regulations we brought forward. I know, sir, that you voted for an amendment to Bill C-30 that would allow the minister, with the stroke of a pen, to exempt certain areas. So I'd ask you, did you conduct that same thing?

[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?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Minister. Thank you for being here this morning.

Minister, you're here today to address Parliament's questions about Environment Canada spending and your so-called “Turning the Corner” plan.

The parliamentary secretary has kindly assured us that you will take questions on all related matters, so thank you for that.

Minister, as you know, numbers released by your own department earlier this week confirm that this country turned the corner under the leadership of Stéphane Dion, not only stabilizing industrial greenhouse gas emissions but reducing overall emissions year over year from 2004 to 2005. Liberal leadership put this country back on track to have a national carbon budget in 2006. You will have received a copy of this document, which, as you know, was subsequently migrated into Bill C-30. The legislative committee has worked hundreds of hours, if not in fact thousands of hours, which your government has conveniently suppressed and censored. The bill has yet to see daylight.

Obviously, your government chose not to take on the responsibility of capping our carbon emissions. The subject of climate change, Minister, has never been more important, and Canadians have very high expectations. To be frank, Minister, your government's performance on this file has been, objectively, terribly disappointing. Internationally, last year our climate change negotiators were instructed to block the second round of Kyoto, acting as saboteurs within the process that we were chairing, as president, internationally.

Likewise, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister refused to take a proactive stand on Germany's strong post-Kyoto plan. Domestically, Parliament was handed a clean air act, as I said a moment ago, in need of serious repairs. When you were brought in, the all-party Bill C-30 committee made those repairs, but this plan has died, as I said, in the hands of your government.

Funding was cut, left, right, and centre, on climate change initiatives, from home retrofitting to wind power.

Let's get started, if I could, Minister, and I would really appreciate it if we could all follow the chair's advice on short questions and short answers.

My first question to you speaks directly to the main estimates, Minister. Can you tell us how much federal money will flow this fiscal year for climate change programming? That is for 2007-08.

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.