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.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, for weeks the Prime Minister has been saying that he will soon announce his so-called made in Canada plan for greenhouse gas emissions, including all of the targets, but Canadians are still waiting, and waiting, and waiting.

Even more disturbing is the fact that the government kept its plan secret and refused to include it as part of the rewrite of Bill C-30. Why has the Prime Minister shown Parliament so much contempt? Does he think the work of the committee is beneath him?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.

Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on the government's second budget released on March 19. On behalf of the constituents of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing in northern Ontario, I would like to offer a few opinions.

First, I would like to point out that among the various instruments that governments have to tell voters, tell the public what it is they are about, what it is they plan to do for a country, the two main instruments are throne speeches, which we see typically every two years, and budgets, which we see every year usually in February or March.

In the span of 100 years, we would see 100 budgets from different governments. That underlines how important budgets are. Not only do they set a course, or they are supposed to set a course, but they are also supposed to provide the government's vision for the months and years ahead. They are supposed to tell Canadians how the current government of the day wishes to continue building the nation.

Quite frankly, as important as budgets are, I believe the government has missed a very serious opportunity to add its piece to the grand and important puzzle which is the building of this nation. I am not going to say that it lacks an agenda but indeed, it lacks a vision.

What I find most interesting in the budget is what the budget does to fulfill what I consider to be the hidden agenda of the government, which is to actually weaken the central government of this country. In so doing, it limits the capacity of the central government to create programs of national concern, whether they are in the economic domain, the social domain or the environmental domain. When one weakens the central government's ability to lead, to draw in the provinces and territories on national initiatives, one in fact weakens Canada.

There have been numerous surveys over the years which have indicated over and over again that of all levels of government, the public trusts most the federal government, its national government. The public sees in its national government the best tools, the best ability, the strength to keep our country together for all citizens from coast to coast to coast, regardless of where they live, whether they live in rural areas like my area in northern Ontario or in urban areas like downtown Winnipeg, Vancouver, Toronto and so on. Fundamentally Canadians are generous. They want to share this nation with each other and with those who come from foreign shores to join us and to live in Canada. That generosity means that Canadians want, as much as is reasonable, that programs and initiatives be for everybody.

Let me give an example of the government's attempts to weaken the central government. I have to reach back to last year's budget. This budget is a continuation, in my view, of that central theme of a hidden agenda to weaken a central government. There was an announcement last year, and we were expecting to hear more about it but for some hidden reason we did not hear part two, but last year there was an announcement that the government would cut the GST by 1% and eventually by another 1%. This was against the advice of virtually every economist in the country. We have to trust our professionals. They said that giving away between $5 billion and $6 billion on a 1% GST cut would only weaken forever the central government, because we cannot get that percentage back.

Think back to governments that tried to increase taxes. We cannot get that percentage back. That $5.5 billion that was lost in the first 1% GST cut is $5.5 billion that is not available for the government to invest in health care, in municipal infrastructure, in the Kelowna accord which, incidentally, would have cost about $5 billion. One year of that 1% GST cut would have funded the Kelowna accord. We are talking about 1% every year ongoing, every year indefinitely.

It is interesting that the government in this budget did not mention what was going to happen to the second 1%. It may be that the government finally listened to the advice it received last year, or it just felt that it would prefer to do that in a majority government.

I do not think Canadians are going to be easily fooled. Frankly, I do not recall meeting any constituents in my large riding who said, “Wow, that 1% GST cut really was a great benefit to me and my family”. In fact, the opposite is the case. When I asked them, virtually every one of them said that they did not notice that 1%. I pointed out that a wealthy person who bought a $100,000 boat would receive $1,000 in GST relief and that wealthy person would notice it. My constituents replied, “Of course they would notice it, but I am an average Canadian and I am not buying a $100,000 boat”.

In fact, the average Canadian family would have to consume taxable goods for years and years to achieve that $1,000 in GST relief that the wealthy person would enjoy when buying that expensive boat. To me, what the budget really does is it promotes further the hidden agenda.

Let me speak to some of the concerns in northern Ontario in my riding. I will start with forestry and I will continue with concerns for my aboriginal constituents and aboriginal Canadians from coast to coast.

In the forestry sector, communities such as White River, Smooth Rock Falls, Chapleau, Espanola, Nairn, Opasatika, Hearst, Kapuskasing, and the list is far too long, are experiencing tremendous layoffs and cutbacks. Much of the layoffs and cutbacks are in the softwood sector. There are key industries that have suffered in the pulp and paper sector in my area as well.

There is no mention in the budget of what should be done to deal with a sector of our economy which is extremely significant not only in direct jobs and what it does for our single resource communities, but the incredible spinoffs as well. A tremendous price is being paid by families in these communities and the communities themselves as well. Those communities see the loss of their capacity to keep their schools open and in fact, to maintain their basic infrastructure because people have to leave those communities if they can.

At the very least I would call on the government to bring together all stakeholders, community leaders, unions and companies, all those who have a stake in the forestry sector. The government should bring them together in a national forestry summit so that our best minds and our best efforts can be focused on that one issue to see if something can be done for the long term of this country.

Quite frankly, when we consider what the softwood lumber deal has done to communities in my riding, I looked for measures in this budget that would have assisted them. The day before the agreement went into effect, the import tax in the U.S. was some 10 point something per cent, roughly 10.5%, but the day after the agreement was signed, it shot up to something like 15% because the U.S. import tariff was replaced by an export tax.

It will take me a long time to understand how that is good for our industry. I understand it is the Canadian government that has had to advance the duties from the U.S. back to Canadian companies, because the U.S. actually has not repaid those funds, to the best of my knowledge.

I will move on to my aboriginal constituents on Manitoulin Island and on the north shore of Lake Huron and the Chapleau and Wawa areas and up at Constance Lake near Hearst.

When the aboriginal leadership in my region and all Canadians saw their premiers, the prime minister and the senior aboriginal leadership of this country sign the Kelowna accord in November 2005, they saw the parties come together to sign a historic agreement. Funding for that agreement was put in place immediately thereafter. The money was booked, as our then finance minister confirmed and has confirmed numerous times.

For some reason the Conservative government has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the validity of that agreement. As recently as last week the government voted at third reading not to support the private member's bill of my colleague the member for LaSalle—Émard, which further calls upon the government to honour the Kelowna accord.

Our aboriginal Canadians, our first nations leadership, have been severely disappointed by what they have seen from the government when it comes to measures to understand and appreciate the great heritage, the great history, the great culture that our first nations bring to this country. They are disappointed that as a nation we have still not adequately dealt with the needs of our first nations communities and people when it comes to education, health, water, and those supports that are necessary to live in a modern society. After all, it is our aboriginal youth we will count on considerably in the years ahead as the labour shortage in this country continues to increase.

I recall before the last election that our then leader and prime minister, the member for LaSalle--Émard, made a commitment to students to pay up to $3,000 per year toward tuition fees. That was a significant offer to Canadian families. Then the election came along and we can debate whether that should have happened. However, I look at this budget and there is nothing for undergraduate students. There is a bit of money for post-grads and that is great, but it only assists about 4,000 students.

I go back to my comment about the hidden agenda and the fact that this budget has no vision. There is no overarching view of what the future of this country will be like. It is a hodgepodge of small measures designed to attract individual demographic groups within the larger society. I do not begrudge that there are certain small measures that are important to some people in the budget, and that is great for them, but even they would agree that the government should have a vision with its budget. It should have an overarching idea of where the country is going.

When we were in office great progress was being made with respect to research and development and post-secondary education. We were making sure that our best minds could do research and network with the best minds around the world. It seems that we are now taking backward steps. We must take care of the fundamentals of education. If I could speak to each of my colleagues here one on one, I doubt anyone would disagree that education is the basis of all that we do not only in our personal lives, but as a nation.

I was very disappointed to see the lack of any grand vision when it came to education and productivity for this nation. We are competing in a world that is advancing rapidly. It is our duty to make sure every day that not only individual Canadians but our nation together keeps up and demonstrates the leadership that Canada has become known for around the world.

There are about 55 small communities in my large riding of 110,000 square kilometres. The leadership of these small communities, mayors, reeves, chiefs, are all struggling to maintain the basic infrastructure of their communities.

I know the budget mentioned a short term commitment to share the gas tax with municipalities, unlike the leader of my own party who said that commitment will be an indefinite commitment. Some off my colleagues who have been here since 1993 will remember that when the previous Liberal government brought out a municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program there was tremendous resistance from the then Reform Party and later Alliance Party. In fact, MPs from those parties would not even participate in local ceremonies to launch infrastructure projects. They were dead set against infrastructure.

I know the Conservative Party is the current metamorphosis of the original Reform and Alliance Parties, but the genes of the Reform and Alliance Parties are still present and we still see a lack of real commitment to local governments.

When the Liberal government was first elected in 1993, one of the first commitments we made was to help local governments improve roads, sewer and water systems and so on because we understood that there was an infrastructure deficit in the country at the local level and that the federal government had to take its share.

It is not only local infrastructure. Where is the grand vision when it comes to those nation building projects that Canada needs to address? If there is one that stands out among others, it is the whole issue of climate change. If there is a national project, indeed, an international project, that requires our very best efforts, it is climate change.

I am very pleased that my colleagues in this party and the opposition parties have been able to craft a renewed Bill C-30 which I believe will move the standards quite considerably when it comes to Canada's responsibilities in the world with respect to climate change.

I will now talk about northern Ontario in general. Northern Ontario, like other regional rural parts of the country, is experiencing a population loss. It is not difficult to explain. Families are not as big as they used to be. Our population growth, and happily so, is made up of fine new Canadians who come from all parts of the world to our country. At the same time, it is important to remember that it is from the rural areas from which Canada was first built. If we forget where we came from, we will soon forget where we are going.

It is very important that the present government and any future government, whether it is my party or another, take measures to ensure the strength and vitality of rural Canada, whether it is through immigration measures or supporting programs like FedNor. As much as the government might say one thing about FedNor, one thing we know for sure is that there was a cut in the total funding for FedNor.

FedNor, by the way, for those who are not aware, is the federal economic development agency for northern Ontario, an agency which we were very happy, through the years 1993 to 2006, to support and to in fact increase and grow the funding and supports for.

FedNor needs to be further supported. We need to increase the funding for FedNor, as we need to do for the other regional economic development programs in the Atlantic, west Quebec and so on. I referred to the genetic predisposition against municipal infrastructure support from the federal government. That also exists when it comes to economic development. If anyone has old copies of the Reform and Alliance platform documents, it is explicit that they do not support regional economic development programs.

One cannot change one's genes. Some may try but they cannot do it. Either the government owns up to what it really believes about economic development or it can keep trying to fool the country for another little while.

I will conclude by saying that I still have constituents in my riding, some of the older ones, who refer to the Diefenbaker times and the fact that it has usually been Conservative governments that have put us into deficit.

When we came to office in 1993, we had to deal with a huge $42 billion deficit and, with the help of Canadians, that deficit was slain which put the country in the enviable position of having surpluses that could then be invested in health care, infrastructure, education and so on.

My constituents may not for the most part really think tax cuts are the most important thing that we should be doing. I am not against appropriate tax cuts targeted to the poor and middle income Canadians but these shotgun blast tax cuts, like we have with the GST, do not really do anything positive. With that kind of an attitude and the $10 billion in new spending in the last budget, which one of my colleagues mentioned, I am really worried that we will be going back into deficits. It will only take some kind of calamity to cause that unfortunate time to reappear. It would not be any surprise to see this happen under--

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I counted, I think my colleague raised four points.

First, with regard to Premier Williams and Newfoundland and Labrador, I know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be speaking in a moment in more detail and more broadly on that, but we did keep our campaign commitments. I think Danny Williams will be very delighted to hear the speech from my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, from St. John's, addressing that issue and how good this budget will in fact be for Newfoundland and Labrador.

On the issue of the environment, with respect to my good friend, the member for Vaughan, we will not be taking lectures from Liberals on how to get results on the environment. We have put forward the clean air act, Bill C-30, which is now before its own independent parliamentary committee. We are approaching this with open minds and open hearts on how to achieve the best possible results for our environment.

However, while we recognize that climate change is the most important issue on the environment front right now that Canadians and the global community want us to address, it is not the only front on which we need to take action on the environment, which is why I mentioned the important steps that our government took in protecting our coastal waters from the dumping of raw sewage, pollution, garbage, paint, effluent and bilge water from ships. We are banning all that to ensure that our coastal waters will be clean.

We are taking a multifaceted approach to the environment, dealing with protecting our waters, protecting our land, protecting our soil, protecting our air and also dealing with the issue of climate change internationally.

With regard to tax cuts, my colleague dealt with the issue two ways. I do not think my colleague will ever accuse Andrew Coyne and John Williamson of being good Liberals with regard to the budget, so I am surprised that he is quoting Andrew Coyne and John Williamson who are both good friends of mine, but, frankly, we have a disagreement with John Williamson and Andrew Coyne, I take it, on this budget. However, for every $3 in surplus, we put $2 toward tax relief.

The vast majority of our tax relief will go toward families, especially in suburban communities like my own, because we think the people who are facing the biggest financial crunch in our society are new and young families. I think about my sister and my brother-in-law Dave, my little niece Abby, my other sister and her husband Tony, and my other niece--

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question concerning consultation. The member made this one of the key elements, that is, the lack of consultation by the government, particularly with a group that is most affected by the piece of legislation being discussed.

It is reminiscent of what had happened, and on which we heard testimony just recently, on another government bill, Bill C-30, the alleged clean air act, where the AFN came before the committee and was asked directly by myself and others what level of consultation it had received. The government had made a whole series of presumptions about first nations involvement around the environment, particularly around carbon sinks and the use of massive tracts of land. The AFN had a longstanding dispute with the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative one. The element of consultation had been left off the table. The government just proceeded to go ahead with legislation and decision making before consulting.

Many Canadians watching this will be confused. The reason this is such a critical point is it has been proven time and time again in the courts, from coast to coast to coast in this country. First nations have gone to seek rights and due diligence from government, and the courts have interpreted our Constitution and our laws, and said that the government has an obligation to consult prior to making those decisions.

I know the member has a number of first nations in his riding. With respect to mining in particular, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which his government brought in, had no real basis for serious and concrete consultation, which led the Tahltan and the TRT, the Taku River Tlingit, and a number of other groups, to long litigation battles, seeking just the common decency of consultation.

Is it not time that we do a broad cast across a number of pieces of legislation, not just this badly designed one, but a series of them, because government is clearly not willing to listen, no matter which political side of the spectrum it is, to the courts, to the first nations people? Should we not truly engage in real consultation with the first nations people?

The Environment

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on Bill C-30, a very good bill. For the first time in Canada's history, greenhouse gases and air quality will be regulated. I hope that this bill will have the support of the Bloc Québécois because it is very important for the health of Canadians.

Bill C-288--Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-288. The summary of the bill reads:

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. It requires the Minister of the Environment to establish an annual Climate Change Plan and to make regulations respecting climate change. It also requires the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise the Minister—to the extent that it is within its purpose—on the effectiveness of the plans, and requires the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to submit to the Speaker of the House of Commons a report of the progress in the implementation of the plans.

I took the time to read out the summary for the House so as to be clear for the members present and the public viewing today about just what we have before us for debate. I want Canadians to understand this bill, because in essence it highlights very clearly the failure of the Liberals when they were in government and in particular of their current leader when he had control of the environment file and did not himself proceed with just the actions that are listed in this bill today.

When the Kyoto protocol was signed, I can recall very vividly my personal sense that finally there would be action on this most critical issue. One can imagine that as time wore on it became clear that the Liberal government of the day was only engaging in smoke and mirrors on the issue or, worse, did not grasp the significance to the peoples of Canada and the world that a failure to act--yes, a failure--would have and what would result.

In every sense of the word, the Liberals in control of the environment file failed Canadians by not ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions were brought under control and lowered. Now we know the degree of that failure. Greenhouse gas emissions soared by 26% by 2004.

Other countries such as Germany, which was required to lower its emissions by 8%, actually got them down to 17.2% by 2004. As for the United Kingdom, we all have seen the movies about the smokestacks of England and the horrendous record it is supposed to have. It was required to reduce by 8% and got it down by 14%. Russia, which had a zero requirement, came down by 32% by 2004. In contrast, the United States rose by 15.8% by 2004. The worst of the pack was Canada, which was up by 26.6% by 2004.

Day in and day out, while the Liberals went about their self-absorbed lives of entitlement, not only our environment but ordinary Canadians paid a heavy price. Our air and our water got dirtier. Smog days grew more frequent and worse.

Throughout the years since signing on to Kyoto, Canada has lost its opportunity to assume a leadership role on this file. Somewhat like Nero, as the Liberals fiddled our air quality worsened, our rivers were dirtied, and our weather began to change, with clear patterns of increasingly worse storms, with deluges and with winds of unprecedented violence.

The Liberal deathbed conversion symbolized in this bill may well be heartfelt, I will give them that, but the Liberal record on greenhouse gas emissions is what it is. This bill will not change those facts. As late as it is, Bill C-288, also known as the Kyoto protocol implementation act, is worthy of support and will have it from our party when it comes time for a vote in the House.

However, it is deeply troubling that it is the Liberals in opposition putting forward such strong Kyoto language when they could have done it all while they were in government.

Because of the lack of action to date, we now have the forests of western Canada being decimated by the pine beetle because it is now able to survive in our climate whereas it previously could not withstand the cold here. Our winter service ice roads are now unstable and melting much faster than usual, making it difficult to get food and supplies to our isolated communities in the north.

Let us look at the damage being done to our winter resorts, which have faced green grass far into the normal tourist season. The winter sports economy is but one example of the beginning of very serious economic problems that ordinary people are beginning to face today.

I can tell this House emphatically that the NDP has always been on record as demanding that our federal government do more to ensure that it meets and exceeds Kyoto targets.

Notwithstanding this bill, our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-377, entitled “a climate change accountability act”, which would serve as an effective framework to achieve science-based greenhouse gas emission controls and reduce targets beyond Kyoto.

This member is proud of the fact that it was our party and our leader who broke the logjam to get something done on climate change and on pollution.

The climate change accountability act means that Canada will start to meet the challenges of climate change today, not in decades.

The core of the NDP's Bill C-377 is based on science-based benchmarks, not arbitrary ones as found in the clean air act.

Bill C-377 has short, medium and long term targets.

Bill C-377 will get the government moving immediately, because within six months of its passage the government must develop and publish a target for 2015, and regulations to meet the bill's targets must be in place no later than December 31, 2007.

Sometimes in this House it feels like we have to drag other parties to the altar, so to speak, with the Liberals' inaction over the many years of their mandate and now the Conservative clean air act, which is euphemistically called the hot air act in environmental circles.

Today, thanks to our Bill C-30, there is an opportunity for real action on climate change. I call upon all parties to stop the posturing, stop the obstruction and get to work with the NDP to get the job done.

People often ask why I ran to represent Hamilton East--Stoney Creek in this auspicious place. I ran for two reasons: the vision and the passion of the leader of the NDP and my anger over the abject failure of the Liberal Party over the last 13-plus years. Five surplus budgets and three majority governments and still too many Canadians go hungry, still too many Canadians sleep in the streets, and Canadians face an uncertain future because of the Dion gap of runaway greenhouse gas emissions.

I could have decided to stand outside of this place and rail against the government. Instead, I came in to work with the NDP caucus to ensure we all get the job done for ordinary Canadians. I call upon this House to work with the Bill C-30 committee, using Bill C-377, Bill C-288 and the best science available to change the clean air act to effective environmental legislation.

I am getting a little too emotional here and I have to pause. This is so critical and so important to our country. We must come together as parliamentarians and get this job done.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question regarding the domestic carbon market. The minister made it very clear that he will not entertain sending billions of dollars outside of Canada. Those dollars are going to be staying here in Canada. The Montreal exchange could be set up right now. There is nothing stopping that, but what we need is a regulatory, mandatory framework and that is Bill C-30. That is part of the notice of intent.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister quoted Professor Boyd from UBC. It is unfortunate that the member was in a bad mood yesterday. He attacked the minister. He attacked the Auditor General at the committee. He must have got up on the wrong side of the bed.

The government is committed to working with all parties, including the opposition. We need to have a real plan. The plan is Bill C-30, not Bill C-288. I encourage the member to start working and stop obstructing.

Opposition Motion— Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of most Canadians that there is a big issue before us on the environment.

Our Conservative government clearly understands that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. They want clean water and air, and most of all they want action. They do not want just empty words that they have heard for so very long on the climate file. There is really no doubt about that fact.

The government is taking some concrete action that was already promised during our campaign last fall and in the first part of this year. We have actually followed through on some of those things already. We are moving forward with some pretty concrete and specific results.

The most obvious example of late of course is Bill C-30 which is the clean air act, which is now before a legislative committee of the House. That legislation lays out a very solid and workable plan. It makes a fundamental change in the approach of the federal government with respect to air pollution, and also greenhouse gases, a change which is vital and crucial to the health of Canadians.

We can compare that of course to the record of the previous Liberal government as it stalled on the environment over some 13 years actually. For many of those years I was there and served as a member when the stalling occurred. The Liberals racked up a lot of rhetoric, a lot of verbal diarrhea, as some would say over that time, and stalled due to a lack of realistic goals.

The previous Liberal government stalled because a timid government was unwilling to step up and accept its responsibility in concrete terms for fear of giving offence to others. It stalled as well because of the clear failure to accept that simple truth that Canadians already know. Canadians cannot be healthy without clean air.

The Liberal regime may not have been willing to act, but the Conservative government certainly is and is committed to do that in very practical and concrete ways. The government respects the objectives and principles of the Kyoto protocol. We are committed to making some real progress toward achieving those objectives.

However, we do face a challenge and I think we need to be honest to admit that, a challenge made greater by the inaction of the previous Liberal government as it failed to set up and then to follow up with clear priorities for greenhouse gases and air pollution reductions.

The path toward a new and a more realistic approach requires an approach that we have started through, in fact, the clean air act. It requires an approach based on targets that will mean immediate and also long term health benefits for all Canadians.

It is important to understand that the government is looking at clean air in a comprehensive way. We believe that we can ensure that Canadians receive health benefits from cleaner air now and we can take actions that will address also the longer term issues of climate change.

I want to comment a bit on the health considerations of our actions because this is where it really gets down to each one of us. The health of Canadians has been the focus of the government since the very beginning. Beyond the legitimate focus of our government, our partners and Canadians on health care, we understand the need to be concerned about the many determinants of an individual's health, such as genetics and behaviour. Air quality is also a big part of that.

For decades scientists have assembled and gathered evidence together on the health effects of air pollution, not just the killer smogs off in London and Los Angeles in the past but right now in our major cities across Canada as well. They know that air pollution causes premature mortality, hospital visits, lung cancer, and cardiac and respiratory illnesses. They know that air pollution results in increased absenteeism from school and work. Outdoor air pollution in Canadian cities also contributes to some 5,900 deaths per year from stroke, cardiac and lung disease. That impact is not evenly distributed throughout our society among Canadians but rather, air pollution has its greatest impact on children, the elderly and also the very frail.

In fact, in Toronto during the summer, smog is a factor in 35% of acute respiratory hospital admissions in children under the age of two. Individuals with diabetes, asthma, emphysema, heart disease, and circulatory disease are at greater risk on days when air pollution is high.

Those statistics have more than personal impacts. They have impacts on our health care system and our economy. In fact, in Ontario alone the costs of lost productivity due to air pollution are estimated to be some billion dollars per year.

I think Canadians understand this. In fact, more than half of Canadians believe that air pollution will eventually have a negative impact on their very own health. A full third of Canadians believe that air pollution has already had some kind of an impact upon them.

The Conservative Party believes that these Canadians are right. We believe the scientists are right. The government introduced Bill C-30 to address these concerns. That is why the government is charting a new and dynamic path.

The government introduced Bill C-30 to kick-start effective action that was so lacking until now. On this issue, as on so many others, we know that effective action is possible if there is a will. We know that taking--

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. When we have a serious problem, what do we do? We set mandatory standards. That has never been done. Never has a government dared to do that before us. Never will the Bloc Québécois have the audacity to say it will regulate.

I currently sit on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30. We have heard experts such as Claude Villeneuve say yesterday that, in the current state of affairs and since nothing happened in the past 10 years, we cannot meet our obligations in the very short term.

We have to set mandatory targets and that is what we are trying to do. We are introducing a bill. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to help pass this bill so that we can finally set restrictive targets. However, as long as this bill is blocked, we will not be able to do anything. People need to realize that this government is determined to act in a clear, compelling and concrete manner.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, how my friends amuse me. We are talking about solving the fiscal imbalance in the next budget. It may be better to curb our zeal. If the matter was so urgent, why did our Bloc Québécois colleague vote against having additional meetings for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Why did he vote to send Bill C-288 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Was it an attempt to waste the government's time on the report on Bill C-30 that was to be tabled? Why did he invite a ton of witnesses? Again, was it to delay Bill C-30? My Bloc Québécois friends and colleagues make me laugh when they puff themselves up and turn on the dramatics because when it comes time to take action, they slam on the brakes.