Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Supply

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened to the member, for whom I usually have a great deal of respect, and his speech has nothing to do with the motion. He has talked about same sex marriage. He seems to be obsessed with that. He has talked about free votes. He has talked about everything except the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I think the member is moving toward the relevancy of his argument.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

That is absolutely correct, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member, who did not want to stick around to hear that.

We are talking about a very serious issue of mandatory regulations on auto emissions. We have said it should be 25%. It could probably be a lot higher, but we have said it should be 25%. We did not put a date on it because we want the government to make it mandatory and tell the industry what the target is and ask industry when conceivably it can be done and ask industry what it needs in order to do it. That is the whole essence of the motion.

We encourage the Conservatives to vote for the motion. If they are against the Liberals on all the other arguments, that is fine, but they should vote with us on this one. They should show once and for all that they truly are against the Liberals on this one. The reality is that their own environment critic indicated support for mandatory controls. He said it twice. Are they now saying that the Conservative Party's environment critic was wrong prior to the election? Was it an election ploy maybe? The fact is he said it not once, but twice. We only assume that somebody in the shadow cabinet would be able to speak clearly on whether something is mandatory or voluntary.

When it comes to the government, we would not have to have this debate today if the Liberals themselves, when they became the government in 1993, realized the escalating problem of air pollution and smog in this country. There is no excuse in the world for 12 years of dithering on this file and many other files. The reality is that we have been promised and assured that the health of Canadians is a number one priority.

The other day my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona said very clearly that emissions have raised by 20% in this country. They are not 20% lower. That is disastrous. Our children are breathing in this stuff. They are getting sicker because of it. Because of this health care costs are increasing and increasing. We can either pay now and do the right thing and bring in mandatory 25% emission reductions, or we can dither and do nothing and spend all that extra money on funerals, on medical problems and everything else that happens when we do not pay attention to our natural environment.

This particular initiative has great support from many environment groups throughout the country. We know that many within labour support this initiative as well.

We are asking the government for leadership on this file. We are asking that our colleagues in the government and our other colleagues in the House support this motion. If we leave anything for our children, it should be cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner planet for many years to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the New Democratic Party. I want to make it very clear to my colleague that the government is in ongoing negotiations with the automobile industry. We are working toward a voluntary agreement which will be good for the environment and good for the economy. If we fail to get a voluntary agreement, we will have to look at other options including regulatory options. However, the government is committed to deal with emission reductions, not only to 2010 but well beyond 2010.

I know the member appreciates the importance of the automobile industry in Canada. I would like him to note the fact that the government has worked very closely with the automobile industry, including the establishment of a national automobile strategy, and we have dealt with a motor vehicle fuel concentration program.

The hon. member is a good listener. Unfortunately, his colleagues are not.

The hon. member talked about maybe 25% or beyond. Could he tell us what technology he believes is currently available or in the pipe that would take us well beyond 25%, realizing the importance of the auto industry and jobs to people who support political parties in the country and who need the jobs?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, with the great respect I have for the hon. member, I am amazed that was able to say all that with a straight face. The Liberal strategy on the auto sector is absolutely an oxymoron, if I ever heard one. It is incredible.

I have a simple question for him. We know from history that every time the automobile sector is asked to do something voluntarily it fights it tooth and nail. It fought tooth and nail against the air bags. It fought tooth and nail against seat belts. Anything that meant added costs, it did not want it. Now the automobile sector is a proud proponent of these.

The technology exists. We have hybrid cars, we have smart cars, we have the industry and we have the will. We just need leadership from the government to make it happen. The member says that he wants to be very clear. That is what we want. We want a clear environment, no smog, so we can all breathe free and easy in the years to come.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, our colleague from Ontario was commenting on how we would proceed to go beyond the 25%. All we want to see at this point in time is the government to start getting to 25%.

Manitoba has been very much an advocate and proactive in reducing emissions, such as helping to install 4,000 geothermal heating units in private homes, converting generating stations from coal to natural gas, including putting ethanol in fuel to help reduce emissions. A lot can be done.

Are there other aspects along those lines in Manitoba and other provinces that can be done to at least get something started and to give the Liberals an idea where to start because they do not seem to know how to do that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague comes from the great province of Manitoba which is showing leadership in the area of the environment. Manitoba shows leadership in many other areas, but when it comes to the environment, Gary Doer and the NDP government of Manitoba show great leadership.

Like Quebec has done on day care, Manitoba has done on the environment. What they both have is leadership on a particular file. If the Liberals do not have a plan and have no ideas, all they have to do is pick up the phone and call Gary Doer. I am sure he would have lunch with them, in a beautiful Winnipeg restaurant, and would be able to straighten it out for them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for generously sharing his time with me and for his kind comments about the province of Manitoba. We take the issue of climate change very seriously.

Yesterday, the first day of the implementation of the Kyoto accord, should have been cause for great celebration in the land. I am surprised there were no people dancing in the streets. We would like to think this was the first day on the road toward a cleaner, healthier environment. The reason we have not seen cross-country jubilation and celebrations in the streets is no one has given the general public any indication that there is a plan in place which may lead to improving the quality of our air and therefore the quality of our life. There is an absolute dearth, a paucity, an absence of any concrete plan whatsoever.

I would like to table today something for the Liberal Party. If the Liberal government is devoid of any plan or any idea on how to achieve the Kyoto goals, the NDP has a concrete plan. We are willing to share that with the government of the day. It is even costed out clause by clause. I will be happy to go through some of that should time permit.

The Liberal government is not even at kindergarten level in terms of how we might achieve our Kyoto goals. The Liberal government is being out-greened by a guy who drives a Hummer. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, is light years ahead of the Government of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada is out-greened by a guy who drives a Hummer. This is shocking to me.

California has taken seriously the fact that voluntary compliance for reduction of emissions will not work, which essentially is the content of our motion today. If we are waiting for the air to clean up through voluntary compliance or voluntary measures, we had better pack a lunch and a puffer because we will be wheezing like my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore, complications that we do not wish on anyone.

Our excitement about the advent of the Kyoto accord is tempered greatly by the fact that we do not see a plan on the part of the government to help us get there. We do not have a road map to get to where we need to go. We have soiled our nests so badly that our kids cannot breathe, and it can only get worse unless we take drastic measures. I do not accept that what we are proposing is drastic at all. We believe it is reasonable, achievable, cost effective and necessary.

Our motion simply states:

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.

This is not rocket science. The industry and Canadians should have been going in this direction all along.

There has been reluctance in the industry to accept regulation. It is not in its nature to willingly accept limitations on how it conducts business. However, there is a duty and an obligation on the part of government to ensure that businesses act in the best interests of Canadians. I remind members that voluntary compliance to ethical guidelines in the accounting industry is what gave us Enron and Nortel, et cetera, until the government in the United States swept in and introduced strict regulatory measures.

In this example there is perhaps something even more important at stake, and that is the air that we breathe. What could be more important and what could be more natural than the government to intervene on behalf of the well-being of all Canadians? If some people are unwilling to accept that we should do these measures for the right reasons, then they can look at the monetary reasons.

Canada's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has calculated that the benefits, when compiled about achieving air quality standards contemplated in Kyoto, would be valued at $10 billion annually. That is a $10 billion net benefit for doing the right thing and making our air safe to breath. Do we need any more arguments about why we should take steps now? There are secondary impacts that are not even usually factored into the equation of air quality.

Research shows that in the greater Vancouver regional district, improving the quality of air would prevent $74 million a year in crop damage. That is something we do not consider. As we soil our nest and pollute our environment, it has an effect not only on the air we breath for human consumption, but the residue hurts agriculture and that industry sector. The B.C. Medical Association estimates that 2,000 premature deaths per year in B.C. are the result of air pollution. I will not bore the House with those statistics because shocking as they are, I think we are all quite aware of them. That is only one province alone.

There has been a pattern of reluctance of the industry to even implement research and developments to the auto industry without regulation. There was opposition to even publication of car-gas mileage in the early years. In 1975 the American Environmental Protection Agency wanted car companies to start listing what mileage one could expect from the cars they were selling. They baulked at that. They did not want to do it because they thought it would interfere with their ability to market certain models of cars. Now, after a threat of action from the EPA, car companies stamp right on every product what mileage one can expect from X, Y and Z car. This has been a net benefit. It now becomes a marketing advantage for companies to brag that their vehicles achieve X, Y and Z kilometres per litre.

The Environmental Protection Agency met with car companies to try to implement reduction of smog causing tailpipe emissions. The industry was not crazy about it. Some even claimed that such a rapid change would lead to bankruptcy. Some of the big three car companies said that if they had to reduce tailpipe emissions, it would be the road to bankruptcy. That was not the case. Now Ford and other companies claim that they go beyond regulatory requirements and that is part of their marketing strategy as well, to promote what they make.

We argue that there will be no negative impact on the industry if we raise the bar and expect a higher standard of fuel efficiency. In fact, the industry will rise to those new expectations, meet them and we will all benefit from that.

We have a number of points that we put forward in a comprehensive package on how Canada would meet its Kyoto obligations. As I alluded to earlier, I am glad to share these good ideas with all Canadians, and specifically with the ruling party of the day. We not only have the ideas, through consultation and canvassing right across the country, but we costed them out. We did an analysis as to what the impact would be on jobs. I am happy to report that there are far greater job creation possibilities in the demand side management of our energy resources than there is in the supply side of natural resources. We should all take note of this.

I used to work on the oil rigs and it does not take very many people to produce a barrel of oil. Once the well is pumping, there are very few people involved at all. However, it takes a lot of person hours to energy retrofit a building envelope to save energy.

As we clean up the environment, we will be creating jobs. This will be jobs and the environment, not jobs versus the environment. This is something to celebrate as we implement these things on our way to Kyoto.

Yesterday is a day we are celebrating, the first day in the survival of the planet. Let us put a road map in place. Let us implement motions like this and clean up together for a better world.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member from the NDP for this motion. I think it is an excellent motion that speaks to a challenge we are all facing.

I will just ask him to be perhaps a little patient. As the parliamentary secretary for the minister said very clearly in his comments, currently we are engaging in negotiations with the auto industry. They are at a sensitive time right now, but I hope that he will be pleased in the near future with what will come out of those deliberations. I know that the minister, the parliamentary secretary and the government are working very hard to resolve this conundrum.

Let me just say we know that the transportation industry is the fastest growing industry. It is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The interesting thing is that the technologies to actually implement this change already exist today. If we look at the experiences of Europe, California and Japan, we see that they have done an excellent job in reducing those emissions, not based on technologies that we hope we have but on technologies that we have today. Interestingly enough, that does not include the very expensive hybrid cars we have now, which is a good move. We can actually accomplish the 25% goal with what we have, without hybrids, and I am sure that in the future hybrids will become more popular.

My question to the hon. member is this. With respect to a Kyoto plan, a significant but under-reported and unrecognized element of what ought to be a part of that plan is not so much how much we burn. It is one factor, but there is another way in which we can actually meet our Kyoto requirements and indeed go beyond them, and that is in the area of conservation. In other words, we burn fuel and we emit energy, but how do we manage to conserve that energy, which obviously affects the amount of carbon materials and fuel products we burn?

Is the hon. member aware of and does he support the notion that we should adopt better ways of conserving energy through the way in which we build and insulate our homes and buildings? Does he agree that this is a significant way in which we can meet our Kyoto requirements?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today deals specifically with the mandatory emissions standards for the auto industry, but my colleague from B.C. is absolutely correct in that on the demand side management of our energy resources there are in fact job creation opportunities and unbelievable energy savings that could take us on the road to meeting our Kyoto obligations.

One such idea is the energy retrofitting of our public buildings. I will put this to him as he is a member of the ruling party. The federal government owns 68,000 buildings, many of which are absolute energy hogs because they were built in a time when energy was not an issue in the 1950s and 1960s. With the current energy retrofit program for the government's own buildings, it will take 150 years to actually retrofit all those buildings because they are doing a handful per year. I challenge him and his government to escalate the federal building initiative tenfold and do 5,000 buildings a year.

It will still take the government 12 or 15 years to get anywhere near full compliance, but it could serve as a demonstration to the rest of the country, to both the private sector and the public sector. It could show people how to save costs in operating buildings, conserve energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create a gazillion jobs, and even create a whole new industry in terms of the new developments in technology, which we could commercialize and export.

There are things that the government could do tomorrow morning. I am trying not to be too critical of the current government, because I appreciate the tone and the content of my colleague's question, but there are things we could do tomorrow that would get us well on the way to meeting our Kyoto commitments. We can start with our own publicly owned buildings.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Langley, Human Resources; the hon. member for Vaudreuil--Soulanges, Immigration; and the hon. member for Saskatoon--Humboldt, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to respond to the motion. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yukon.

First, I think it is very important to establish very clearly that the good faith with which the motion has been put is underscored by the overall plan that the New Democratic Party has put forward, of which there are several key components. I would like to briefly mention what they are.

The New Democratic Party's climate change plan, to which it has referred, has one section on energy efficiency, in particular of buildings, and that is what my colleague who preceded me talked about. He also talked about federal buildings and sustainability through a green purchasing plan.

The House will be interested to know that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He will be responding to questions which I am sure will be raised in respect to programs of energy efficiency in government buildings and in fact in government procurement policies with respect to hybrid vehicles, vehicles powered by alternate fuels and so on. That is a very important component of the NDP's plan, the intent of which I am sure the government and all parties would agree with.

Another section in the NDP's plan is about sustainable power for the century ahead. It talks about wind power and solar power and about meeting our carbon reductions through investments in those kinds of technologies. In fact, I could read chapter and verse on those areas where the government has, with the support of the House, been investing in those kinds of technologies, but that was done prior to my remarks. I hope that in the budget there will be an acceleration of those investments.

The New Democrats' plan also talks about investments in transit infrastructure, in particular on the side of rapid mass transit. There would be no argument there. In fact, many components of the GST reduction, what is characterized as the new deal for cities and is in fact the portion of the gas tax, will be aimed at investment in and the attempt to change behaviour with respect to mass transit.

Another aspect is sustainability. I think this is important: maximizing employment benefits. My colleague who preceded me also talked about employment benefits.

The reason I mention those components of the NDP's plan is that they are all in keeping with what I think is a good faith, straightforward approach, with elements of that approach already undertaken through initiatives of the government and supported by all sides. In fact, I would venture to say that no party in the House would disagree with anything in what I have just said.

In my perusal of the NDP's plan, and I may be wrong on this, I did not see any reference made in the transport section to the motion that is before us today. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but if I am right then I would like to attempt to extrapolate why I think that has happened. And if I am wrong, I ask members to take what I say at face value and see if I am right.

It seems to me that when we are dealing with the automotive sector or the transportation sector it is very important to enter into those negotiations, if we can call them that, in good faith and with every measure of goodwill that is in keeping with the complexities of that sector and the enormous implications with respect to the jobs, not only of the people directly employed in the sector, but of the people employed indirectly in other subsidiary and secondary parts of the sector.

In fact, parts of the automotive sector are all part of the sectors that are supported by the New Democrats and this government and that form part of the innovative and technical and technological capacity of our country. We have to be very careful that what we do to the automotive sector we do not inflict in a multiplier effect, in a domino effect, onto the rest of our economy and our workers. Indeed, if we do the wrong thing, if we get it wrong, possibly for what we think are the right reasons, then we will inflict great damage on our economy and in fact we will not go in the direction that we want to go.

What is the history of that good faith and goodwill relationship that we have had with the automotive sector? The record shows very clearly that we have had numerous agreements of a voluntary nature which have produced substantial benefits, not only with respect to carbon reductions but with high value added right through our economy.

I would just like to talk about fuel efficiency for a moment and go through what the record states. Members may not be aware that the voluntary company average fuel consumption program has been in existence for 25 years. There has been a 25 year contractual relationship with the automotive sector that has the following record of accomplishments: steady gains in fuel consumption in the Canadian market vehicles; since 1986, passenger vehicles have averaged 8% better than the targets that were voluntarily agreed on; 2003-04 passenger car fuel consumption was 12% better than the targets; since 1990, light trucks have averaged 3% better than the targets; and then last year, light trucks bettered the targets by 6%.

What this indicates is just a case in point of a 25 year relationship that set targets where the industry was able to meet those targets and in fact do better than the targets. I would submit that the fact the automotive sector is so competitive, so integrated and so strong has resulted from this kind of relationship we have had.

Recently we have seen the kinds of multi-million dollar investments we are making in various parts of the automotive sector to keep it vibrant and that invite shareholder and worker response in terms of support to keep the sector strong.

Thus, whenever we are looking at motions dealing with a degree of arbitrariness, let us look at that in comparison to the relationship we have had and whether it is necessary at this point to take out the hammer and use that degree of force through backstop regulation or any other kind of regime.

As we know, there are negotiations going on which I think we should not fetter by prematurely imposing something that has not been in character with the traditional relationship we have had with the automotive sector, with both its corporate and its labour representatives, who are presently meeting to look at some form of regime that would be in keeping with both their desire and our public's desire to meet the carbon reductions.

There have been opportunities to approach it in this way in Europe, an approach that uses what is called eco-covenants. These eco-covenants are developed so that the degree of buy-in and the accountability that comes with it are so obvious it is more than just a memorandum of understanding; it is a commitment that technologies in keeping with the kinds of technologies we have seen out of California will continue to be committed to, technologies that are presently being developed and implemented on the assembly line.

I think it is in total keeping to allow that process to play itself out. The end result will be a strong automotive sector that will continue to add value and jobs and at the same time meet the environmental objectives that we all want to see attained.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seemed to be supportive of the NDP's plan and the motion. Quite frankly often the government talks along those lines. The issue we have is that the Liberals have not followed through.

We now have the official implementation date of Kyoto and the government is not moving ahead with any plan.

The minister from Manitoba indicated yesterday that the failure of the federal government to have a plan is an issue. The federal Minister of the Environment said that Canada does not have a detailed plan to meet its Kyoto commitments, although it ratified Kyoto in 2002.

When the government's minister admits there is no plan, if the government members know there is a plan out there that will do the job, then the government should follow that plan. We do not have any problem with that. Go ahead and plagiarize our plan. We want to see it get into action. Plagiarize it. The government can have the copyright on it. We want to see the action. That is the problem.

People think that greenhouse gas emissions do not affect them. I represent the riding of Churchill. People are feeling it in Churchill, Manitoba. They are seeing it in the polar bear population. They are seeing issues with weights of polar bears. There is a risk that polar bears will become extinct. There is a conservation group now that is calling for the polar bear to be listed as possibly becoming extinct. If greenhouse gas emissions are not attacked aggressively now, polar bears could become extinct. The group is hoping that by calling for the polar bears to be listed in that category it will force the U.S. to get on line with the Kyoto plan.

The sad reality is we have to force our own government here in Canada to get on line and not just talk but put it into action. Why has the government not taken any action? Why would it not support this motion? We did not even give a timeline. We are saying to put the mandatory rules in place so we can get some action started to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have no problems with plagiarizing because really, plagiarizing is only a sin if one does it and does not admit to it.

In mentioning the plan, I have said that there are many elements of the position that have all-party support. I listed what they were and that should stand on its own.

The second thing is with respect to a plan. We do have a plan. The fact is we had a plan in 2000 and we had a plan in 2002. There really was not the degree of collaboration that should have taken place in establishing that plan.

The environmental and sustainable development committee is having that collaboration now. It is my hope that at the back end of that process and with the budget that will come out very shortly, the committee will use its oversight function. The committee will be able to compare what is being done with many of the suggestions that will be brought forward, including elements of the NDP's plan and those of the other parties to see whether further corrections are required. That is the approach. That is the process.

I tried to give a historical overview of my understanding of how we entered into negotiations in good faith. We have accomplished a great deal with respect to the automotive sector. We should let that play itself out because it has served us well in the past.

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

Madam Speaker, as a Yukon resident I have witnessed first hand the impact that climate change is already having on our land and our community. I would like to speak to two issues of strong importance to northerners, but equally important to all of Canada: reducing emissions and adapting to climate change.

Let me begin by saying that Canada is committed to the Kyoto protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. These call for actions to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and for actions to adapt to the changes in climate. Our success at reducing emissions and responding to climate change will come through broad efforts to forge new thinking, build alliances and invest in knowledge and innovation to advance sustainable development.

The government is committed to developing and promoting the adoption of green technologies that will help Canadians, including northerners, develop their economy while addressing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, we are focusing research on helping northerners decrease their reliance on diesel generators. While diesel provides needed energy to remote communities and installations, it also results in greenhouse gas emissions and has several other drawbacks such as high transportation costs and storage issues.

We are working with northerners to look at lower emissions alternatives, such as the combination of biomass, wind and photovoltaic technologies. Wood based biomass centralized heating technologies are being assessed where wood biomass is readily available. Small wind turbine technologies are being considered where suitable conditions prevail and installation and maintenance is feasible.

Photovoltaic technologies are being investigated as alternative energy sources for unique applications such as communications facilities. These examples illustrate how the Government of Canada is supporting innovation to find low emissions solutions suited to unique regional circumstances. It is clear in the Kyoto protocol that adaptation is not an alternative to emissions reductions, but is a necessary complement.

The Kyoto protocol recognizes that the global climate is changing even as nations make efforts to begin reducing their emissions. A changing climate presents us with complex challenges and many risks, but also some opportunities. Through innovation we can find ways to reduce risks and take advantage of opportunities.

Adaptation is an approach to managing risks to protect people, the environment and the economy. Emissions reductions and adaptation are two equally important elements of sustainable development.

Dealing with a changing climate is important for all Canadians. As a northerner I already see the evidence of a changing climate that we need to deal with. Some examples of the changes a warmer climate is bringing to the Arctic regions are: the melting of sea ice, glaciers and permafrost; rising sea levels and coastal erosion; increased forest fires and insect outbreaks; the movement of animal species north of their traditional ranges; and shifting vegetation zones.

These and other changes affect the ecosystems and natural resources that northern and aboriginal people have always depended on and could lead to major economic and cultural impacts. This has numerous implications for human health, transportation, infrastructure, environmental management and economic development.

The Arctic climate impact assessment, commissioned by the Arctic Council and released last November, describes in detail the impacts of climate change on the polar regions and the implications for the world. The north may be the leading indicator of things to come, but it is not the only region of Canada or the world that will have to adapt to climate change.

The broad issues faced by Canadians are well described in a Government of Canada report published last year, “Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation: A Canadian Perspective”. This report details the state of knowledge on what a changing climate will mean for water resources, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal zones, transportation, and human health and well-being.

Federal leadership on these issues is important because the issues are complex and cross domestic and international boundaries. They will require a sustained long term effort in the face of uncertainties. The government in which I have the honour to serve the people of Canada is showing this leadership.

To succeed at adapting to climate change, communities, businesses and citizens need better information on how the climate is changing, and better tools to assess the risks and plan the most effective way to respond.

Our government is supporting a great deal of research to build an essential knowledge base for Canadians. This demonstrates the government's commitment to informing Canadians of this important issue and helping them prepare for the future.

Natural Resources Canada is investing in science to help reduce the vulnerability of Canadians, their communities and the country's infrastructure to reduce climate change. For example, our earth sciences program conducts and publicizes research aimed at improving our understanding of the sensitivity to climate change of Canada's land mass and coastal areas, including permafrost, floods, landslides and storm surges.

The Canadian Forest Service is examining the impact of climate change on tree growth, forest fires, pest outbreaks, and ways to manage our forests more effectively in the face of a changing climate. Scientists work closely with partners across Canada to assess ways to further reduce impacts and costs, and to help them incorporate new knowledge into planning and resource management.

We also work closely with other federal departments, the provinces and territories, and experts across the country to create building blocks for adaptation to climate change.

We are investing $37.5 million over five years in the climate change impacts and adaptation program. Under this program we have supported more than 130 research studies across Canada to examine the climate change risks and opportunities for a range of sectors and issues, from transportation to traditional food supplies.

The government also established the Canadian Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Research Network, C-CIARN. Today this network reaches across Canada and into major economic sectors. The network is connecting the insights of researchers with governments, industries and communities which need to plan for a changing climate.

I have witnessed the good work of the northern node of C-CIARN. Led by Yukon College it promotes dialogue and facilitates new research on climate change impacts and adaptation measures throughout Canada's three northern territories, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon. I am proud to say that we are working very closely with other governments to develop a long term approach to responding to climate change.

In 2002 ministers of the environment and energy from the federal government, provinces and territories agreed to flesh out a national adaptation framework to guide intergovernmental collaboration. This work will soon be completed, setting the stage for more detailed planning between governments.

Together the efforts I have described make Canada one of the world's leaders in addressing adaptation as part of its climate change plan. We are in the early stages of understanding the issues and of identifying ways to deal with them. There is much more work ahead of us.

We need to sustain the development of knowledge. We need to encourage collaboration and planning to apply this knowledge. We need to engage Canadians to deal with risks and opportunities. All of these things need to be part of a sustained effort to enable prudent decision making over time.

Climate change is not just an issue for the future. Many of today's decisions and investments will last long into the future, so we need to make sure they are sustainable as the climate changes.

Therefore, we will pursue practical ways to build climate change impacts and adaptation into the government's sustainable development and strategic and operational planning. We are committed to supporting continued technology innovation and collaborating with all levels of government, industry and Canadians. Addressing the emissions reduction and adaptation challenges are both important goals of Canada's climate change plan.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague who I serve with on the industry committee. I know that he takes all of his speeches here very seriously.

I have a couple of questions for him. What are his thoughts about the effects of this issue on human health? I want to use Ontario as an example. I know the member is from Yukon, but the Ontario Medical Association, for example, has done a study and estimates that smog and pollution will cost the Ontario economy about $1 billion each year.

Given that absolute loss to the economy, setting aside the issues of how it punishes our children, seniors and other Canadians by having this infectious attack on their human health, why has the government not produced or procured an auto strategy to give confidence to the industry? Where is that? We would certainly like to see that because it was promised.

The Minister of Industry told me that he hoped to have a document in front of cabinet. Has the actual auto strategy been given to cabinet at this point in time and when are we going to see action? It has been about three and a half years since the CAPC report was initiated. It has been completed for months.

Could the hon. member shed any light on that subject matter because I believe the industry would be much more supportive if it was confident the government was behind it 100%?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I complimented the member earlier for knowing many of the provisions the government has put in place when numerous other members of the opposition were not aware of all the programs and services.

In relation to health, I totally agree with him. The government totally agrees that smog and air pollution are very detrimental to people's health. That is why I was very disappointed, when I asked the first question this morning related to the programs and regulations, that no one was aware that the particular reduction I was talking about would save 2,100 premature deaths, 93,000 incidents of bronchitis in children, reduce 5 million other health related incidents of asthma attacks, and 11 million acute respiratory symptoms.

Many of the items in our plan are to get Canadians off fossil fuels, such as: wind energy, which was big in the throne speech and the budget; ethanol; solar energy; biomass; work on geothermal and hydrogen; green infrastructure for municipalities; education of the public; the EnerGuide program, where 140,000 people have taken advantage of; and $10 million for carbon sequestration. All these things are important to help reduce the greenhouse gases and the concomitant smog, and to reduce the health risks that the member raised.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is aware of the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found that the last 50 years of human activity were directly related to the issue of global warming. The Arctic climate change report came down in November 2004.

Since the member is from Yukon, I am sure the member has seen the effects on habitat, polar bears, ice floes, et cetera, and how pollution issues from southern areas of Canada have had an impact on the north. I wonder if he could make some comments with regard to these impacts, particularly in light of those reports.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic that I spoke at a conference partly funded by the Government of Canada two weeks ago on climate change. It was great to work with 400 scientists. Canada has some of the leading scientists in the world at Environment Canada.

One of the people who spoke before me said climate change was still just a theory. I departed from my notes and explained how the permafrost is melting the ice roads that we depend on for the economy in the north, how species are moving away from the aboriginal villages that have need of them, how building foundations are collapsing causing all sorts of expenses, how mud is pouring into the Arctic Ocean where the permafrost is melting, and how Alaska is taking away an entire island to save a community on the coast.

Climate change is already in the north, which was a point in my speech. In the south, it is important, as per this motion, that we reduce greenhouse gases, but in the north we also need pillar 2, which is the adaptation to the changes that we are facing so severely in the north.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton Centre.

I would like to begin my speech on this important motion on mandatory emission standards and talk about why voluntary emission standards have not worked. We have seen this in other areas as well.

We have seen it in the voluntary program for energy efficient homes, a program that was started in 1982 and that members of the government raised a number of times in the debate today. That program to promote energy efficient homes, which was started in the 1980s through a voluntary program, has resulted in less than 10,000 R-2000 energy efficient homes actually being built over a 20 year period. That means about .6% of Canada's new housing starts have involved these energy efficient homes. In other words, that is a failure rate of over 99%.

Let us talk about voluntary standards in another sector, which is voluntary greenhouse gas reduction efforts announced with loud acclaim by the Liberal government in 1995. Companies were invited to report greenhouse gas emissions and actions taken to reduce them. At the end of 1999 there were 1,000 companies registered with these voluntary standards. Only 10% of the companies that registered actually provided detailed greenhouse gas information. In other words, the failure rate of those voluntary standards was 90%.

We have talked today and other hon. colleagues have raised the fact that we have had a total failure by the Liberal government to actually deal with greenhouse gas emissions. The supposed plan that was put into place was supposed to result in a 20% reduction and we have actually seen a 20% increase. Today members of the government seem to be proud of that deplorable fact that our greenhouse gases have actually gone up when their plan called for a reduction.

What should be a source of shame to all members in all corners of the House is that the OECD has indicated, for 25 environmental indicators, Canada's overall ranking to be 28th out of 29 OECD nations. So much for success on the environmental front. So much for success in putting the plan into effect. We are 28th out of 29 and members of the Liberal government are actually proud of that fact. It is deplorable and that is why the NDP and the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley, who is very concerned about our environmental future as a nation, brought forward this motion today. Canadians are crying out for decisive government action in this area.

We have seen Liberal failures. I would like to talk about the Conservatives for just a moment because it is unclear exactly what position they are taking this time. My colleague from New Westminster--Coquitlam did mention that he could support the motion. Certainly, coming from the area that he does, neighbouring my riding of Burnaby--New Westminster, I can understand he is aware of the concern about the growing pollution problems.

However, two other members, the member for Oshawa and the member for Essex, actually said they would be opposing this motion. If so, obviously neither the member for Oshawa nor the member for Essex actually had their speech vetted by the leader of the Conservative Party because this is what the leader of the Conservative Party said in the last election. This comes from the public domain, the CTV website. The leader of the Conservative Party told supporters during the election campaign last June that the Tories would pass a new clean air bill that would include mandatory limits on emissions, with targeted levels.

Very clearly, we have the leader of the Conservative Party, who obviously did not vet the speeches from the member for Oshawa or the member for Essex, speaking in favour of mandatory emissions. That is not all. We have the environment critic from the Conservative Party making the commitment again in the June 28 election to regulate fuel economy in automobiles in order to attain 25% improvement in efficiency.

What we have are members of the Conservative Party saying very clearly in an election campaign that they supported mandatory emissions, and some members at least of the same Conservative Party are now, after the election is finished and obviously after the voters have chosen, saying that they oppose mandatory emissions.

What is wrong with this picture? I think it would be charitable at best to say it is deceptive to support mandatory emissions during an election campaign and then not support them in this House when the time comes to actually make a decision and support the Canadian environment.

I would also like to mention that the Conservative environment critic said that the position on mandatory fuel efficiency was party policy. This was in a reply to a questionnaire sent to the Sierra Club of Canada. Clearly, we have failure on the government's part. We have some incoherence from the official opposition.

What do Canadians say? In a poll that was done last year just prior to the election, and that is perhaps why at least in two corners of this House there was lip service paid to the environment, 94% of Canadians showed support for fuel economy. In other words, 94% of Canadians supported mandatory fuel efficiency regulations, including requiring better mileage and lowering greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian cars and trucks. We are talking about a widespread consensus within the Canadian population that this has to happen.

I would suggest woe is the member of Parliament who comes away from this House having voted against what 94% of Canadians support. In the next election, whether that is in a month or a year, those kinds of issues will be part of the public domain. Woe to those who go against what they committed to as members of the Conservative Party or as members of the Liberal Party in the last election.

Since there is widespread Canadian support right across the country, including British Columbia, it is obvious that Canadians understand what is at stake.

The B.C. Medical Association estimates 2,000 premature deaths per year in British Columbia each year as a result of air pollution. In Ontario, 20% of hospital admissions for infants under the age of one for bronchitis and pneumonia can be attributed to smog. We are not talking about a small issue. We are talking about an issue that Canadians understand. Canadians understand the consequences of not acting.

We have already talked about voluntary standards being a failure. Let us talk a bit about what has succeeded in the past. The NDP government in British Columbia put in place a clean air program. That program up until the year 2000 succeeded in reducing common air contaminants by 40% over the period of the clean air program. It actually succeeded in reducing per capita emission reduction by 60%. What we saw was clear action by the provincial NDP government in British Columbia. It succeeded in having a substantial impact on the state of air in British Columbia, particularly in the Lower Mainland.

That is why when we look at the polls in B.C., the New Democratic Party is leading. Since then, of course, we have stumbled backwards under the Gordon Campbell Liberals. I think British Columbians are feeling this issue as strongly as any other Canadians and will be voting accordingly in the election to be held in May of this year.

Given that the clean air act brought in by the B.C. NDP government was able to actually reduce the smog provoking emissions, what do we have to contend with when we talk about greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions? In the Greater Vancouver Regional District, part of which I represent, we are looking now at 17,766,109 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This is up from 12 billion in 1995. If we do not take action, that situation will get worse.

That is why the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley as well as the member for Toronto—Danforth, our leader, and members of Parliament for Windsor—Tecumseh and for Windsor West have been pushing a green car strategy. We believe in a green car strategy. We believe in saving Canadian jobs by expanding our technology and dealing with this worldwide trend and we will continue to that.

Committees of the House

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe if you were to request it, you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding the Order made December 7 and 8, 2004, with respect to travel to St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Fredericton, New Brunswick and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Montreal in relation to its studies on the new citizenship legislation, recognition of foreign credentials and family reunification, seven members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration be authorized to travel in April 2005, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Does the hon. chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)