House of Commons Hansard #59 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was plan.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec

Liberal

Stéphane Dion LiberalMinister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, I would to tell the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley why the Government of Canada obviously cannot support this motion as an adjunct to the excellent speech by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

The first reason is that we are somewhat surprised the opposition did not present a motion congratulating not only the Government of Canada, but also the entire country of Canada, on hosting the most important international conference in the field of climate change, that is the 11th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will also be the first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol.

I think the hon. member should have asked his leader, who was with me in Buenos Aires, as was the Conservative critic, why Canada was approached to take on this conference. Perhaps then he would have learned that, as the Minister of Natural Resources said, the world is impressed by the fact that the Canadian economy, while growing strongly, has been able to begin to break the link between economic growth and greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, while greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 20% since 1990, the economy has grown by 40%. That is the first stage.

The second stage will be to reduce—

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)

Order, please. The hon. Minister of the Environment has the floor.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

The second step, Madam Speaker, will be to ensure that emissions decline. That is why we have a plan with more teeth, which will be more effective and which the opposition will be able to comment upon in a very polite, respectful way, I am sure.

The second reason we cannot support this motion is that it interferes in current negotiations through which we hope very much to reach an agreement with the automobile industry so that it will do its share in the Kyoto plan. The worst thing we could do would be to have parallel negotiations here in this House. I think, therefore, that it is wrong to start immediately trying to interfere in negotiations that are underway and that, we hope, will result in an agreement with the automobile industry, rather than our having to regulate.

We know that agreements can work when they are voluntary. Voluntary agreements have worked with this industry in the past. I would also remind the House that Europe reached a voluntary agreement with its automobile industry, which works fairly well. There is therefore no reason to dispose of a voluntary agreement at the outset. Negotiations are going on. Soon we will have the results. Let us hope that we will not have to regulate.

Now smog is certainly a major topic. Had the motion been on it, of course the Government of Canada would have been happy to work with the opposition. However, a certain knowledge of the progress that has been made regarding air quality is still important.

With regard to cuts to the sulphur content in gasoline, as of January 1, 2005 the federal government has reduced the sulphur content in gasoline by 90% from 2002. It is quite a result. This is one of the most strongest sulphur in gasoline regulations in the world.

We have fast-tracked on road vehicles and engine emission regulations for 2004 and later model years. While these regulations were being developed in 2001, the federal government signed an MOU with the auto industry providing for the production of low emission vehicles. On average these regulations, together with the MOU with the industry, will reduce the allowance emissions level from new on road vehicles by close to 90% from the standards that applied in 2003.

We have cut the sulphur content on road diesel fuel reducing the allowable limit of sulphur from the current regulated limit of 500 parts per million by 97% to 15 parts per million in 2006. These regulations will enable the introduction of advanced emission control system diesel vehicles, trucks and buses.

I have a long list of incredible accomplishments that have been done in Canada and we must congratulate our country for that.

The new emissions standards regulations passed for small engines such as those found in lawn and garden machines will reduce smog forming emissions from these engines by more than 50% from current levels starting this year.

Regulations for off road diesel engines such as those that power construction, agriculture and forestry machines, will come into effect January 1, 2006. Canadian emissions standards for off road compression ignition engines align with the U.S. standards currently in place.

Emissions regulations covering recreational marine engines such as outboards, personal watercraft and recreational vehicles which includes snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and off road motorcycles are currently being prepared. Formal publication of these off road regulations is expected this year, and I could go on.

Much remains to be done, of course. We are going to strengthen our air quality policy, but what has been done cannot be denied. We must tell Canadians that we are all in this together, and it is no good to have a negative opposition, which wants to paint everything as black as possible.

The Conservative opposition, which is against the Kyoto protocol—it must be said—fails to understand that, in reducing greenhouse gases, we end up with positive effects too.

We need to decrease smog, mercury and other non-greenhouse gases. The plan that we will release soon will be an improved plan if we compare it with 2002. It will be an opportunity to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and at the same time address these issues that are so important for air quality in Canada.

Canada is going to host the most important conference on climate change in Montreal at the end of the year, because the world is counting on Canada. The opposition does not understand that, but it is the truth.

In fact, of all the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, none has such a demanding target or is going to have such an impressive plan as ours for reaching this demanding target. Canada is very well placed to be the link between the United States, Europe, the countries with emerging economies and the developing countries.

The world is counting on Canada. I hope that the official opposition will work with Canada instead of confining itself, as is now the case, to strictly negative remarks.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Madam Speaker, one area where our party does agree with the NDP and the Bloc is that the government has no plan whatsoever, has never had a plan, and has absolutely no intention of tabling a plan, which is quite clear to all of us.

However, the other problem is that the government is so focused on greenhouse gases that it is ignoring all the other environmental problems. It is ignoring problems like smog. I want to ask the minister a very simple question to see his awareness of this issue. He talked about reducing sulphur in gasoline. Is he aware that to reduce sulphur in gasoline, it actually has to be refined more which actually increases the CO

2

levels? It shows that we have to address environmental problems in a holistic sense, address the whole environmental issue, rather than just focusing on one like CO

2

which is what the government is doing but not even doing well because it is not tabling a plan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Speaker, there is a plan; it is the 2002 plan which was tabled in 2002. It seems that the hon. member is not even aware of that. Perhaps he was not there, but this is the case.

If we are negotiating with the automotive industry today in order to have a voluntary agreement to improve fuel efficiency and to ensure that the automotive industry will do its share for the Kyoto plan, it is because there is a plan. It is supposed to deliver 5.2 megatonnes.

This has not been recently invented. This is a policy since 2002. We are concluding these negotiations. This will not nullify the other regulations that the industry will have to cope with. We are going together. The Government of Canada has a compelling policy for the quality of our air.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of the Environment for at least clearing up one mystery. We now know why we do not have a plan. It is because the government thinks that everything is voluntary. Canadians only have to look at the government ads to know that it is about participating and being voluntary.

There is some confusion here. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources left the distinct impression that there was support for the motion today. In fact, the other parties here actually understood that from his comments. We will get the blues to actually examine that. He did leave that distinct impression.

Then we have the Minister of the Environment saying that we do not support mandatory requirements for emissions and that we are into the voluntary thing. The real question here is, why after 15 years are we still at a point where we do not have any emissions standards? We are still working on voluntary standards that have not been put into place. The voluntary standards clearly are a failure and we still have no plan.

The minister said the plan will be released pretty soon. That is what he said a few minutes ago. I would love to know and Canadians would love to know, what does he mean by pretty soon? Five minutes after that he said that we do have a plan. What is it; voluntary or not, mandatory or not, a plan or not?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows the answer to her question. She is intelligent enough to know that we have said again and again that we have had a plan since 2002.

The Minister of Natural Resources showed that we have made progress with this plan. This is why the increase in emissions is not at the same speed as the increase in the economy. This is because under our government the economy is going very well and it is growing. The hon. member understands that, I am sure. She pretends she does not understand because she does not have a critique to give. She will only repeat the same critique.

She knows that the plan needs to be improved. The improvement of the plan will be out pretty soon. She knows all that. She pretends that she does not understand because she does not have a critique to promulgate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, the minister has some nerve telling us today that the government's voluntary approach is working. Only two agreements have been signed, yet the government set itself the deadline of December 2004 for all the industrial sector agreements. So it has failed miserably.

The minister has, moreover, just come back from California. He saw what is being done there. Can he make a commitment today in this House to table regulations to bring Canadian automotive manufacturing standards in line, not with U.S. federal government standards, but with California's?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Madam Speaker, that is two questions.

First of all, the automotive industry must not be confused with the major final emitters. The auto industry is not one of them, because the emissions are not produced by the auto industry in the manufacture of automobiles, but by the consumer products, the cars and trucks. This is why we are trying to conclude a voluntary agreement with the auto industry.

Moving to the second element of the question, California tried the voluntary route and moved on to the regulatory when no voluntary agreement was forthcoming. This is exactly the same approach as Canada is taking. We are quite confident that we will not have to resort to regulations because we will have concluded a voluntary agreement, as has Europe. It may well work.

In the past, we have sometimes used the regulatory approach and sometimes the voluntary. We know both can work. The advantage of the voluntary approach is that it is far less complicated to administer. Very often, voluntary agreements concluded with the auto industry have yielded excellent results. That is what we are working on at the moment. I would ask the opposition not to interfere in these negotiations because, if they are successful, it will be good news for all Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party believes in cleaning up the environment. We believe in clean air and clean water, and we believe that this should be a priority for government. We also believe that we can do this without decimating our key industries and without implementing unrealistic legislation, placing our key industries at an economic disadvantage internationally. Therefore, I rise today in opposition of this NDP motion.

As the representative for Oshawa, I cannot believe that the opposition party would put forth such an irresponsible, short-sighted proposition. If this motion were to pass, it would have a devastating effect on Canada's auto industry. Canada's Kyoto protocol-defined reduction is very aggressive and not possible to achieve.

Oshawa is famous for producing the best quality automobiles in North America. A big part of the reason we produce such excellent quality vehicles is due to the quality people who put together these cars. Oshawa's auto workers are dedicated professionals whose eye for detail has contributed to a prosperous auto industry in Canada. Today I rise in defence of auto worker jobs and union jobs. The truth is that numerous auto jobs in my constituency will be put in jeopardy if this motion passes requiring mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency.

The NDP has put forth a motion that does not address the realities of the auto industry and the economic implications of the proposed legislation. This motion proves that the protection and the retention of auto jobs in Canada and the global competitiveness of the auto industry are clearly not a priority of the NDP.

In Canada we build mid to large size vehicles, minivans, cars and trucks. If this motion goes through, it will mean that virtually every car, truck and minivan built in Canada could not be sold here. As chair of the Conservative auto caucus, I had the opportunity to visit each of Canada's five vehicle manufacturers. They were unanimous in what they told me. They told me that legislating a mandatory reduction in fuel consumption of 25% by 2010 would have a devastating effect on the auto industry. As one auto exec bluntly told me, “If we cannot sell the cars here, why would we build them here?”

What the NDP is trying to do is akin to legislating the garment industry into making size two dresses only and demanding that everyone fit into them. That should fix the problem.

If the NDP motion is put through it would greatly restrict Canadian consumer choice. It would mean that Canadians could only drive subcompact cars, such as the Chevy Aveo and the Toyota Echo. What would my constituents who are in the trades drive? I actually have a friend who is 6'3”. His wife is 6'1”. He has two rather tall kids. On the weekend he drives to the cottage with his family, his gear, the dog and sometimes grandma. Which car does my NDP colleague want him to drive, the Aveo or the Echo?

Madam Speaker, I want to let you know that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Edmonton--Leduc.

It is essential that we improve emissions standards, but that we do so in a manner that strengthens not weakens the auto industry. The NDP motion calls for legislation that will undermine the economic and competitive position of the Canadian auto industry. As the representative for Oshawa, I refuse to let auto workers in my constituency be unduly affected by legislation that disproportionately penalizes the auto sector. Look at the time and resources it has taken to elicit a voluntary commitment from one industry to deliver less than 1.8% of the national greenhouse gas reduction obligations that Canada accepted in ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

The fact is that mandatory improvements for the auto industry under Kyoto are unrealistic. The plan calls for a reduction in emissions by 5.2 million tonnes by 2010. A 25% fuel reduction approach is touted as a means to achieve that goal. The lead time for design change in automotive manufacturing is roughly four years. Product plans are already underway for vehicles that will be manufactured by the end of 2010. Product development takes time: time to plan, engineer, design and manufacture. Efficiency improvements are typically implemented as new vehicle programs are initiated and are not suited to mid-product cycle.

The NDP is looking to legislate mandatory improvements when it clearly does not understand the challenges the automotive industry faces today, such as unfair competition from offshore manufacturers and challenges identified in the CAPC report.

Mandatory improvements are unlikely to take into account important variables like differences among the many vehicles various companies produce. Regulation and legislation insensitive to the industry could lead to disproportionate effects on the sector, with devastating effects on workers, plants and dealerships.

The reality is that the Canadian auto industry represents 9% of an integrated North American market. If the NDP members had bothered to check, they would have realized that the United States, Canada's largest trading partner, has not signed on to the Kyoto accord. Canada deals with a 90% auto export rate to the U.S. Attempts to make substantial engineering changes solely for the Canadian market would result in excessive costs, restricted consumer choice and a competitive disadvantage.

It is also a reality that the NDP motion calls for mandatory emission standards when there is no agreed upon cost analysis for the new technology. Independent research by Sierra Research Associates estimates costs based on North America wide application of technologies at as much as $2,600 for cars and over $4,600 for trucks and says that the lead time for compliance with a 25% requirement by the end of 2010 is not sufficient. If the 25% is required on a Canada only basis, the cost would be much higher.

The auto industry has committed to drive greenhouse gas reductions through new technologies, publicly partner with the government in the fight for climate change and support automotive R and D in Canada.

In order to reach those goals, the auto industry is prepared to partner with the government to continue to aggressively pursue the introduction of cost effective, energy efficient technologies and alternate fuel offerings that use lower carbon fuels, and it is committed to a joint government-industry committee to measure progress toward its 5.2 million tonne goal. The industry also has agreed to a joint reporting committee with the government to monitor annual progress.

The industry's voluntary integrated agreement addresses the reality of the continental industry. It combines new vehicle technologies that save fuel with the broader availability of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesels and provides communication support to help consumers adapt driving behaviours and enable them to afford more efficient vehicles in Canada.

The NDP has argued that we should adopt California standards. If the NDP would bother to step outside today and get some fresh air instead of the hot air they are promoting today, they might realize we are not like California.

First, Canada is colder than California. Driving in colder climates consumes more gasoline.

Second, California does not have an industry to speak of. It has one plant. It has little to risk. Canada has a dozen plants and much to risk by adopting unrealistic legislation.

Third, according to the CAW, Canada employs over 150,000 people directly in auto assembly and parts, with a spinoff of seven jobs for every one; this means that for every assembly job seven other jobs are created. Over 500,000 Canadians owe their jobs directly to the auto industry. Is it sensible to risk these jobs for little actual improvement to global greenhouse gas reduction?

Finally, CAW findings show that the Canadian auto industry generated a positive trade balance for Canada of $20 billion in 2001. This trade balance is fragile and depends on the free flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border.

The NDP has not presented any economic impact studies indicating the cost to industry and costs in jobs in making such drastic legislation.

Canada alone is responsible for only 2% of global greenhouse gases. It is irresponsible to bet our entire auto industry in order to fulfill an ideological mandate. To legislate mandatory emissions standards at this time would be careless.

The Conservative Party is committed to cleaning up the environment while acknowledging the realities of the auto industry and what is attainable within it.

The industry itself is also deeply committed to producing cleaner cars. In fact, the industry has already reduced smog emissions by 99.6% since 1970 through sophisticated emission control technology.

My colleague needs to come clean and admit that not only is this motion irresponsible at this time, but it puts the well-being of the Canadian auto industry and its workers dead last on the list of national priorities for the NDP.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, it is a bit odd to see the Conservative Party discuss this motion today. Everyone knows that the federal government, in taking a voluntary approach with the automobile industry, among others, is simply protecting Ontario's economic base.

The government reached voluntary agreements with the major industries. I am talking about the oil industry, whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 47% since 1990. The government excludes the automobile industry from the list of major industrial emitters. It is this type of policy that will strengthen the economic base of western Canada while excluding the automobile industry is just a way of protecting Ontario's base.

Does the hon. member not agree that what we have here is not an environment minister, but an economy minister, who answers to various industry lobbies?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for his question.

We have a problem with pollution and global warming. If this motion is passed, it will not be a solution. It will have a negative impact not only on Oshawa, but on the entire country.

We in the Conservative Party want to use common sense in reaching our greenhouse gas targets. What the NDP is promoting is something that would be reckless and irresponsible. It is the same with the government. It is not releasing any cost or impact studies of the effects this would have on the industry. As the member for Oshawa I feel it is reckless to bet the entire industry on legislation that is unproven in regard to what the results would be.

Regarding the comments by the member from Quebec, GM and Hyundai used to build cars there, and we had better believe that if they still built cars there he would be fighting for this issue too.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, the opposition has asked me where I stand on this. Obviously I do not agree with the motion and I will not be supporting it, but what I said was that I am delighted it is on the floor, for two reasons.

First, the Government of Canada is already working to reduce auto emissions in a number of ways. The second reason is that it gives us a chance today to outline, which has already been done by the two ministers, with great content, the various items that Canada is working on to reduce greenhouse gases looking toward the Kyoto plan. I think that is why this is a very illuminating debate. We are winning this debate for that reason.

I would like to ask a question of the two critics from the Bloc and the Conservatives, because the NDP could not answer this. There are a lot of provisions in place to reduce emissions. Perhaps the members can outline what some of them are.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Madam Speaker, right now there are voluntary things put in place by the auto industry. As a matter of fact, the auto industry has been quite successful in decreasing emissions. For example, since 1990 Honda has decreased its emissions by 35%. What we have going on with the voluntary emissions decrease is working the way it is supposed to.

What I would like to talk about for a couple of minutes, though, is the economic impact and the devastating effect the motion would have if it were to pass. Auto workers in Canada pay over $2 billion in taxes. The GST and PST collected from automobiles total over $7 billion. To put such legislation into effect would be devastating to the economy and devastating to my community. We cannot support this reckless legislation.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in this very lively debate. It is good for the House to be debating this issue.

At the outset, I want to read the motion from the NDP into the record:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

As my colleague just said, we certainly recognize that smog is a problem, a huge problem, particularly in our larger centres. We need to recognize that sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide are the main contributors to this.

Our party supports, and in fact our environment critic, the member for Red Deer, has called for, a clean air act and environmental legislation that would address this. We put this forward before the last election, calling for the government to take action on NO

2

and SO

2

in particular. In fact, we should not stop with clean air; we should address clean water and obviously some of the land issues as well.

Before I get to the specifics of the motion, I want to address the issue of Kyoto because we have just heard from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources. Members of the Bloc, of the NDP and certainly of my party have pointed out that the government in fact has no plan. It was basically admitted by the Minister of the Environment as recently as this week in an article in The Globe and Mail . The article stated:

The federal government admitted yesterday it has no plan in place to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol....Ottawa had promised to have a comprehensive implementation plan ready no later than next week's budget, complete with the regulatory or tax measures needed to meet the Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

But [the] environment [minister] said yesterday it will be “several more weeks” before anything is ready. Cabinet ministers have made no firm decisions, he said.

That is completely unacceptable. The government signed on to Kyoto in 1997 and ratified it in 2002 and still has no plan.

The government references a plan from 2002. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and the member from Windsor know full well, because they sat on a committee that studied the implementation plan at that point, that even members of the government would have to admit the plan was lacking in detail. The then minister of the environment was before us as we were asking about things like whether there would be tax credits for vehicles to allow people to buy hybrid vehicles. The response was that the government did not know if it was going to do that.

There was a mention in the plan of a CO

2

sequestration and pipeline. What is the government planning to do with this? This could actually reduce CO

2

emissions substantially. The minister at the time said he did not know what was being done with that and that the government would have to see where that goes.

We will have to see where that goes? These are the sorts of answers that the committee received, which basically revealed that the government has absolutely no idea what it is doing on Kyoto, and it has caused some serious problems. It is a matter of international standing when one signs on to an agreement with absolutely no idea of how those commitments are going to be fulfilled.

The government should be honest with Canadians and start to address environmental problems as a whole issue, as I was mentioning about the gasoline industry. The gasoline industry has reduced sulphur, and we certainly support that, but in doing so it increased some of the CO

2

emissions. We need to look at addressing environmental issues overall, especially the more noxious toxins like NO

2

and SO

2

I want to address some specifics of the motion. My colleague from British Columbia raised this earlier. I think NDP members should perhaps in their future speeches talk specifically about what they are calling for in the motion with regard to greenhouse gases, NO

2

and SO

2

, with some plans, some specific mandatory measures to be put in place. As members of the House know, there already are a lot of mandatory measures on that industry. In fact, the industry would argue, and I think this party would agree, that there are too many regulations on this industry. There are too many regulations that are different from the North American regulatory market.

Why are we only addressing this industry? Why the focus on this industry, particularly in regard to the members from Windsor? We should look at why we are only addressing and targeting the auto industry, particularly when the two members from Windsor have an awful lot of auto workers in their ridings who rely on this industry. Why are they targeting it and singling it out for what is in my view unfair attention? Why only vehicles sold in Canada? This is something that I think the members should look at closely: “legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada”.

Members should know that 80% to 90% of the vehicles manufactured in Canada are exported primarily to the United States. Is the NDP arguing that we should have two assembly lines, one with regulatory emission standards for the 10% to 20% of vehicles sold in Canada and the other with different standards for the 80% to 90% of vehicles that are exported? Perhaps members opposite could clear that up with respect to the motion.

In our view there is a need for regulatory harmonization with this industry. I would like to quote a spokesperson for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association who said it very well in 2002 when he addressed the fuel efficiency target of 25%. Mark Nantais, president of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, said:

The government's choice of a 25% target, without due diligence for what is achievable in the stipulated timeframe, given the other very important considerations of consumer safety, technological feasibility, and economic impact, is a major concern. It creates, quite frankly, unrealistic public expectations for both government and our industry. If we put it another way, we're being set up for failure.

That was said back in 2002 when members of the industry and others were raising this issue and saying that it was an unachievable target and that it would harm the industry. The government, unfortunately, did not listen to their concerns and did not recognize what the industry had already done.

The member for Oshawa, the chair of our auto caucus, pointed out very well what the industry has already done in a proactive way to address its emissions. Emissions coming out of its assembly plants between 1990-99 and the energy intensity of its plant operations were reduced by nearly 18%. We should recognize that and celebrate the fact that the industry has taken action by and of itself.

We need to understand that the automobile industry in Canada is within the context of a North American industry. However, the NDP, with its motion today, seems to have no clue that we are within a North American market and that we do export most of our vehicles to the United States. It would be nonsense for us to create further regulatory disharmony between our regulations and the regulations in the United States. It would harm the industry and the workers in Windsor, Oshawa, Cambridge, Alliston and elsewhere. What the NDP does not understand and will never understand is that to create regulatory burdens on the industry drives people out of work.

Let me address some solutions. We in the Conservative Party do support a clean air act. We would deal with nitrous oxide and sulphur oxide. Our environment critic will be here this afternoon and he can present it to members then.

We support infrastructure spending. We have called for the government to share the federal fuel tax with communities across Canada to address the issue of congestion. One only has to go to areas like Windsor, Toronto and Edmonton to see the congestion caused by a lack of available infrastructure.

There are three approaches to the environment that the government could take. First, it could impose further regulation on the industry, but we believe that would harm the industry and not lead to overall economic growth or environmental stewardship.

The second approach would be through program spending. Some program spending may be necessary. The government will be outlaying $3.7 billion. Members of the environment committee are studying this issue. I know the member for Essex is also involved in this. However the government has not been very forthright about where the money is going.

The third approach could be through incentives. I am speaking about incentives to encourage the industry itself to innovate and change consumer habits. The Conservative Party believes the government should head in that direction. We think providing tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles would be a sensible thing. It is something the government should do and we hope the government will do so in the budget. It should encourage people to change their habits and reduce some of the emissions.

Another thing that could be done by the government, which I referenced earlier, is that instead of putting $3.7 billion into these various funds and having the people go to it, the government should work with the industry, particularly those in western Canada, and look at a CO

2

sequestration and a CO

2

pipeline.

If we were to combine that with a clean air act that addresses NO

2

and SO

2

, we would address the CO

2

by sequestering it and using it to filter out more of the oil from the ground. This would actually address CO

2

emissions in a very substantive way and it is something we hope the government looks at as a solution to environmental challenges, rather than just focussing on Kyoto, and in fact not focussing very well by not in any way tabling a reasonable plan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Richmond Hill Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate listening to my colleague's observations. I think we both agree that the timing of the motion is curious. Why was it brought in today given the fact that there are ongoing negotiations with the auto industry? The issue is one of voluntary or mandatory regulations.

Clearly, if one were negotiating one would assume that one would not want to bring in a motion like this, to bring a hammer down when there are presumably discussions being held in good faith. However that is up to them.

The member across said that we did not have a plan. I would be more than happy to take him outside later and give him a copy of the climate change plan for action that was developed in 2002. The government has admitted that any good plan often needs revision and we are prepared and are working on revisions. The minister has been very clear on that and it will be released very soon, along with the upcoming budget.

The fact that the Conservative Party has only recently discovered the environment is better late than never. That is the party, of course, that said that carbon dioxide, while linked to global warming, was not a threat to air quality. It also said that carbon dioxide did not cause or contribute to smog. Maybe the members of that party have had their heads in the clouds a little too long.

Since the member has critiqued, although not very well, what he thinks is not our plan, could he tell us what his party is proposing for dealing with the auto sector? How would his party deal with the emissions issue? Why does he believe that the approach his party presumably has, given the fact that we believe we can have a strong economy, a strong auto sector and a strong environment, are compatible?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Madam Speaker, obviously the CO

2

pipeline sequestration is a huge issue that addresses CO

2

generally. In terms of the auto sector, I think incenting consumers to buy hybrid vehicles is a legitimate policy suggestion that we would look at quite favourably.

There is capital cost allowance. It is kind of abstract. People may ask how this would impact the environment. In fact, if we were to allow companies to write-off their machinery at a quicker pace and allow them to replace and upgrade their manufacturing process at a quicker pace, they would move to more environmentally sensitive machinery and assembly line processes. That is how the auto industry has reduced some of its emissions from the plants.

Another issue that the auto industry has raised is that Canadians drive their vehicles for longer periods of time in Canada because of the disposable income gap between Canadians and Americans. It was highlighted by Don Drummond in his recent report for the TD Bank. If the government were to reduce taxes on an overall level, it would give Canadians more disposable income which in turn would allow them to replace older vehicles with newer vehicles that are more fuel efficient and better for the environment.

Those are three policy options I would suggest the government should take a serious look at. I do have to tell my hon. colleague that when we were on the industry committee we studied the plan in 2002 and, frankly, it was not much of a plan at all, but even the good things that were in the plan, the government has done nothing whatsoever to implement them.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, it is almost insulting to hear the parliamentary secretary say that this House has no role to discuss one of the most important industries in Canadian history and also the future prosperity of this country.

The citizens of this country are sick and tired of waiting for backroom Liberal deals to try to address crises in this country. It is reprehensible that this chamber should not have a voice and an opportunity in a democracy to openly discuss this.

I have a question for the member opposite who sits with me on the industry committee. I understand, and I am sure everyone understands, his concern about the job factor. I come from an area that represents many auto workers. The CAW supports movement toward mandatory standards. I think it is an unfair criticism to our motion that we actually are calling for that movement and creating some flexibility for negotiations as part of it. This is a motion, not legislation. The member for Oshawa does not seem to understand what is happening here. I would like the member to comment on that in terms of why can we not have flexibility to do that.

Point No. 4 in the CAPC report No. 4, Regulatory Harmonization, 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

I would like to know if the member supports the CAPC recommendation.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

James Rajotte Conservative Edmonton—Leduc, AB

Madam Speaker, I very much agree with that CAPC recommendation.

However I would challenge the member to then survey the CAPC members on whether they agree with this motion. In my view the report that was done by CAPC and the statement that the member just read is not what the motion is calling for. The motion calls for further regulatory disharmony.

With respect to his statement that it is a motion and not legislation, the motion reads:

--the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

With all due respect, I do not think that is a motion that allows flexibility. I think that is a motion that directs the government on specifically what to do with light duty vehicles in Canada. That is a very specific motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party. I will take the time to read it first so that I can then comment on it more easily.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada

For starters, I should say that my party intends to support the opposition motion put forward today by the NDP. However, I do have some criticism of it. In our view, it must be said that this motion is vague and inadequate. Why is it vague? Because it fails unfortunately to specify the extent to which we expect the automobile industry to improve the efficiency of light duty vehicles. Is the standard 25% or 10%? No one knows.

Of course we must take a regulatory approach. That is what we think on this side of the House. However, we must never forget that our regulations must be consistent, not with the American government standards—as is currently the case in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the regulations under it—but rather with the practices and regulations recently adopted in California. It is important to remember that.

Smog has been a reality in Canada for a number of years now. However, Quebec was alerted to it more than ever recently during several days in early February when Montreal and the Outaouais were hit by a smog alert. This was quite unusual. How could Montrealers and the people of the Outaouais possibly expect a smog alert in February? This points to a major problem which reminds us that we must change our ways of doing things and our consumption patterns.

Before I go on to the automobile industry and its impact, we must remember, first and foremost, that it is not just vehicle exhaust that causes this smog. Wood stoves and wood heating are also responsible for smog. As recently as between 1987 and 2000, there was a 60% increase in wood heating in Canada compared to only a 20% increase in rental housing. This means that the number of people who decided to heat their homes with wood more than doubled in 15 years. Naturally, that has a major impact on air quality, especially in urban areas like Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which I represent in this House.

There is a mandatory five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At present, wood stove manufacturing standards have been harmonized with EPA standards. It may be time to consider, during our examination of the relevant sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, if stricter standards on wood stove manufacturing could not be implemented.

The crux of the problem is the transportation sector as a whole. We must remember that this sector is responsible for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

So, this is not an inconsequential sector. Just before I started my intervention, I was looking at the figures, and the oil and gas sectors are responsible for 18% of these emissions. So, the transportation sector is the primary emitter of greenhouse gas in Canada, with 25%. It is even expected that by 2010, there will be a 32% increase in greenhouse emissions in the transportation sector compared to the 1990 levels, if nothing is done, and I want to emphasize that point.

This means that we have to make some choices. If Canada decides to maintain the status quo and not implement any measures, greenhouse emissions will have increased by 32% compared to 1990 levels. So we are forced to take action.

Until now, the government has chosen to take a voluntary approach with the auto industry, among others. Ultimately, this approach means that the auto industry is being trusted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.

But that begs a fundamental question. Since there are quite a number of sectors in Canada—I am thinking of manufacturing, pulp and paper, steel—how come the federal government has decided to exclude the auto industry from the large industrial emitters?

When 25% of emissions are generated by the transportation sector—and there is a major correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and motor vehicle use—why was it decided to exclude the automotive sector from the large industrial emitters?

If the government, through its Minister of the Environment or Minister of Natural Resources, had announced to us today that the automotive industry was excluded from the large industrial emitters because the technology did not exist, I might almost understand. That is the case in certain industry sectors, such as cement manufacturing, for example. There we have substantial greenhouse gas emissions, and the technology to improve the energy balance of that industrial sector unfortunately does not exist. If that were the case for the automotive sector, I might almost understand.

But no. The technology to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles is available. So why are we not forcing the automobile industry to make better vehicles? When the technology exists, why do we continue to apply a voluntary approach which in recent years has produced no results? Some will say it is for economic reasons. I was listening to the hon. members from the Conservative Party telling us earlier that we had to understand that the vehicles produced in Canada were being exported.

It is as if to say that what has been done in California, which has a population of over 25 million and a market comparable to Canada's—so it has similar economic conditions—is good for California but not for Canada.

The economic argument does not wash, because the Canadian market is comparable to the California market. So what can be done in California can most certainly be done in Canada.

I look, among other things, at the action plan on climate change that was tabled in November 2002. The section on energy efficiency states that the automotive sector would be required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2 megatonnes and improve automobile efficiency by 25%. The plan is that specific.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party motion does not contain this level of effort that we are demanding of the automobile industry. We would have liked to see that 25% threshold in this motion. What the automobile industry has been telling us lately is that it is not interested in any norm for improving vehicle efficiency by 25%.

That industry tells us that it is certainly prepared to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 megatonnes, but it does not want to have a standard comparable to California's. It prefers the status quo. The status quo, what we have at the moment, is a harmonization of the vehicle manufacturing standards with those of the federal government, the EPA.

There is a flagrant injustice being imposed on the various industrial sectors at this time. For example, the manufacturing sector—not the Quebec manufacturing sector, but the sector as a whole—has made a 7% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction imposed on it is 15%. How can anyone claim that what is being negotiated at this time is fair?

An industrial sector that has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% gets a 15% reduction imposed upon it, while an industrial sector like the auto industry, which has the technology, would not be included among the major emitters. There is something inequitable here; the government's proposed approach is unfair. A few months ago, the government announced a multi-million aid package for Ford. No problem, if they want to help that sector, and that particular company, that is fine with me. But, how can that company use the taxpayers' money without being prepared to apply more stringent energy efficiency standards? Ought this assistance to Ford not to have been conditional on improved manufacturing so as to produce more energy-efficient vehicles?

When the Commissioner of the Environment speaks of strategic environmental assessments, that is exactly what she is referring to. What does she say about this? That tax measures, financial assistance, is being provided to certain companies without due consideration of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Take Bill C-48. This is a bill that gives some $250 million a year in tax incentives to the hydrocarbon industry. Fine. The industry gets tax incentives and financial assistance and what do we get in return from these sectors that do not even have to sign a voluntary agreement with the federal government to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15%? What do these sectors have to say about this?

I was reading the steel industry agreement. It is worth a read. Two agreements were signed by the federal government: one with the pulp and paper industry and the other with the steel industry. If you take the time to read the agreement, you will see that it says that the industry will enforce a 15% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions provided the competitiveness of the industry is not affected. This is based on industry studies.

So, the industry is prepared to accept federal assistance—that is the case with Ford—but it is not prepared to enforce stricter standards to improve vehicle efficiency by 25%.

What should be our direction in the coming years? In my opinion there are two approaches. It takes a fiscal and budgetary approach together with a regulatory approach. Let us develop a regulatory approach to make—and this is the case in the automobile industry—existing technologies more energy efficient.

We are not talking about research and development in this economic sector. We are talking about technologies that already exist. The government has a responsibility when faced with an industry that refuses to make the manufacture of vehicles more efficient.

Let us implement regulations that harmonize with California's, a regulatory approach, as the New Democratic Party proposes, so that, at the end of the day, new vehicles that come on the market will be more energy efficient and thus will help reduce smog. That is not enough: this regulatory approach must be accompanied by a tax-based approach to assist the public choosing to use sustainable transportation.

Sustainable transportation is help for public transit. How can the government not have included the very simple measure of making the cost of a public transit pass tax-deductible in its budget?

On February 23, let us hope that the Minister of Finance, who has been described as green by the Minister of the Environment—I have faith in what the Minister of the Environment says about the Minister of Finance—but if he is serious, he will announce on February 23 that the cost of a public transit pass will be deductible. That is the first step.

As a second step, there must be a tax incentive for people who decide to use a hybrid vehicle. A few months ago I bought a hybrid vehicle, which cost me $10,000 more than a conventional vehicle of the same make with the same options.

While the federal government is giving tax incentives to the oil industry, through Bill C-48, a responsible individual must spend an additional $10,000 to buy a more ecological vehicle. That makes no sense.

In this budget there must be a tax incentive for the citizen making a decision. What is $10,000 for a person who decides to live a cleaner life, when $250 million per year is given, with one stroke, to the oil industry? There must at least be some balance in tax policy between the aid given to these polluting industries and the aid given to the environmental industry in Canada. That must be our approach.

Canada could decide to adopt this strategic environmental assessment. As we know, in 1994 there was a directive from Cabinet—not the members of the House of Commons—to the effect that all departments ought to apply strategic environmental assessments to measures they were deciding upon. Plans, policies and programs should all be subjected to that test.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. If the government decided to enact legislation here in this Parliament to force all departments—among them Transport Canada and Finance in particular—and the commissioner was not very kind toward the latter, indicating that it was dragging its feet—to apply strategic environmental assessment to departmental plans, policies and programs, we would likely not be where we are today. It would be very likely that Canada could be presenting the Montreal conference in September with a better record as far as energy and greenhouse gas emissions are concerned than the one we have at present.

I will again point out that my party will be supporting the NDP motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member opposite. He has been working on the environment file for some time. I would like to ask him about transit subsidies, but before doing so, I would like to put two points on the record.

As I said earlier, the great thing about this debate is we can get out on the table a lot of the things we are doing relating to Kyoto, which members in the House and people across the country apparently are not aware of. The loyal opposition member suggested in his speech that we were not doing anything on CO

2

sequestration and that we should.

I am happy to announce that on January 17 we provided $10.8 million to Anadarko Canada, Apache Canada Limited, Penn West Petroleum and Suncor for CO

2

sequestration. Just so everyone knows, the next round of proposals for $4.2 million is available and people can apply before April 2005.

The NDP complimented us earlier that the next budget would be the greenest in history. However, we already have the largest environment program in history by any government in Canada, including NDP governments, of $3.5 billion for contaminated site cleanup. I am delighted that 60% of that is going to the north.

My question for the member is related to transit, which of course we support. The government has put hundreds of millions of dollars toward transit and continues to do so. Why would the member suggest that we put it into transit fare subsidies, which is what I think he said, as opposed to the contributions we are making directly to transit systems, which have proven to have even more effect? That would expand the system so it reached more riders and more people could use it, rather than rebating money to people who already use it, which may have some effect but not as much effect.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. parliamentary secretary is duty bound to defend this government's record. I would, however, like to remind him that Canada ranked 28th out of 29 OECD countries in a study involving 25 environmental indicators.

So the government is trying to tell us that it has an excellent environmental record and an excellent program, while in reality it has no plan whatsoever as far as greenhouse gas emissions are concerned. If the government had turned up at Kyoto with a plan in 1997, as the Europeans have been able to do on numerous occasions, we would not be where we are today.

Need I remind the parliamentary secretary that Canada is the only OECD country not to have a public transportation policy. That is pretty unbelievable, since Canada is supposed to have a good environmental record. Canada has, in fact, been harshly criticized, and not by some NGO. By the OECD. And why is that? Because the transportation sector is responsible for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. This is the largest share by any one sector. If nothing is done, that figure is going to be 32% by 2010.

Why must such measures be promoted? It is precisely because if we do not, the transportation sector will produce 32% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. So immediate action must be taken.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my hon. colleague from the Bloc. He is one of the most passionate advocates for environmental action on Parliament's environment committee.

I have a simple question for him and I think it will exploit some of the absurdity in the government's handling of the fuel efficiency standard.

With 80% of the vehicles purchased in Canada being built in either the U.S. or Mexico, the government is negotiating with the Canadian auto industry about a fuel efficiency standard. Does my colleague in the Bloc think that government discussions on a fuel efficiency standard should be a common North American standard? Therefore should the government be negotiating with the United States and Mexico toward a common standard for the continent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, of course, we should be negotiating with our partners. Except that, between you and me, the number one problem is that we have to negotiate with one trading partner, the United States, which has decided not to sign on to Kyoto. So, that poses a significant problem.

Furthermore, I want to add that stricter standards in terms of manufacturing, such as those California has adopted, do not constitute an economic disadvantage, but rather added value. There is a definite advantage, in terms of international competitiveness, to having stricter manufacturing standards for vehicles.

In fact, if we do not want Japan and Asia to impose new more fuel efficient models and take the lead over North America, we must realize that the countries able to successfully compete on international markets will be the ones that adopted stricter standards. So there is an advantage—called a “comparative advantage” by economists—to being able to adhere to stricter manufacturing standards.

Instead of thinking that the Kyoto protocol represents a significant economic cost, we must view it as an economic opportunity to improve environmental protection and add value to new vehicles that, tomorrow, will probably set the international standard.