Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for his comments. I have only one question.

The Liberals have said that they are unable to support this motion, due to ongoing negotiations with the industry. I would like him to comment on this.

As for the Conservatives, they say that it is very easy for the Bloc to support this motion, because there is no industry of this type in Quebec, and that this is why the Bloc will vote in favour of the NDP motion.

So, I would like the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to comment on the reasons why the Bloc is supporting this motion. Also, I would like to know if the two reasons mentioned by the two parties are true and whether this adds to the quality of debates in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start with my colleague's second statement repeating what my colleague from the Conservative Party said, namely that if we support the motion, it is because there is no automobile industry in Quebec.

It is rather facile to say this. What explains the fact that, yesterday, the Bloc was the only party in the House to propose legislation applying the Kyoto Protocol to all industrial sectors? Are they saying we propose that the manufacturing sector, which is the basis of Quebec's economy, should be excluded from the Kyoto protocol and should not have stricter standards? No, not at all. Quite to the contrary, if the automobile industry were the basis of Quebec's economy, we would call for exactly the same thing we are calling for for the manufacturing industry. That was the first thing.

Second, the government cannot go on negotiating forever with an industry that refuses to apply existing technology. I remind the House that, if the automobile industry said to the government, “We cannot improve the efficiency of our cars by 25% because the technology does not exist”, I might understand. But the technology does exist. If it exists, why does the industry not voluntarily use it? If the industry agreed to use it voluntarily, we would not be compelled today to debate a motion aimed at regulations.

We are debating stricter regulations for vehicle manufacturing precisely because the automobile industry has not been willing so far to incorporate existing technology in its manufacturing methods.

It is time now to stop shilly-shallying, to do something and introduce regulations, which, in my view, must go further than those proposed by the NDP, which must specify that vehicles have to be 25% more efficient, within a reasonable amount of time, of course, for the industry. The standard will have to be gradual, but it will have to be imposed.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to respond very briefly to my colleague in the Bloc. He mentioned being able to deduct transit passes. Even though it is not in our motion, that is something the NDP has supported in the past. Members will recall that a private member's bill or motion sponsored by the former NDP member for Kamloops, Nelson Riis, which called on the government to do that actually passed in the House. This is all the more reason for us to be critical of succeeding Liberal finance ministers and Liberal budgets for not putting into a budget something which the House of Commons itself at one time encouraged the government to do.

I will start my speech with a bit of a historical overview. Mr. Speaker, I also want to indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Windsor West.

I remember when the first mention of greenhouse gases was made in the House. It was around 1983. At that time 90% or even higher of the members of Parliament thought that maybe the member who raised it, an NDP member from Regina, Simon de Jong, was talking about some kind of new greenhouse in which to grow tomatoes or something. There was a look of absolute bafflement on the faces of many members of Parliament, at least those who were paying attention.

Here we are 22 years later, the day after a major international accord on greenhouse gases has come into effect and I wish that we were better positioned as a country and better positioned as parliamentarians to have something to celebrate. We celebrate the accord, but we have nothing to celebrate in the Canadian context yet, because we do not have a government that is fully committed to implementing that accord. We have a government which is committed to the appearance of implementing the accord, but not a government that we get the feeling at all is committed in its gut to really making this happen. It is absolutely critical that this be made to happen.

I want to tell a little story which I read in a book years ago when I was reading about the environmental crisis as it was seen then in the 1970s. The story may have been in Barry Commoner's book

Closing Circle.

Anyway, I ask hon. members to imagine a lily pond. The lily pond will be covered in lily pads in 28 days, but it will be covered in the following way. It will start off with one lily pad, then two lily pads, then four, then eight, then 16, then 32 , then 64. I do not want to go any higher lest I tax some of the Tory backbenchers, but members can see what I mean. These problems tend to grow exponentially. This is the problem with climate change and a lot of other environmental problems.

If that lily pond is to be covered in lily pads in 28 days and that process is taking place exponentially, on the 27th day of that 28 day process, how much of the pond will be left? Fifty per cent. We are sitting there on the 27th day and somebody is saying that if we do not do something about this, some day the lily pond will be covered and we will have a problem, because it is important to us to have open water. There will be people, whether they be Liberals, Conservatives or others, who will say, “What is with you guys? Half the pond is left. What are you worrying about? There is nothing to worry about”. Then on the 28th day, bingo, the game is over. The system has collapsed and it is too late to do anything about it.

This is the kind of process we are in when it comes to climate change. I do not know whether we are at the 27th day, the 26th day or the 25th day; I hope that we are at the 19th or 20th day, but we know that we are in a position where things could happen very fast. We could be putting the whole planetary environment at risk.

I am not under any illusions about the fact that Canada can do this by itself, but it would be a shame if a country with the resources that Canada has, the political, civil, spiritual and other resources that we have, could not bring itself to meaningfully implement the only global environmental accord that is there at the moment and on which the future of the planet depends. If we cannot do that, what kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? Countries that have fewer resources than we do, in that comprehensive meaning of the word resources, why should they even try?

We have a responsibility to the world, to the world's environment, even if we do not feel a responsibility to ourselves.

This is why we have urged the government to finally get serious about this. Getting serious about this means regulation.

We have already tried voluntary compliance. We have had this same story from government after government over the time that I have been here, “Let us just have those in the industry do it on their own”. They do not do it and they are not doing it now.

It does not bother us to regulate individual behaviour. We have regulated smokers almost out of existence. Why is it that it is okay to regulate and mandate the behaviour of individual Canadians, but when it comes to corporate behaviour, that is a different story? That would have economic effects.

Banning smoking has had economic effects on community clubs, on legions, on all kinds of things, but that is okay. Why is it okay? Because there is a higher environmental goal or health goal to be met and we expect those organizations, many of them community organizations that are being hurt by this, to abide by that in the name of the larger interest, but not corporations, no. When it comes to mandatory fuel emission standards or other kinds of emissions, whenever corporations do not like it then all of sudden, let us make it voluntary. What if we did that with the smoking bans that have been put in place across the country? Some restaurants can have smoking bans and others cannot.

On the face of it there seems to be a double standard. This is what bothers us. It bothers us because the empirical evidence has accumulated to the point where we know that depending on the industry to come up with voluntary emission standards and to actually implement them is just a fool's paradise.

I would like to think it is a fool's paradise, but it is actually a cynic's paradise. What it is is a Liberals' paradise, pretending that they are doing something when we know full well that it is not going to happen and therefore they are never going to have to answer to their corporate friends for making them behave in a way that they should be behaving anyway.

Apparently the Minister of Natural Resources said that they do not want to pass this motion because they are right in the middle of negotiations. Would it not be something for the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment to have in their back pockets a motion passed by the Parliament of Canada, by the representatives of the people of Canada, which says that we want mandatory regulation of emission standards? Would that not be something to have on the table when they are negotiating? What kind of negotiator is he anyway? Does he want to go there with his hands tied behind his back, or does he want to go there with something in his hand that matters; the will of the people of Canada to have their government finally do something about this problem?

The Minister of the Environment apparently said that California brought in compulsory emission standards but it only did that after voluntary emission standards did not work. Where has the Minister of the Environment been? He thinks it is working here. Apparently he said, “We are not there yet”.

Why should we have to wait? It is almost an admission that he has to go through this process. He knows in advance that it is not going to work, but he has to go through this process first. In the meantime the air gets dirtier, more people have asthma, more people die, but that is okay because we would not want the Liberals to have suffered any discomfort in their relationship with their corporate friends.

For all these reasons, and lots more could be said, I would certainly encourage individual members to support this motion. Even if their parties cannot bring themselves to support this motion, perhaps there are Liberal and Tory backbenchers who could bring themselves to support the motion because they know that ultimately this is what is going to have to happen, and the sooner it happens, the better.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member's support of the motion is based on the premise of failure, that somehow the negotiations which are currently going on with the auto sector are doomed to fail.

He asked about a backup plan. Presumably when we negotiate, we negotiate in good faith. When we negotiate in good faith, we indicate the target that we have set, that we want the auto industry to meet it and that we are going to be able to monitor that target.

If in fact there were failure, then I would presume we would have to go to the next step. However, the fact that this motion is before the House suggests somehow that there will be failure.

We have more confidence in our negotiators. We have more confidence in the fact that the industry, which has signed 14 MOUs over the years, is prepared to work with the government. Members have talked about major contributors to parties. I guess they have not heard of Bill C-24. I guess they do not know what the workers in the auto sector clearly have indicated. As far as I am concerned we want to have jobs and a strong environment. If they cannot live with that, that is their choice.

What kind of negotiations is the member looking at when in fact we have set a target and we are asking the industry to meet it?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right in that our motion is based on a perception of failure. It is based on a perception of persistent failure on the part of the government to do its job, and the persistent failure on the part of the corporate sector to do its job. Yes, we do not have any confidence in the people who are negotiating on behalf of the government.

The parliamentary secretary may have confidence in the people who are negotiating on behalf of the government, but that says something about his gullibility, not ours.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I expect that this resolution is a continuation of the excellent question by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona yesterday on the failure of the government to meet the Kyoto agreement. Of course the Liberal answer to that is to have a conference in Montreal.

I do not know whether the member had a chance to watch CPAC last night, but Jay Myers of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said, and I am paraphrasing, that if we took every car and truck in Canada off the road today, we would not meet Canada's Kyoto target; if we were to shut down every manufacturing plant in Canada today, we would not meet Canada's Kyoto target.

My question for the member for Elmwood—Transcona is, if the NDP agrees with these statements, and it probably will not, is the New Democratic Party living in a dream world?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no one has ever suggested that any one particular sector by itself, even if it was completely removed, could meet the Kyoto target. To me, this is kind of a straw man set up by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters or anybody else who simply does not want to engage in the kind of change that is required in order to prevent climate change.

In the end, those people's children and grandchildren are going to live in the same screwed up environment as the rest of us. Why can they not see that? Why are they caught in this paradigm paralysis that they cannot see beyond the way they have always done things to see that we have to change our way of doing things instead of coming up with these rather petty reductio ad absurdum arguments that are supposed to lay us to waste. We are supposed to listen to them and say, “Oh, wow, let us forget it then. Let us just go on doing things the way we have been doing them”.

The fact of the matter is that we can meet our Kyoto commitments by having the kind of comprehensive plan that the NDP itself has put on the table. It is a combination of things, from very simple things like having a tax system that would allow people to deduct the cost of their bus passes, to massive retrofitting of buildings, to building the east-west hydro grid that has been waiting to be built for so long, to getting serious about public mass transit. The list goes on of things we could be doing. We could invest in renewable energy, solar and wind power, instead of continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry. No one thing is going to do it. We need to do all these things together.

To do that, we need to have a government that has the will and a government that has a plan. So far we have neither.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about this issue. This motion is very important.

To continue with the thoughts related to the fact that there are negotiations going on right now, I think it would be a position of strength for the negotiation team to have Parliament and the House actually interested in their industry, interested in the future of it, and want to play a role in ensuring that it would be successful not only for our country but also for exports across the world. That is the important aspect that has not been raised.

NDP members have been characterized as attacking the industry. It is far from it. We are talking about the future of the industry. The future is going to be like engine plants in my riding, such as Ford. It has no replacement right now. It will be replaced with another one that has standards or emissions that are in the current format of today. The future would be a hybrid in that plant. The future is ensuring that those workers are going to have employment.

We are losing jobs because we are not manufacturing some of the newer technologies that are attracting the eye of the world, other states and other consumers. We are losing that opportunity now. That is what is really important. There is a critical timeframe for this industry. It is changing and government has a role. This is a sad excuse on behalf of the Liberal Party. It is trying to wiggle out again on a national auto policy. That is what this is really about, to wiggle out of a responsibility.

Let us look at the CAPC recommendations that have been made, the Canadian auto parts strategy that was created over two years ago. I have not contacted it to see if it supports this motion or not. If we look at what it has come up with and how it relates to this motion with regard to emission standards and creating an environment not only where vehicles emit less and we have less pollution, cleaner air and on top of that jobs, its recommendations match up quite nicely.

There are five main recommendations and I would like to talk a bit about them. One of them is large scale investment incentives which states:

Ensure Canada’s competitiveness in attracting automotive investment by improving the focus, flexibility and accessibility of government incentives which are now essential to win large-scale automotive investments or re-investments. These incentives can be linked to innovation, technology implementation, skills enhancement and sustainability.

That fits with this motion. It is sad that Canadians right now have to import the Prius, with the Canadian technology in terms of the hybrid engine, as opposed to having it manufactured and assembled by Canadians. What if that hybrid was in the Ford plant that everyone is going to watch in my community potentially go down if we do not procure a new product real soon?

We have the University of Windsor with Auto21, the Ford Centre for Excellence at St. Clair College, and we have training and development programs that do not only just talk about the new fuel efficiency and standards. I give credit to the government for funding these initiatives and starting more as needed. These are important first steps. They are also opportunities for new employment for students as well as the assemblers, who could very much use re-investment. That was the number one point it had.

The second one was infrastructure. I have spoken many times in the House of Commons about the Windsor-Detroit border crossing and infrastructure. Ontario is being punished and hammered, as well as the rest of this country, by the government's refusal to implement the recommendations of the Schwartz report unanimously passed by the city of Windsor and the county council to get gridlock off of our streets, Despite the Prime Minister's promises, which he makes a lot of everywhere else, he has yet to deliver.

The solutions are there to unplug the gridlock, but the government has yet to act on it. Despite this report being ready for weeks, despite crying foul for a long time and asking when the report was going to come forward, the government has not acted on it yet. There has not even been a political statement about the report from the Prime Minister, who said in our community that he would support a local solution. That is lack of leadership.

The third recommendation made by CAPC states:

--auto-focused innovation incentives such as early commercialization tax credits, consumer supports to encourage the purchase of environmentally friendly vehicle technologies and more effective supports for manufacturing process innovation.

Once again, that is all in line with reducing emissions. I am not surprised that the industry is a little bit timid on this and saying that it is not sure whether it can go to mandatory from voluntary in the time frame. It does not have the government backstopping it. This is what this is about. It is about the government trying to weasel out of an auto policy.

If the industry had the confidence that the government had an auto policy, then it could say that the political will of the people of Canada wants to have reduced emissions and wants to have auto jobs. Then there is a role for our government to participate in the renewal of the industry that would benefit our citizens in terms of employment and also cleaner air. The public support out there is unanimous for that.

That is why there is support for the Kyoto agreement among the public. The public knows that the status quo and the system that we have in place right now is a recipe for disaster, not only as we lag behind in terms of environmental issues that we pay for personally and collectively in our communities, but also by the lost opportunities in jobs as other nations surpass us time after time on newer technologies for manufacturing and development. We cannot bring that time back.

Those markets become saturated and those opportunities are lost. The innovation is a constant catch-up game from our side and that gives other nations too much of an advantage, especially when this government has no interest in dealing with other issues around fair trade. The government is not concerned with perhaps the deplorable practices that other countries have with regard to the disposal of materials after manufacturing and production. We have higher standards over here. That is not something other countries are concerned about. It gives them a cheaper ability to manufacture goods. They are not concerned with that. Thus we are falling behind.

The fourth recommendation deals with regulatory harmonization. This is interesting, it states:

Take action to coordinate and streamline regulations (including those pertaining to vehicle safety, certification and emissions) between Canada and the United States, and within Canada, in recognition of the integrated nature of the North American industry and the need to coordinate automotive-related investment marketing by Canadianjurisdictions.

We know California and a series of other states are moving to high emissions standards. Canada is losing those markets. Are we going to see them regress? Will we see other states regress? The answer is no. Standards will increase more and more. Our production has to meet those standards if we are to continue to export to those markets. Our auto workers are the most productive and have the best quality in the world.

Canadian auto workers can face the challenge of ensuring that the newer technologies get into the vehicles and are a quality product that will meet the demands of the markets they need to penetrate. I am confident in their skills and abilities if we provide them with the tools. The industry is changing. The world is changing. Let us be in the front of it, not in the back seat.

There was a fifth element on human resources. It states:

--review existing training programs and opportunities; address the impact of demographic trends on the skilled trades workforce; strengthen apprenticeship programs; and attract more young people to careers in the automotive industry

Here is a great opportunity for employment for young people. If we can get some of the newer vehicles out there, then the newer technologies will require people in service garages across this nation. There will be new standards, new skills and new opportunities for employment that we did not have before.

Let us give those young people those opportunities. Let us ensure that they are at the forefront of servicing these new vehicles, as well as the vehicles that are coming into Canada. The government has no auto policy and wants to give away our technology as it has done in other sectors, as opposed to having the manufacturing done in Canada.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take complete exception with the NDP member making negative comments and connotations about Toyota. Toyota has a plant in my riding of Cambridge and that plant is not only the cleanest plant, it produces the cleanest vehicles, the most fuel efficient vehicles, and employs over 4,000 of the most intelligent automotive manufacturers.

This is a difficult motion not to support. Who would not support a cleaner environment? I would like to announce that the Conservative Party had a very complete platform. We had a plan for a clean environment, cleaning brownfields, and negotiating border state emissions. If we were the government right now, we would have a plan in place. We would not let the deadline go by for Kyoto. It is very easy for a party which has no potential of putting in place that kind of a plan to sit here and talk about all these great ideas.

I am the Ontario caucus chair and on a tour recently there was no doubt that there has been no leadership. The auto industry has expressed to us a number of ways to fix the environment. Although we support those ways, I must ask the member why this party would want to pick on not only one industry, but one type of vehicle?

That kind of lack of forethought and lack of complete solution is going to devastate the light vehicle market. Some 80% of these vehicles go outside of Canada and rather than creating harmony and regulations, we cannot support this motion simply because it complicates things. It is not workable and I would like to ask the member, why does the NDP insist on picking on one industry and one type of vehicle?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member was listening when I talked about our auto workers in this country and that included all of them. The reference to the Toyota Prius was the fact that it is Canadian technology that is being exported. That is the problem. It is not being built in your constituency. It is being built somewhere else. I congratulate the work that is being done in your constituency--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair during the debate.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that, but the fact is that we want to have more examples of cleaner technologies, higher fuel efficiency and newer plants. We are not getting those right now. There are very few examples.

The government is going from crisis to crisis and negotiating in backroom deals for auto investments. It is not out there with a public policy that shows Canadians that we are going to have an investment, a strategy based on certain principles, and that we are actually going to procure that for our country.

The government is going behind the scenes, the most recent being the GM Beacon project. Who knows what is happening with that right now? I think it is good because we have not had a call lately but who knows? Why is there not an auto policy so all Canadians can understand how their tax paying money is being spent?

We are not picking on this industry. We are trying to be part of ensuring that we are going to be the top of the line in this world and climb back up the ladder on which we have fallen down.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for being the first person in the House to acknowledge some of the many programs we have in place for climate change. However, would he support my efforts, especially for the north, to continue to put programs related to adaptation, not just reducing CO

2

because in the north the effects are already there. Would he support our efforts in that respect?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for an important question that was left out of the debate to this point in time. Absolutely, we would support that. It is critical. We have seen success stories in many provinces with adaptation. It is an important incentive element that should be used to encourage people to move in those directions. There are particular needs with vehicle use that should be addressed in the north.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate today. By way of setting the stage, I would like to remind members that I represent the riding of Whitby--Oshawa in the region of Durham. The region of Durham is home to General Motors and to the head office of BMW Canada.

My constituents are concerned not only about the health of the auto industry in Canada but also the health of the environment. The government has made a commitment to Kyoto and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of working with all sectors, it is extremely important that we get a general buy-in from the public.

My problem with the motion on the floor today is the notion that the only way to achieve any reduction in greenhouse gases and the only way to get the auto industry to comply is through a mandatory regulatory regime.

I spent a number of years in the education profession working with people. It has always been my view and understanding that if parties can sit down and negotiate a settlement, they feel they are part of the solution.

I talk to members of the automotive industry on a regular basis. They have never suggested that they do not want to be a part of the solution. The fact that we are currently in negotiations says something about the state of the relationship between the auto industry and Canadians and government. I am not just talking about General Motors or Ford. These negotiations involve all groups. The member across has told us that Toyota is in his riding. It is one of the parties at the table, together with Ford and General Motors and many others.

The automotive industry is a very competitive industry, but it has managed to get by that for the common good. It understands that good economic policy is not exclusive to good environmental policy. The industry wants to be a part of the solution.

A voluntary company average fuel consumption program has been in place for many years. I would like to give the House a couple of facts which the opposition does not want to acknowledge. Since 1986, passenger cars have averaged 8% better than the voluntary CAF targets; 2003-04 passenger cars averaged 8% better than the voluntary targets; and light trucks were 3% better.

There has been an improvement, but perhaps not as great as we would wish. That is why we are now currently at the negotiating table. We are talking about approximately five megatonnes. Nobody in the industry would say that is not an appropriate amount to be asked to reduce. Industry is asking us to find ways to do it, and it may not necessarily be through a regimented mandatory system. There should be an opportunity to put various things on the table.

The suggestion that somehow industry is bad and never wants to do its part belies the fact that currently there are about 14 memorandums of agreement in place with respect to the automotive industry. Industry is not reneging on those. There has been compliance. To suggest that if we do not have mandatory requirements, there will not be compliance shortchanges the industry.

A suggestion was made that we on the Liberal side are only supportive of big business and big corporations to the exclusion of the environment. I would remind members that big business needs the very people that they say they represent, workers and families. They are my constituents. I want them to have good jobs. I want them to have a clean and healthy environment. I am a mother with a child who has asthma and allergies. I want to see a better and cleaner environment. All sectors need to work together to see that happen.

We should also put on the table that while no one is suggesting that the emissions from autos are not causing some problems to the environment, I would also indicate that one cord of wood burned in a fireplace this winter will create more smog-causing emissions than the entire lifetime emissions produced by 10 Tier 2 SUVs. In fact one would have to drive 37 new Tier 2 SUVs around the earth's circumference to equal the emissions from one cord of wood that is burned. There are a number of things that we are doing in every day life that are adding to smog or emissions. Any approach we take has to take all these things into consideration.

One could paint a room, use one gallon of oil-based paint, and that would generate more smog than a Tier 2 vehicle moving from Toronto to Vancouver and back. Are we going to suddenly say that there are mandatory limits on how much paint an individual can use? No, but it is important and appropriate that we get the message out in terms of some of things we are doing with the one tonne challenge, to indicate to individuals what they can do.

It does not matter what kind of a vehicle an auto industry produces. The fact is someone has to buy it. I do not think we want to limit people's choices. What we should be doing is putting forth the options that if a person buys this, these are the benefits to the environment. At the same time, I am encouraging my government to look at ways we can encourage people to do the right thing, to look at making comparisons about the advantages of buying vehicles that are much more fuel efficient.

To suggest that we do not have an auto strategy is ludicrous. Talk to Ford. It knows we have an auto strategy. General Motors will soon know that we have an auto strategy. We are working very closely with those people, and part of it is for research and development so they can continue to put a better, more efficient vehicle on the market for all of us.

I am a little concerned that somehow we are painted as being anti-environment and against reduced emission strategies. I want to see this happen. I want to see it happen in many areas, but I do not think we should be picking on this one and saying it has to be mandatory. We need to work together. I would encourage us all to continue to work together to try to get what is best for our children and future children. That is part of the reason why Canada signed on to the Kyoto accord. It understands and appreciates that if we sit back and do nothing, what will we leave to future generations?

One party across the way says that this is job-killing, that this is inappropriate and that we should not be doing it. The other says that we have to regulate and make it mandatory, that we should not have a buy-in, that we should not get people to understand that everybody needs to do their part. I would challenge members on one side to say, “Have you met the one tonne challenge? What are you doing to promote it? What are you doing in your own daily lives to assist?”

I am not here as an apologist for the auto industry. I am not saying that we should let it off the hook in terms of coming to the table, of doing its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and of meeting the challenge that we have put before it in terms a five megatonne reduction. We absolutely need to do that. Do we need to be tough at the negotiation tables? Absolutely, but we do not need to be so entrenched that there is only one way to do this. I think through voluntary negotiation we could achieve the very targets the member wants to see happen.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments that it is important to get all the people to the table. The North American market is integrated, yet we have a government that is negotiating a fuel efficiency standard with the Canadian part of the market. The reality is that 80% of the vehicles that are purchased in Canada are built in the United States or Mexico.

Should the government's negotiation of a fuel efficiency standard include discussions with the United States and Mexico? Could the government confirm that it is currently negotiating with the United States and Mexico on a common fuel efficiency standard, and if not, why not?

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I can confirm is we are in negotiations with Canadian--

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On 20% of the market.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Yes, it is 20% of the market, but it is an important part. We are sitting down at the table negotiating. When they talk to us, they understand that they are 20% of the market. We are asking them what they believe is achievable and what will meet common goals.

I think through voluntary negotiation, given that they understand that they are only 20% of the market, and given that they understand what our needs and requirements are, we can come to a solution that is satisfactory to both.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very upset to hear that she thought we were accusing her party of being an apologist for the auto industry. I think it is fairly clear what we were saying. The government stands up in the House and says that it loves little children, dogs and balloons, as we all do, and, therefore, why do we not all make the world a happier place?

We are saying that the government has absolutely no intention of coming through on anything to do with Kyoto. It would have us talk about the one tonne challenge and how we should not open our cans of paint because it would spend more than driving my car to Vancouver and back. I will go home this weekend and paint to see if that is true.

I like the idea of voluntary standards. For example, why do we not have a voluntary gun control registry? With the hundreds of millions of dollars we have spent, I think a lot of Canadians would like a voluntary gun control registry. No, the government said that it could not have voluntary standards. What about voluntary drinking and driving regulations?

How about if we take the voluntary drinking and driving regulations and turn it into this idea of credits? If people are sober, then they should be able to sell their drinking and driving credits to people who are drunk. With the logic of the government, what a fantastic idea. If I drive nine times sober, I should for the tenth time be able to drive through drunk because I can buy a credit from someone who does not like to have a couple of shots before he goes home from work. That is the idea of voluntary credits.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. Where in this world have we ever seen voluntary emission standards? The government brought in voluntary labelling of genetically modified foods, and we have not seen a single company comply. When we talk about mandatory, it so we can get something done. I would like to see if we will get it done.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very amusing tirade from the member. I am not suggesting that they can decide whether they want to do it or not. I am talking about the negotiations. The member should understand that negotiations, and I believe in free collective bargaining, means that both sides are putting their views forward without a prejudgment.

I believe that at the end of the day they have to come to an agreement. When they have agreed upon the levels, they will indeed live up to their agreement. I am not talking about whether they might or might not do it. I am talking about the way in which we reach the final agreement.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that we have such a huge economic problem in Ontario with the restrictions at the border in Windsor and given the government's promises to clean up the environment, why has the government not moved forward on solving the border lineups where trucks idle for four, five or six hours in lineups 12 to 15 kilometres long. By fixing this problem at the cost of well under $1 billion, it would improve Ontario's economy by $5 billion. Why has the government not moved forward on such a simple solution?

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when members are in opposition everything seems simple because they do not have to follow through.

I would indicate to the member opposite that we are in negotiations, that we are working. This is not something that the Government of Canada can do solely on its own. It deals with the city of Windsor and other governments.

Everything is easy when members are in opposition.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today.

The issue clearly is that some of us in the House have recognized the fact that climate change is a reality. The fact is that this government signed the Kyoto protocol. It came into effect. The fact is that some in the House did not even believe that Russia would sign on. It did. Some of them did not believe it would ever come into effect. It has.

We on this side of the House are taking our responsibilities very seriously. In fact, as the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources have indicated, there is a long list of achievements by the government with regard to dealing with this issue. This issue is not, however, solely a federal issue. It is a federal-provincial-municipal issue and obviously an individual issue.

The fact is that some in the House ridicule the one tonne challenge. It is a comprehensive approach, and clearly the one tonne challenge is one element to engage Canadians. Apparently some in the House do not believe we should engage Canadians directly. I believe that is important. Everyone has their own part to play. I would suggest that this is a good way to do it.

I would also point out that we are fully engaged with municipal governments. The announcement by the minister of state dealing with infrastructure clearly shows that in the $5 billion proposal over five years on the gas tax aimed at green infrastructure. Whether we are talking sewer improvements or water treatment plants, et cetera, it is obviously very important in helping in the battle.

Yet another element is working with the provinces. Again, somehow the suggestion is that we do not have a plan. Maybe some of the members should read the climate change plan for Canada 2002 and also look at the fact that in any plan there are needs for refinements. We have already said that. The minister has said that. A budget is coming out. I would suggest that after the budget some of these members take a look at the plan as it has been refined and then try to say to us that we do not have a plan. It would be very hard.

Government is about choices. It is about making the right decision. We made the right decision by signing the Kyoto protocol. We announced in Montreal just yesterday that the United Nations framework conference on climate change will be held in Montreal at the end of November. It will focus very strongly on Canada and Canadian leadership. This is an opportunity where we will have 7,000 to 10,000 delegates coming to Canada. It is an opportunity for the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister to certainly showcase and talk about the initiatives Canada is doing. Obviously Canada cannot and is not doing it alone; over 140 countries have signed on to the Kyoto protocol, but it is a first step.

We are going to be looking beyond Kyoto as well. The Minister of the Environment has talked very clearly about the need for a competitive economy, the need for a strong economy. Therefore, a strong economy and a strong environment can be married together.

We understand the importance of the auto sector. We have a very active and engaged auto caucus on this side of the House. Under the leadership of my colleagues on this side of the House, we have understood and have worked collaboratively with the industry. I am delighted to hear that the Conservatives have an auto caucus. I think it is important that we all engage. We do not all have the definitive answers, but I hope that we can work together.

I would suggest that our mission is to deal with the issue of greenhouse gas reductions. It is important that we do that. Clearly, working with the auto sector has been and continues to be an important aspect of government policy. We have signed 14 MOUs with the auto sector. The auto sector has adapted. One of the strengths is the Canadian workers in this country.

The gentleman across the way talked about the Toyota plant in Cambridge. I had the pleasure of visiting that plant last summer and I can tell hon. members that it is probably cleaner than a hospital. I must tell the hon. member that when the Japanese were looking around the world to produce the Lexus outside of Japan for the first time, they picked Canada. They picked Cambridge because of the quality of the workmanship, because of the standards of the workers and in fact because of the social programs, et cetera. We could go on and on. The fact is that our auto sector in this country is second to none.

I would suggest that whether it is in Cambridge, Windsor, Oshawa or Oakville, wherever it happens to be, the fact is that we understand and the auto sector understands that we need to be fully engaged on this topic. Clearly that is in the auto sector's interest. It knows what the consumers are looking for in terms of fuel efficient vehicles. We know what they are looking for and the auto manufacturers know that. That is why they have been responding, and I think very effectively, in that regard over the years.

On the suggestion that we are looking for a voluntary agreement, there are many voluntary things that go on in our society. In this case, there is a notion that somehow we are not going to make an agreement. Let me say that in 1998 the EU came to a voluntary agreement with its car makers and in fact on the whole issue of reduction of CO

2

140g/kilometre by 2008.

The fact is that we have an opportunity to work with the industry. We are negotiating with the industry. Obviously I am not going to be able to say at this point, because I have no crystal ball, how it is going to work out, but I am very confident that the negotiators at the table understand what we want. I believe very strongly that we will see this.

The member for Oshawa has indicated that he is concerned about jobs in his community. Naturally so. We are not trying to put people out of work. What we are trying to say is that we want to make sure the economy is strong and the environment is strong, working in ways which are effective. Let us look at other jurisdictions, including Australia, which did not sign the Kyoto protocol but which as well has voluntary standards committing its industry by 2010.

The fact is that in our discussions we have to remember that climate change is in fact something which is not only in the auto sector, with the large emitters. We and the Minister of the Environment have taken the approach of working with industries, saying “this is what we are looking for”, and I think setting a standard, which is very important in the sense that rather than scaring people we are saying,“We are prepared to work effectively and if in fact certain things do not happen, then we will go to the next step”.

I think the reality is, no pun intended, that the whole climate has changed in terms of how we are dealing with industries in this country. People are saying that we are in fact recognizing the role of a strong economy and a strong environment.

No one is more committed to ensuring that we have a strong environment, with clean air and clean water, than this Minister of the Environment. I want to make it very clear that on this side of the House we agree with the objective, and I am sure all members do. Some of us may differ on how we get there, but the reality is that we do agree. We need to have a cleaner environment.

Clearly the synergy is needed with stakeholders and with all orders of government. I think there are certain incentives. On that side of the House, people talk about incentives. We agree. Obviously we need to have incentives. Whether it is dealing with hybrid vehicles, hydrogen or the economy, incentives are important.

We talk about wind power and its importance. Again, we have 4,000 megawatts to power one million homes in this country. The fact is that this is extremely important. It is something that this government is committed to and has demonstrated in budget after budget and, I would point out, it will do so in this next budget. I know that those members are somewhat like little kids at Christmastime; they are anxious to get in there and see what is under the tree. The fact is that all departments have a responsibility. Once the budget is released, I would suspect that we will see some very positive elements there as well.

One of my colleagues mentioned the fact that in government we actually have to be responsible for what we say. I would point out that we have made it very clear that this government is looking at a comprehensive approach in dealing with climate change, not in just one sector but in many sectors.

I welcome the fact that the New Democratic Party has put this issue before the House, because clearly we all are interested in the same objective. The hon. member who serves on committee with me knows that there is no one more committed in terms of moving this agenda forward, I would suspect, than this Minister of the Environment. Certainly as his parliamentary secretary I want suggest to those members that, rather than criticism, if they have constructive alternatives they should put them forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened to have missed the beginning of the parliamentary secretary's speech. I was on a call-in show in Victoria and another one in Vancouver. Canadians are deeply impressed with this motion and the concept of finally bringing forward mandatory regulations. I am glad to see the Liberals applauding it.

The question, the premise or the philosophy of this motion is between mandatory and voluntary regulations. The Liberals are asking us to trust them after these many years of promises and budget after budget showing that emissions have gone up in Canada, popping us to the back of the OECD and making us an international pariah with respect to Kyoto. Who else shows up on the day of the exam without a plan or any concept of how to get there?

My question is with respect to the voluntary requirement. I will take the Americans as a quick example. In 1975 the American Environmental Protection Agency was requiring that the big three automakers make public the mileage their vehicles were getting. They said, “No, we cannot do that. It is going to expose us to unfair practices and unfair competition.”

The EPA threatened with regulations and said it would make this mandatory. Of course then the big three automakers started to disclose their mileage rates and now the rates are part of purchasing a car. Canadians and Americans clearly understand that when they purchase a car they find out what mileage they will get from the vehicle.

Why is the parliamentary secretary so resistant to the idea of increasing the strength of the government's hand in the negotiations with automakers? We say that it has been a long time and there has been a lot of waiting. This government has not had the foresight to just enforce mandatory regulations and then bring about actual change rather than just rhetoric.