Debates of May 11th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his comments. Incidentally, he is taking part in the work of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Over many years, he has acquired a knowledge of the environment that few members in this House can match. I know that he was part of a task force representing citizens on the International Joint Commission. Consequently, he knows environmental issues well.

I would like my colleague to establish this important relationship between the issue of climate change and the levels of the different basins, both the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. We know that climate change will naturally have a direct impact both on the rate of flow of the St. Lawrence and on its level. I would like the member to tell this House about the importance of fighting climate change to allow for the maintenance of an adequate level in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. This is crucial both for protecting the environment and for ensuring that citizens will be able to continue to use the St. Lawrence. Moreover, this will ensure that the negative impact on maritime traffic, which is directly related to the marine industry, will be minimal.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Indeed, in the last three years, I sat on a working committee of the International Joint Commission that studied climate changes and the fluctuation of water level in the Great Lakes, specially in Lake Ontario, which feeds the St. Lawrence River. According to the mathematical models produced during the study, the future is rather disturbing. Several questions were asked, for example on the increase in precipitation and the absence of ice on the Great Lakes which could accelerate water evaporation and in the end completely disrupt the traditional water volume entering the St. Lawrence.

We cannot be sure that the water flow in the St. Lawrence River will remain the same. We could very well see the lowering of the Great Lakes water level and a decrease in the water flow of the St. Lawrence, which would have dire consequences.

Besides the direct relation between water level in the Great Lakes and water flow in the river, climate changes are creating serious erosion problems further up the St. Lawrence. We noticed that winds, which are now much stronger than they used to be, are pounding the banks along the North Shore and can cause very serious damage to homes built close to the river's edge.

To summarize, I will say that the expected consequences of climate change on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River are enormous.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for sharing his time with me.

I will start by stating my primary reasons for entering politics. First, there is my Quebec culture and my desire to protect it. Another reason was my attachment to the values of respect and openness that I inherited from my parents. Finally, I entered politics because of my respect for this earth and not only for Quebec, but for the whole planet. For all these reasons and values, I one day decided to join the Bloc Quebecois, the only party that, in my opinion, really takes Quebec's interest to heart and that really cares about the priorities of Quebeckers.

As an elected representative, I sincerely believe that I have a responsibility to speak out on behalf of the public. One of the main concerns of this public is the fight against environmental degradation worldwide.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The member will resume her remarks a bit later.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of Her Excellency the Governor General that all hon. members attend her immediately in the Senate chamber.

Accordingly the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-4, an act to amend an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act — Chapter 1.

Bill C-8, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2007 — Chapter 2.

Pursuant to order made earlier today I wish to inform the House that because of the royal assent government orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the elected representative of a people, I have a duty to talk on their behalf. One of their greatest current concerns is the fight against environmental degradation around the world.

Whether we are from Laurentides—Labelle or any other place on the planet, we are all aware of the need to act. The fight against climate change will be one of the most important planetary issues in the coming years.

The Kyoto protocol is the product of numerous years of work and collaboration within the international community. To date, it is the most effective and the most comprehensive tool for fighting climate change. The motion tabled by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie asks that the Conservative government take some effective action to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction, and that it do so right now.

The Conservative government must act as a responsible government and must undertake to respect the Kyoto protocol, an agreement by which Canada is legally bound. By ratifying the protocol, on December 17, 2002, after a majority vote in the House of Commons, Canada undertook to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to a level of 6% below its 1990 level. Canada’s record concerning greenhouse gas emissions is far from brilliant since, in 2003, Canada emitted 24% more greenhouse gases than in 1990.

Quebec, where energy production relies chiefly on hydroelectricity, which is renewable and clean, contributed only very slightly to this increase in production of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2003, greenhouse gas emissions increased in Quebec by 8.6%, compared to 34% in Alberta and 45% in Saskatchewan.

Paradoxically, the oil industry has received $66 billion in subsidies over the past 30 years, as opposed to a meagre $329 million for the renewable energy industry.

One year after the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Canada, the former Liberal government adopted Bill C-48, which made Canada a tax haven for oil companies in North America.

The first budget of the Conservative Party reveals that it intends to continue in the same direction as the Liberal Party of Canada. In my opinion, Liberals or Conservatives, it is all the same. As for the Conservatives, they seem to have found a new passion: Quebec. Since the last election, and even during the election campaign, they have inundated Quebec with promises and commitments. Perhaps they should now focus on the real priorities of Quebeckers. According to a Léger Marketing survey that was made public on February 15, over 90% of Quebeckers support the Kyoto protocol and its objectives. More important, they say they are willing to make concrete efforts to ensure that Quebec reaches the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.

I am trying to understand the Conservatives and I am still very concerned with the arrogant attitude they have taken since their recent election. It did not take them long to get into the same bad habits as the Liberals. One has to wonder if power does not lead to deafness, blindness and amnesia. The position taken by the Conservatives is weakening not only Canada's credibility, but also Quebec's credibility in the international arena. It could definitely put into question the relevancy of negotiating the signing of multilateral agreements. Experts the world over agree that climate change could have catastrophic consequences for ecosystems, animals and human communities.

Several groups have been working for many years to raise public awareness of the importance of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

In Montreal last February 16, a number of Quebec leaders gathered at the invitation of Équiterre and Greenpeace to celebrate the first anniversary of the coming into force of the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to quote some of them. Mr. Alban D'Amours of the Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins said:

The recent United Nations conference on climate change will have served to raise considerable awareness of the urgency of acting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and spurred our concern to protect the environment.

Claudette Carbonneau of the CSN and Henri Massé of the FTQ said:

Tough measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be put in place quickly in all sectors of society, and workers must be an integral part of the solutions for implementing the Kyoto protocol.

And finally, Laurent Pellerin of the UPA:

Global warming is a threat to food security, and may have harmful consequences for the entire planet such as reduction of food crops and potable water resources.

Governing responsibly means looking beyond a political agenda that lasts a few months. It means implementing the conditions necessary to ensure the security, health and prosperity of citizens for the years to come. The Conservative government is doing the very opposite!

If the Conservatives really want to contribute to improving the security and health of citizens, let them give up spending taxpayers’ money on building more prisons. Let them invest that money instead in combating the stealthiest threat, which is at our gates and making its presence known by the increase in such extreme weather events as heatwaves, hurricanes and droughts.

The Conservative government says it does not want to send taxpayers’ money abroad. The Bloc Québécois is in complete agreement. It is rather the rich oil companies that should pay the environmental costs generated by their industry.

To do otherwise would be to leave the bill with all the taxpayers, who already find themselves the poorer as the price of gas goes up, the taxpayers who on top of that would have to bear the cost of the harmful consequences of climate change. The Conservative government cannot remain deaf to the demands of Quebeckers.

Quebeckers believe in the necessity of stopping the destruction of our environment and in the need for clean water, air and soil so that our children and grandchildren may in their turn enjoy what nature has lent to us.

I will close by asking the Minister of the Environment a question, which has to do with her lack of vision for the future.

When your pockets are full, what will you feed on?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member from the Bloc Québécois on her very fine speech. However, I have a few additional questions for her.

The member says that Quebec has finally reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% thanks to its energy efforts.

If Quebec is considered on its own, independent or not, in terms of the Kyoto protocol, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is much less. The problem is, air comes into Quebec from Ontario. It sometimes even comes from the United States, from the Atlantic, from the north, or from the south.

The global solution of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 8% may be mathematically good for Quebec, but it will not substantially improve the quality of the air Quebeckers breathe.

When we talk about a global solution, we have to look at it globally. Quebec, not as a culture or a people but as a territory, is not large enough to solve the problem. Air comes from everywhere. The same is true of water.

It was suggested that no financial cuts be made. However, where should this money be invested? It was said earlier that the government should not invest it in prisons. But which program should we invest it in? What programs and solutions does the Bloc Québécois have to suggest? It is true that we are talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We are prepared to do so. We all want to do the right thing, but what is the solution? It was mentioned that the money should not be invested in prisons. We agree, and we will not invest it in prisons, but where will we invest it?

It was suggested that the money be invested in research. Yes, but what sort of research? Research into public transit or something else? I did not get an answer to that question.

It is true that we are trying to find a solution to environmental problems so that we can have better quality air. Everyone agrees on that. But what concrete proposal does the Bloc Québécois have to successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very long question which I can answer very easily.

The Bloc Québécois is asking Ottawa for an implementation plan for the Kyoto protocol that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.

A series of measures have been proposed that fall within federal jurisdiction: strict standards for vehicle manufacturing in order to improve fuel efficiency; rebates on the purchase of greener cars; financial support for development of renewable energy including wind energy, which Quebec already has through its hydroelectricity and through the wind turbines already in place without federal subsidies; abolition of tax incentives for oil companies; and grants for organizations that contribute to meeting the Kyoto objectives.

What more can we say, other than that Quebec has always had a responsible government, has always been proactive in all the measures and programs it has put forward? We realize today, from a pan-Canadian perspective, that what has been done in Quebec could be replicated elsewhere. However, it is always Quebec that is penalized and that does not derive a monetary return from these programs.

I believe that the Government of Quebec has already done a great deal; it has easily proven itself. If we refer to greenhouse gas emissions chart, we can see that Quebec had the best emissions record in Canada, with 12 tonnes per person. Of all the Canadian provinces, Quebec's rating is the lowest. It is remarkable, and the credit goes to Quebec's many years of efforts.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak on the issue of the Kyoto protocol and the accord that comes out of it. I have spent many years looking forward to the time when we will address greenhouse gas issues in an acceptable and bold fashion and will move forward on this.

The importance of Kyoto is really about what it meant to the world community when, in an organized fashion, we finally put forward a treaty that looked to reduce the consumption of the world's resources. One hundred and eighty countries bought into the concept of the need to conserve the earth, the need to conserve the resources that we have, to husband them, to use them effectively and to use them in a fashion that does not upset the ecosystem. That truly is a marvellous achievement in international politics. We cannot step back from that, we simply cannot.

I commend the motion made by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, because everything that we can do helps, but in regard to the motion I have to say that we cannot let inter-jurisdictional wrangling delay action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a international issue, a global issue and an issue that in this country we have to deal with as a national issue.

I had the opportunity to sit on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' green municipal fund. This is really quite a good organization. That was one thing the Liberals did that was pretty good. It gave some money to another organization to organize a green effort. That speaks to the past government, but when it gave money to that other organization, the Parti Québécois would not allow the municipalities in Quebec to participate in the program. They missed the opportunity.

We had many wonderful projects from Quebec and what did we get out of them? We did not even get a chance to fund those projects. So we have to be careful with jurisdictional issues. We have to look at this holistically and in a forward thinking fashion, covering the whole of Canada and the world.

The heating of our planet will affect every human being. While jurisdictional issues must be considered, we cannot allow them to be a distraction from the real objective, which is to reduce the carbon dioxide that we are pouring into the atmosphere and that will change the earth for our children and our children's children.

I grew up and live in the north and I have seen the change in the north. The Mackenzie Valley is predicted to be the centre of the largest temperature increase in North America. That fact is on the ground already.

In Tuktoyaktuk on the Arctic coast, shoreline erosion due to rising sea levels and much more violent storms that come from the greater heating of the earth and sky have forced people from their homes. They have seen parts of their communities washed away.

Animals throughout the north have been affected. Right now we are dealing with a crisis in caribou herds right across the whole country, including northern Quebec, because the change in climate affects animals first. They are the ones that live off the land. They are the ones whose breeding patterns change due to differing temperatures and inaccessible food supplies because of changes in climate.

Across the north, winter roads, vital for the resupply of communities and mines, are melting earlier. This past winter large diamond mines in the Northwest Territories were impacted tremendously by the loss of the winter roads. There has been an increase in forest fires in our boreal forest. There has been an increase in pests throughout the forests of Canada, including the north where spruce budworm has killed many of our trees. Across the Mackenzie Valley, permafrost, thousands of years old, has been melting away. These are all indicators of climate change.

When good managers or wise people see indications of change or of something going wrong, they should look to fix it. The Liberal government saw indications of change, but did nothing to fix it. If I were a mechanic, I would say they put some engine additive in the machine of Canada and revved it up even higher. The Liberals hoped these problems would go away, but they did not. Now we have a Conservative government that is not going to take a hopeful approach. It is going to ignore these problems completely.

We see a change in attitude toward China and India. There is this attitude that the more advanced countries should move ahead on Kyoto and developing countries can catch up. We are demanding that these countries not follow in our footsteps, but lead us instead. I do not think that is correct.

We are in Afghanistan touting our democracy. We can beat our chest a bit about that. We have a House of Commons. We have all we need to be a democracy. Do we have the answer to Kyoto? Do we have the answer to greenhouse gas emissions so we can tell these other countries what to do? Canada should be leading on this issue.

The government does not have a plan other than to continue consumption. We just have to look at what has happened over the last number of years. We have ramped up production of oil and gas across the country in a remarkable fashion. In the mid-nineties, the Liberal government, along with the provincial Conservative government, gave huge tax breaks to the tar sands in Alberta when oil was $12 a barrel. It is $70 a barrel now. Those tax breaks are still there. The rampant development that is taking place there is hurting the whole community. People from Fort McMurray tell me they do not want this kind of development. They want an orderly development. Now we are a full freight train of development on the tar sands with very little return to the government. This is having a dilatory effect on the environment. We need to change some tax policies.

Natural gas is another matter. We used to have a 25 year reserve of natural gas for our communities, but we have ramped up its production to the point where we are now down to an eight year reserve. We are selling off our natural gas as quickly as possible. The Conservative government's approach is to send people over to Russia to set up contracts for liquefied natural gas. We can export our Kyoto problem over to Russia where it will use 40% of the energy involved to liquefy the natural gas and send it back over to Canada. That is not a solution for Canada or the world. That is just more consumption. We need a government that puts conservation and those values first.

We need to provide support to our communities. They are the base where conservation changes can be made. We need to put national economic instruments in place that can drive the development of renewable energy such as wind, solar power and biomass. Our wind energy industry has to survive with a Liberal stipend that is one-third of what it is in the United States. This is not the kind of support this fledgling industry needs.

Solar is much left off. There is much to say here. We will not finish this Kyoto debate today. It will go on for quite a while in this Parliament.

I commend the work of the Bloc in bringing forward this resolution, but we will be back at this again.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government shares the member's passion for cleaning up the environment and addressing our concerns. In fact, we have an action plan that we want to bring forward.

I sit on the environment committee with one of the hon. members across the way. We look forward to bringing forth some constructive ideas on how we can fix the environment. Would the member be prepared to support the government in positive approaches that will lead to a cleaner environment in Canada?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we cannot simply look for band-aid solutions to deal with these problems. We need to take an active and bold interest in how we deal with energy across the whole country.

The fact that greenhouse gas emissions have gone up by an incredible percentage in Canada shows us that the problem will not be solved easily. We need to take bold action. We need to look at the energy supply industry first. Then we need to look at serious conservation efforts that can drive Canadians to reduce, reduce and reduce.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have another northern colleague speaking here. I know we share some values. I have two quick questions.

The Conservative Party has been talking for years about the mountain pine beetle. I was delighted the member brought up it up and the spruce budworm, which is devastating Yukon spruce forests.

In the recent budget, more money was into the mountain pine beetle than for the aboriginal people of British Columbia. Does he not think it would be better invested in climate change? Scientists, who have been working on this since 1913, have proved that the only thing that will solve the problem is an extended period of cold, which is being hindered by climate change. The government just cancelled 15 of the climate change programs.

The member said he was against the development of the tar sands. I am curious as to his view on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the forests of Canada and the impact that climate change has on them, we can see it quite readily. I do not think anyone in the House is turning his or her back on that. We need a forest strategy, a survival strategy in those forests, to take out the trees, to find ways we can use that in an effective fashion to build some local autonomy.

We have done so little on biomass in Canada. We could look to the Scandinavian countries where they use their forests with intensity and they have produced great results from that. We could take a lesson from Finland on how to manage these forests and how to deal with these types of issues in the forest so we can turn this environmental disaster into something we can deal with in a reasonable fashion. That requires bold action, money and the efforts of the provinces and federal government working together.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate, but it is kind of extraordinary and bizarre in many ways that we are having it.

I talked to people from the western part of my riding to the east, north and south throughout the election and before that, as someone who was involved in environmental issues. They would find it extraordinary and bizarre that we are having to debate this rather than getting on with the work on the important issue of climate change.

We know what climate change is doing. I shake my head at the fact that we having to convince the government that more action should be taken on this. I wonder what will be asked in a generation or two. Will they ask, what did they do at that important time when they were at crossroads? Did they stick their heads in the sand, tar sands perhaps? Did they get up and do something about climate change?

The climate change issue is one that not only affects Canadians. It also affects people throughout the planet. As has been stated before, we only have one planet and we are doing an awful job of taking care of it.

In generations to come the record will show that we went through massive resources with terrible consumption and poor stewardship. That is an embarrassment. What have we done? We have decided to go for the quick and easy and look at the next six months and perhaps the next year. However, we have forgotten the notion of looking after the next generation, taking care of what we have.

I sense there might be some debate about the fact that climate change is a significant scientific issue. I would like to take a look from where this stems. We just have to go back to the first world climate conference in February 1979. It identified the issue. Then in June 1988 there was the World Conference on Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. Then in November 1998 we had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In August of 1990 the IPCC issued its first assessment report, which talked about the concerns. In December 1995 the second assessment report by the IPCC was issued. It talked about the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence on global climate. Then in 2001 the third report was issued. In May 2001 a further report was issued.

In June 2001 a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, commissioned by President George W. Bush, talked about how greenhouse gases were accumulating in the earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities. Even George agrees now.

In November 2004 an unprecedented four year scientific study of the Arctic, conducted by the an international team of 300 scientists, was released. It stated that the impacts of global warming were now affecting people in the Arctic, and it goes on.

I want to address this because the minister talked about it earlier. In June 2005 the national science academies of the G-8 nations, plus those from China, India and Brazil, signed a declaration warning world leaders of the clear and increasing threat of climate change. They called for immediate action.

It is pretty clear at this point, and we can all agree hopefully, that climate change is an issue and we are not responding. We are bystanders watching it go by.

What does this mean? In terms of Canadians, it means socio-economic impacts. We talked about the pine beetle epidemic. Even the global insurance industry claimed that $44 billion in insured losses were due to extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes. Recent scientific evidence suggests a link between human induced climate change and an increase in storm intensity and duration. We could talk about Katrina.

Do we want to talk further about whether climate change is a problem? In British Columbia warmer waters are affecting the spawning and migration of salmon. The B.C. interior forest industry is facing a widespread infestation of the mountain pine beetle, to which I referred. What keeps their numbers in check? Cold weather.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan severe droughts have been ravaging the prairie provinces. Environment Canada reports that the prairies are actually drier now than they were in the 1930s. There is further evidence.

[Gerry Ritz]

They flooded. It is wetter out there.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just refer to Environment Canada, with all due respect to my friends. The people there are the ones who get paid to do it and I trust that they know more about it than the member.

In Ontario warmer weather causes more air pollution and smog. I am sure we could agree on that. In Ontario alone smog costs more than $1 billion a year. Mr. Clement, the Minister of Health, is here and he might want to hear this. It is $1 billion a year in--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. There were two things. First, the member referred to a member by name and second, he mentioned the presence or absence of a member in the House.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Someone who is involved in the issues of health might want to know that it costs more than $1 billion a year in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and absenteeisms. This is according to the Ontario Medical Association.

In Quebec the flooding of the Saguenay Valley in 1996 caused almost $1.1 billion worth of damage and killed 10 people. Damage from the 1998 ice storm was also in the billions. In Atlantic Canada sea levels are rising and severe storms in New Brunswick and P.E.I. in the past few years have damaged coastal communities.

In northern regions, as we have talked about, scientists are already reporting serious changes in the polar bear population. Warmer arctic weather patterns are causing earlier ice breaks and are affecting the feeding habits of bears as well as the use of ice as a platform for things like the seal hunt.

What can we do? I have laid out the argument. We have climate change and what is affected. We can do a heck of a lot more than what is being proposed by the government.

We need to strengthen the emissions reduction targets. We need to enforce them and implement backstop legislation for automakers, so that if they do not do the right thing voluntarily, we make sure that it is enforced to ensure they make the transition.

We need to provide incentives to promote the adoption of energy efficient technologies and non-polluting renewable electricity generation.

We need to set building efficiency standards. I am proud that in the western part of my riding of Ottawa Centre, Mountain Equipment Co-op, bar none, set the standard on how to create and build energy efficient buildings. It can be done. It needs support. We should move on it.

We need to use the partnership funds to lever actions from the provinces and territories on the implementation of renewable energies.

We could also take a look at how we generate energy. I do not think there has been enough done. We could take a look at wind energy in Europe. Spain set targets and exceeded them. What we have right now in Canada is just a blip on the map. We have not gone far enough in terms of wind energy.

We know it can be done. We are looking for leadership. We are looking to the federal government, and the current government in particular, since it seems to want to do something about climate change, to invest. Sadly, we did not see that in the budget. With all due respect to bus passes, we need to go further than that.

We need to make sure there is infrastructure. We need to make sure that there is clean green energy to drive those buses. We need to make sure that when people go to work they have options that presently are not in front of them. Quite frankly, that is an issue in my own riding.

I started off my comments by saying it is an embarrassment in having to have this debate today. We should be talking about how much further we could be going. Instead we are trying to convince people of the fact that there is a necessary call to arms on this, that this is the issue, and that this is something we should all be focusing on daily. We hope that when we look back at this debate 10 years from now, we will be able to say that we actually listened and we took action.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech and found it very interesting. I agree with him. Canada's record on the environment is deplorable. There is no question about that. We should be doing much, much better, and I believe we will. I believe that the made in Canada plan for the environment will achieve success.

The NDP ran in the last election campaign under the slogan of getting results for people. I think that is a very important slogan. We want to get results for the environment. Will the NDP join us in helping get real results for the people who live in Canada with a cleaner environment?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course we will, but the question is the how, not the will. Right now we do not see the how from the government.

We have offered a plan. We had a plan in the last Parliament by my colleague, the NDP environment critic. It is available. It is on our website. The government should feel free to take it.

The problem is the kind of dialogue which we would like to have was falling on deaf ears previously with the Liberal government, notwithstanding the changes that we got made to the budget. It seems to be the same now, but I am an optimist and I am hoping we will not see the same pattern.

Of course we want to help out, but we need to see a plan. Apparently there was a plan a year ago. Now we hear that the Conservatives will consult, that they will work on it, that there will be round tables, square tables, I do not know, but we need to act. It is almost too late. If the hon. member wants a plan, we have it. The member should please take it.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am dumbfounded. My head spins. Sometimes I wonder whether I am in Canada or Montana.

Following up on what he had to say, does the hon. member for Ottawa Centre not think that on the face of it, regardless of why, the Conservative government had only one idea, which was to nip Kyoto in the bud, before it ever saw the light of day?

I am going to read a short sentence that I would like him to comment on. I will read it in English to be sure not to lose the spirit of the text. In 2002, the current Prime Minister said:

“As for the Kyoto accord, we will stand alone in this House, not just opposing ratification, we will repeal this accord at the very first opportunity”.

Is that not scandalous? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House and others about the thoughts of the Prime Minister when he was in opposition because, as I said in my speech, it is most extraordinary and bizarre that we are having to debate this. It is most extraordinary and bizarre, as I laid out in my comments. The scientific community has a consensus on this. We are here now asking for action. I am deeply concerned. It is scandalous the fact that someone would stand up, even after a consensus in the global community, and say, “We actually do not believe that and we stand against it”.

I said before that I am an optimist. I am hoping that people have now seen the light and have seen a green light that says go and not stop on climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, from the comments that have been made by the Minister of the Environment and those made in the press, it appears that the government is seized with the objective to deal with smog and to have clean air. I think the whole House would find that objective laudable. The issue is not just smog and clean air, but climate change and that it is a climate change plan that we need before us on the scale that Kyoto and its objectives have been framed. Would the member care to comment on that?