Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Order, please.

Madam Duncan.

December 8th, 2009 / 11:10 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

I move that Bill C-311 be deemed to have been considered clause-by-clause and be reported back to the House without amendment.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I have a motion on the floor. I guess we'll have to debate this motion.

I was going to take the time as I called the meeting to order to describe what we, as a committee, need to do with the bill. It's Standing Order 97.1(1) and that we are studying the bill.

Standing Order 97.1(1) reads:

A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill

--which we've already done....

and giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days where no extension has been approved by the House

--which is on December 10--

the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

This is the instruction we have from Standing Order 97.1(1).

So with that, I will allow debate on Madam Duncan's motion.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

My understanding is that it's a dilatory motion. Is it not?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

No, it's not a dilatory motion. This is a debatable motion, so we do have debate on it. If it's a motion to adjourn, then it would be a dilatory motion. That's non-debatable.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Chair, would you like me to speak to it first?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

You can speak to it.

Madam Duncan.

11:10 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Certainly.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I have tabled this motion because, to the best of my knowledge, no amendments have been brought forward and there's been a lot of time spent reviewing the bill. Therefore, I think it's defensible and logical that the bill simply be reported back.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Mr. Warawa.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Chair, I appreciate having the time to comment.

We have Bill C-311 before us because it passed in the House. We've been consistent as a government with our target of a 20% reduction by 2020, using 2006 as the reference year. We've heard in the discussion of Bill C-311 that it's not a good bill. We've heard from every witness that the government's harmonized continental approach is the correct one. Even every witness who supported Bill C-311--some did and some didn't--said the government's continental harmonized approach was the right one.

There were different opinions on what target we should be using. We heard that Bill C-311 would result in a dramatic increase in costs of energy for Canadians. One of the examples was gasoline going from $1 a litre to $2.50 a litre. Canadians don't want that. We heard that Bill C-311 would kill jobs. There would be a departure of jobs from Canada because we would no longer be competitive.

Bill C-311 is calling for a 39% increase in Canada's commitment. It would not be comparable to what other countries are doing. It would be much more onerous and would put Canada at a disadvantage. As a government, our responsibility is to come up with a balanced approach for a cleaner environment, but also to protect jobs and provide a healthy economy. Bill C-311 does not do that.

We've been consistent from the get-go in expressing those concerns in the House. The Liberals even called it the tiddlywink bill, yet they voted for it and sent it to this standing committee. In hindsight--and hindsight is always 20/20--I'm sure the Liberals are thinking maybe they should not have supported this and sent it to this committee. But here it is. So what do we do with it?

Our government has been consistently opposed to Bill C-311. A preferred route would be to send it back to the House to gut it. Send it back with its title and that would be the end of it. The choice we're now faced with is to send it back unamended, and I think we will support that. It needs to end its life back in the House, and we will be opposing it in the House. But we support sending it back unamended now, with a clear understanding that we will not be supporting it in the House. It needs to die a quick death.

Canada does have a plan. Canada does have targets. We're going to Copenhagen. The minister is heading there and we need to have one united voice. Our plan is a realistic one with realistic targets that will create the balance of a cleaner environment. It will create jobs. Bill C-311 would take us away from that.

We will support the motion reluctantly, but only so the bill gets back to the House where we can kill it.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Mr. McGuinty.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to take a few minutes just to put on the record where the Liberal Party of Canada, the official opposition, is right now with respect to this bill.

Our view in the Liberal Party is that Bill C-311 is effectively and essentially a call for a national climate change plan. It in no way constitutes a national climate change plan. It is a call for a national climate change plan. That's an important call, but it's not anything, for example, like the 1,428-page bill before the American Congress, a copy of which I brought here in the last meeting for the minister's interest. It's nowhere near a plan.

The elements, for example, set out in the American legislation are complete. They're complete because they embrace the entire American economy. They embrace different industrial sectors. They embrace the science. The measures embrace a trading system. They embrace the use of international credits. They embrace the proper pricing of carbon. It is a complete bill, and in and of itself, in the United States context, it constitutes a complete plan being negotiated through Capitol Hill today, engaging at least three major committees in the United States Senate. More, of course, Mr. Chair, will be engaged, as we know, post-Copenhagen. More committees and more dialogue will go on in the United States throughout the winter and the spring.

The second point I want to make is that Minister Prentice said this week that in no way would he be swayed by “hype” around the Copenhagen conference. I'm not sure what he means by hype. I don't think the climate change crisis is hype. I'm sure the Bloc Québécois doesn't believe it's hype. I'm quite sure the NDP doesn't believe it's hype. For that matter, I don't think that most Canadians, 82% of whom yesterday revealed that they're not at all happy with the government's performance on climate change, would accept that this is hype either.

If Minister Prentice won't be swayed by hype and international pressure, and in advance of the very international multi-party negotiation that we're entering he announces to the world at large that there is nothing to negotiate, that's hardly the way to start an international multi-party negotiation--“We have nothing to negotiate. That's our position.” So if he's not going to be swayed by hype, and he's not going to be swayed either by the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which is Canadian law--in fact, the Conservatives are challenging the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act at Federal Court--then I don't believe that Minister Prentice is going to be swayed by an NDP bill, a private member's bill, which is a call for a plan. Because it's not a plan; it's a call for a plan.

I think at a certain point in time, several years ago, it was important to lay down some track to call for a plan. It's also important for us to remember what's been going on around Bill C-311, and remind Canadians what was done predating Bill C-311, in a previous Parliament, when the government sent a Clean Air Act to a special legislative committee. That Clean Air Act was sent to that special legislative committee and it was rewritten. It was supported by not one, not two, not three, but four political parties in Canada--three of which are represented in the House of Commons, and one, the Green Party, which is not. But four major political parties in the country supported the revamped and improved clean air and climate change act.

The government decided, in its own sense of wisdom, to prorogue Parliament and kill the bill. That's very unfortunate because in that clean air and climate change act was a complete plan for Canada. It spoke about carbon pricing, about how we would allocate permits. It contemplated a domestic and international trading system that reinvested revenues from the allocation and auctioning of permits into different provinces. It created a green investment bank. All of this was killed by the Prime Minister when he decided to prorogue Parliament, for the first time in his short duration as Prime Minister of Canada. That was a plan. That was a plan for Canada that was agreed to by four major political parties, and it was killed using a blunt object called prorogation—killed by the Prime Minister.

Point number three is that we believe Bill C-311 is irresponsible in its incompleteness. It's interesting to see the NDP now looking to rush through a private member's bill, having had the benefit of 33 expert witnesses to speak to the bill and not bringing a single amendment forward to improve a bill that was drafted over three years ago. There was not a single amendment. The leader of the NDP was here and said “Where are yours?” Mr. Chair, this is not a Liberal bill; this is the New Democratic Party's bill. It's their responsibility and the private member's responsibility to improve, to attempt to perfect, to ameliorate, the bill that was drafted over three years ago. But as we've learned this morning, there is not a single amendment being tabled by the NDP.

I think that speaks volumes about whether the NDP is serious about Canada arriving at a credible climate change plan domestically and internationally. In our view, they are not. If they were, they would be addressing a number of issues that I'm going to speak to now. Again for the record, there were 33 witnesses and not a single amendment, even though having reviewed the evidence, in my mind we've heard from at least six witnesses calling for specific changes to improve the bill and arrive at a stronger proposal—not just a call for a plan, but a stronger proposal—to embrace all the essential elements of a plan that should be embraced by a government.

I would like to talk about some of those right now. I want to speak first to what the bill purports to do with respect to interim targets. The bill calls for 25% reductions below 1990 levels by the year 2020. Yet we have heard from extraordinarily competent witnesses, such as the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the World Resources Institute, the Pew Charitable Trust in Washington, asking for clarification on how we would achieve these very ambitious targets, what the plan would look like, what the price of carbon would be, and whether the price of carbon would be fungible with American and/or Mexican and/or European carbon pricing.

There are serious concerns around these interim targets. If the NDP— and it's the mover of the bill—was seriously concerned about holding everyone to a minimum 25% cut in absolute terms from 1990, then the NDP would properly, right now, be taking to task the premiers of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and every other single provincial administration in the country that has not embraced the 25% reduction from 1990 levels.

Why isn't the NDP chiding the premier of Quebec, Monsieur Charest?

Its reductions, or targets, are only 20% with respect to 1990. Why not attack the premier of Ontario, Mr. McGuinty, whose targets are only 15%, and British Columbia, whose targets are only 13%?

Instead we see that the NDP is holding fast to a number that's very important, a number that we should aspire to be at, but a number that's not backstopped, in this bill, with a plan to achieve it. It's not to say that the Conservative government has a plan, because we've established through the testimony of 33 witnesses that there is absolutely no plan as we enter into these multi-party negotiations in Copenhagen. The bill is irresponsible in its incompleteness, primarily because of the interim targets.

Let us now turn to another part of the bill that is incomplete. I find it difficult to understand how any party, any federal party in our modern federation, could support paragraph 7(1)(b), which has the federal government dictating to provinces the cuts they will be expected to achieve. How is that possible? There is no constitutional authority for this. It would immediately lead to a constitutional crisis. In fact, it would ignite one. It would send different provinces over the top in seeking to clarify where their constitutional authorities begin and end. It would prejudge the outcome of what's already happening, where, in the absence of a federal plan from a Conservative government, provinces have gone it alone. They've gone it alone. Eight out of ten provinces have already committed to cuts averaging 14% below 1990 levels by 2020. Two other provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, have not. These are tough challenges for a national government to crack. Unfortunately, this federal government has done nothing to bring together our provinces and territories in advance of this complex multi-party negotiation in Copenhagen.

This bill tramples on provincial jurisdiction. I can't speak for the Bloc Québécois, but I would assume they would be deeply disturbed about having Quebec told that its 20% target was not sufficient or perhaps too aggressive and that the federal government would cut or enhance its target. We don't see that as the way to proceed in a mature federation in the 21st century, and we are concerned.

Take the Province of Ontario. It is drafting its own tradeable permit legislation to join up with the western climate initiative in the western United States. They've had to go it alone, just as they've had to go it alone in negotiations in Washington. They don't work through the federal government anymore; neither does Quebec. They don't even pretend to, because there has been no leadership from this federal regime, none whatsoever. They have their own climate change secretariats, they have a deputy minister equivalent working in the premier's office, and they're pursuing their own negotiations. They are not waiting for the laggard Reform/Conservative Party. It's too late now. They can't pull this together and they know it.

Under paragraph 7(1)(b), there are some serious concerns that Canadians have manifested in testimony. Within the four corners of this statute, there are some fundamental challenges. The NDP has heard these challenges and has failed to address them in the form of amendments. That's the second and profoundly disturbing part of this bill.

We've heard other testimony about the extent of the powers this bill invests in the executive. This transcends the allocation of targets on a province-by-province basis. These haven't been addressed by legal counsel, the NDP, or anyone else. So there are some serious concerns about investing additional powers in the executive, which--

11:25 a.m.

A voice

Excuse me. This delegation of peaceful citizens demands climate action from our government. For 75% of Canadians, who are embarrassed by our government's inaction—

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

I'm going to suspend the meeting until we get order in the room.

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

We're back in session.

I want to thank security for their great work in bringing order back to the chamber.

Mr. McGuinty, you have the floor.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps I could continue addressing the merits of the bill.

I'd like to turn now to arguably the most obvious omission, which the NDP, by the way, have been made aware of repeatedly, publicly and privately, and they have since come to committee here this morning and have failed to address it. That is the whole question, Mr. Chair, of the fact that this bill does not embrace the use of the CDM and joint implementation and international credit mechanisms.

Mr. Chair, since 1992, when the UNFCCC was crafted, there's been a worldwide acknowledgement that the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental outcomes was going to be essential going forward. That is why, in the Kyoto Protocol, for example, Canada and the United States pushed hardest to see the inclusion of a tradeable permit scheme in that protocol, because the United States in particular and we as a country drew on the experience in the United States under the U.S. Clean Air Act, where it became clear that achieving reductions of smog precursors, chiefly from electrical utility generation stations, could be done so using market mechanisms more efficiently and at reduced cost.

Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, the notion of a tradeable permit scheme was devised and went on to considerable success. From that point forward, the planet--all those countries that have signed on to UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol--agreed that we would use market mechanisms to achieve those reductions. We would also use market mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism and joint implementation, to address the crucial problem of technology transfer between wealthy and developing countries. We would facilitate that transfer of technology. We would see flows of investments, which have been described by the Prime Minister as a socialist plot to transfer wealth from the north to the south, betraying, as an economist, his fundamental ignorance of the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental improvement.

But everyone has agreed that we would need the use of these mechanisms to move forward and to harness the power of the market and to create, as Deutsche Bank has suggested, by 2020, if we have a fully fledged international trading system up and running, a carbon exchange market, which they project will be larger than every stock exchange in the world in existence today combined.

So why the NDP have omitted any reference to market mechanisms, any reference to the use of international credits and international offsets, is a great mystery. What the bill then implies is that we're going to have to achieve in this country interim reductions and longer-term reductions, with which we take less issue, but the interim reductions, that is, entirely domestically. Here, the NDP is in very good company, because they share this position with the Reform/Conservatives.

The Reform/Conservatives will tell us that Canada is going to achieve “their” feeble targets without the use of international trading, international credits, or international offsets. In fact, Mr. Chair, we're the only country in Copenhagen right now--the only country--first of all, without a plan, and secondly, the only country that's denying...until, I predict, next week when the minister will be reeled out of his corner on the use of international credits, just as he was reeled out of his corner last week on absolute reductions versus intensity reductions. We're the only country denying that we're going to be using international credits and offsets to achieve our domestic reductions. It is nonsensical beyond belief, Mr. Chair. In fact, it's reckless and irresponsible.

Every European country that achieved its Kyoto Protocol targets did so by purchasing a minimum of 20% of their reductions offshore, by using credits and using offsets.

The United States has as a central element of its entire plan the use of international credits. The government says we're going to be fungible, connectable, with the United States. We are not going to be fungible and connectable with the United States if we don't have absolute targets. They've already climbed down on that, Mr. Chair. And we certainly aren't going to be fungible or connectable with the United States if we don't use international credits and offsets on a continental and global basis. The use of international credits and the use of enhanced market mechanisms are among the top three areas of profound negotiation that will commence in Copenhagen right now, as we speak.

This bill has nothing. It is incomplete by virtue of the fact that it doesn't embrace market mechanisms and doesn't provide for the use of international credits. Worse, the NDP, having heard all this expert testimony, refuses to bring the amendments necessary to correct its own bill, which is, to our mind, its responsibility.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the bill speaks in clause 10 of a just transition fund. That's a noble call, again, for a just transition fund for industry. In principle, we support the notion, as described here, of “spending or fiscal incentives, including a just transition fund for industry”, but we have no idea what that means. It would be important for the NDP, in my mind, to go further and help describe what that means.

We've had many meetings with the Canadian Labour Congress and other groups that are calling for a just transition fund for industry. It may be about cushioning the blow for workers who are vulnerable because of the retrofitting and upgrading of manufacturing facilities in the country. We don't know. It would be important to clarify, through amendment, what that actually means.

All other parts of the bill are worthy of support. The official opposition strongly supports the preamble section that calls for Canada to respect the science of climate change, and, quoting the bill, “to stay within two degrees of global warming and thereby prevent dangerous climate change”. We believe strongly in the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development contemplated in the bill. It was our government that created the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development office, and our party continues to call for its full independence as an officer of Parliament.

We strongly support the role of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in pronouncing itself on any eventual plan. However, the chair of the board of the NRTEE came here and told the NDP and this committee that the NRTEE, in his view, was not seized with this responsibility, was not resourced for this responsibility. Don't take that testimony at face value. But as a person who helped build the national round table for almost nine years, I think there is a role for the round table to help Canada move forward on climate change.

The offences and penalties are appropriate. The expected reductions, generally writ, are appropriate.

There is another problem with the bill. Under subclause 9(2) it says:

Regulations made under subsection (1) to ensure Canada meets the target referred to in paragraph 5(a) and each of the interim Canadian greenhouse gas emission targets referred to in section 6 shall be made, amended or repealed under paragraph 9(1)(c)

(a) on or before December 31, 2009, in the case of the target for 2015

We know that this is absolutely not achievable. It is December 8. It is not possible to get this bill through the House of Commons and the Senate by December 31 to receive royal assent. Again, there are no amendments forthcoming from the NDP to correct a very obvious and gaping hole in their own bill.

Finally, with respect to the call for a plan and the notion of laying out plans on a five-year basis, we strongly support holding the government to account and compelling them to deliver a plan.

The official opposition has concluded that the Reform/Conservatives don't want a plan. They don't want a plan before the next election, Mr. Chair, because they don't want to move to put a price on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system. They have resisted every call to table a comprehensive plan for Canada. There is no bill, no regulations, no price on carbon, no emissions trading system. Provinces have completely overtaken the federal government.

So in the sense that this bill will call on the government and compel the government to come up with a plan, we're extraordinarily supportive, because it is the conclusion here on the official opposition side that they will not deliver a plan. They won't deliver it for a few reasons. One reason is, having mounted such a dishonest shock-and-awe campaign in the last election campaign about pricing energy by pricing carbon emissions, the government and the Reform/Conservative Party have backed themselves into a corner. And they won't tell Canadians the truth, which is that we have to put a price on carbon emissions; we will be dragged there by the American administration.

This is where it's very interesting, Mr. Chair, because the Reform/Conservatives have become Democrats by convenience. They will now blame their former brethren, the Republican Party, for apparently not being open to negotiation over the three years in which they had a direct line to the White House. Apparently there was no way of having negotiation.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

A point of order, Mr. Warawa. It had better be a point of order.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

It is, Chair.

The discussion and comments made by Mr. McGuinty have to be relevant. They have to relate to the motion that is before the committee, and he is now digressing and talking about the Republican Party in the United States. He has to stay on topic.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

You do have to be relevant, Mr. McGuinty, so I ask—

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Absolutely.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

—that you get right to the point.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

My point is, sir, that in the context of Bill C-311 and its implementability in Canada, it's important to acknowledge where we are today and where we're coming from. That's why it's important for Canadians to revisit the relationship between this government and the previous American administration and the existing one. It's the minister of this government who is apparently heralding his great energy dialogue with the Obama administration, hiding behind it on a daily basis. I think that's completely relevant to this bill and this discussion.

They are Democrats by convenience, Mr. Chair, and they're Democrats by convenience because it's all about hiding and bobbing and weaving and simply not telling Canadians the truth, which is that we have to put a price on carbon emissions, on greenhouse gas emissions; we have to change the economics of fossil fuels and carbon emissions in the country, bring in a full suite of measures: fiscal, spending, support, adjustment, adaptation, both domestically and internationally. All of these have to be embraced in a coherent suite of measures, as has been done in less than six months, yes, by the Obama administration. But four years later we have no such comprehensive suite, and as a result, Canada has no plan.

So Bill C-311 has all kinds of challenges inherent in it. As I said, it is equally irresponsible in its incompleteness, just as irresponsible as the federal government's irresponsibility in, now, 47 months and counting, not delivering a single statutory instrument, not a single bill, not a single proposed law, not a single private member's bill, not a single regulation for consideration by the House of Commons. That is why, at this stage, we will not be supporting sending this bill back to the House unamended, because it is deserving of amendment. It is deserving of us going through this on a clause-by-clause basis to expose for Canadians how important it is for Canada to get a serious climate change plan for this country. Unfortunately, it is too late now, in advance of the negotiations that have already commenced, but post-Copenhagen, Mr. Chair, it will be extraordinarily important for us to come back to this House of Commons and hold this government further to account and drag them out of their corner, reel the government out of its corner again, and get a meaningful plan for climate change for Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

Monsieur Bigras.

11:50 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I would like to say that we will be supporting the NDP motion that deems Bill C-311 to have been considered clause by clause and reported back to the House without amendment.

Why will we be voting in favour of this motion, Mr. Chair? First, as far as I know, neither the Liberal Party nor the Conservative Party has tabled any amendments. So we must accept that, even if we were to make grand speeches in this parliamentary committee, and say that we had to have clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and that it has to be amended because it does not meet our needs, the fact is that no amendments have been tabled in committee. A few weeks or meetings ago, you very clearly indicated the prescribed timelines for such proposals. No amendments have been proposed. Those who wanted to see the bill amended did not come forward with any amendments; they therefore inevitably and indirectly subscribe to the motion as presented. We will see whether or not the speeches and votes reflect the speeches that we will hear today in committee.

Why vote in favour of this motion? Second, because it is urgent that we take action, Mr. Chair. We must make sure that we have a bill, a climate change act, before the minister arrives in Copenhagen. Mr. Chair, it is completely unacceptable to find ourselves with a government that has no strategy, no plan, no regulations, and that has postponed the implementation of its climate change regulations two or three times. In the meantime, south of our border, at least three pieces of legislation, in both chambers, deal with this issue.

Just yesterday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency clearly stated that it considered CO2 emissions to be dangerous. South of the border, they see the need to take urgent action. They are already working, studying amendments to bills, whereas we find ourselves in a situation where we have an opportunity for a bill... We can agree or not. It is, nevertheless, incumbent on us to amend what is on the table to ensure that we have regulations as quickly as possible. There seems to be some bad faith here.

In all honesty, I think that this bill is consistent with a motion presented by the Bloc Québécois and adopted on November 25, 2009. According to that motion, we must first ensure that any proposal accepts the importance of limiting the rise in temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial era. Second, in order to comply with that scientific opinion, we need a strong commitment to reach a reduction of between 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, which is directly stated in this bill.

Mr. Chair, we are therefore studying a bill aimed at respecting the spirit of a motion adopted by a majority of parliamentarians on November 26, and whose objective was to establish a 25% reduction target using 1990 as the reference year. Members of our government will be going to Copenhagen where they will say that we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. What they are not saying, however, is that the reference year being used is 2006.

I would remind you of all the efforts that have been made in Quebec since 1990. The manufacturing sector in Quebec reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% based on 1990 levels. I should also mention sectors such as pulp and paper mills and aluminum smelters, which reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 15%, and all with no mention of intensity. In intensity, the aluminum sector's reductions in Quebec were 50%. In real reductions alone, the figure is 15%.

The Conservative government persists in its desire to use 2006 as the reference year. They want to start from zero. Why start from zero, Mr. Chair? For one reason only: to satisfy the demands of a single sector of Canada's economy, petroleum.

So this is not a fair proposal. In order for it to be fair, we would need to include paragraph 7(1)(b), which is aimed at limiting emissions on a provincial basis. My colleague, David McGuinty, is against it and does not understand why the Bloc is in favour of this provision. I must remind him why this paragraph is in Bill C-311; it was because of discussions with his Liberal Party colleague Pablo Rodriguez, when he introduced Bill C-288.

Surprisingly, at that time, the Liberals were very much in favour of paragraph 7(1)(b) because they felt that it provided greater flexibility. In their opinion, it made for a more asymmetrical federalism. We are proposing that Canada be able to negotiate an international commitment, setting greenhouse gas reduction targets for each province, exactly as is done in Europe. It is important to adopt a common, but differentiated approach, something that both Conservatives and Liberals have always promoted. It would have to apply here in Canada and we would have to use 1990 as the reference year. We would also have to participate in an international carbon market.

On one side, we have political parties suggesting a very weak 3% reduction target based on 1990 levels. On the other, we have a party whose targets are still not known. A great deal of time has been spent educating us about the three bills being debated in United States and we still do not know the target proposed by the official opposition. Is it 20%, 15%, 3%, 25%? Is it even higher? We have no idea.

But we do know—and this must be acknowledged—that the Liberals are adopting 1990 as the reference year, about which we are proud. We are pleased that the official opposition has understood that 1990 must be used as the reference year. So we find ourselves in a situation where the government is presenting us with an unfair, unambitious plan. We are hoping that the official opposition's position will reflect the votes that have already been held. What are these votes? There was the vote on Bill C-288, which sought to implement the Kyoto Protocol in Canada. There was also the vote on the Bloc motion, adopted by this Parliament on November 25, 2009, which called for an objective of no more than 2 degrees Celsius and a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. That is what we agreed to, in principle, by adopting Bill C-311 and this is was we repeated with the motion debated by the Bloc.

To conclude—I do not intend to filibuster—we will be voting in favour of this motion because it is urgent that we take action. The Copenhagen conference is taking place as we speak, and I think that it is important that the vote in this committee and in the House be unequivocally in favour of a bill that goes along with the recommendations made by scientists.

Thank you very much.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

Thank you.

Mr. Warawa, you have the floor.