Mr. Speaker, it give me great pleasure to speak today on Bill C-288, concerning the Kyoto protocol, sponsored by the hon. member for Honoré—Mercier.
I want to begin by commending the hon. member on putting before the House for debate the bill before us today. From the outset, I announce that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this bill.
The bill deals with five issues: first, the importance for Canada to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol; second, the establishment of an annual plan to monitor progress on achieving the Kyoto objectives until 2013, and I stress the requirement for such a plan to be produced and submitted; third, the making of regulations in support of achieving the Kyoto objectives; fourth, the review by the environment commissioner of the plans received; and fifth, a report to Parliament.
It is important today to make it clear to the government that this bill follows logically from the motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois and passed on May 16 by the majority in this House. This motion called on the federal government to take the necessary measures to ensure that its objectives under the Kyoto protocol are met.
A moment ago, the parliamentary secretary talked about two vehicles, namely the working group on climate change and the Asia-Pacific partnership. This clearly shows that, in addressing climate change, the government does not give precedence to the Kyoto protocol. Clearly, as was just mentioned in this House, the government intends to be giving precedence to vehicles other than those provided under the Kyoto protocol, including the Asia-Pacific partnership.
As a logical next step to the May 16 motion, we in this House should pass this bill at second reading stage, or at least vote in support of the bill's principle.
Naturally, we have some concerns. The plan that the government would be required to present to Canadians annually until 2013 is one source of concern. We are wondering why, for instance, the time limit is set at 2013. Of course, the first phase under the Kyoto protocol calls for Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. We believe that negotiations are already underway in the international arena concerning the second phase, known as Kyoto 2, of this effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We would like to see a provision in this bill for the submission of yearly plans not only during phase one of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but also after 2012, which is when phase two of greenhouse gas reduction begins. That would send a powerful message to the international community that Canada is concerned about reaching targets not only for the period from 2008 to 2012, but for the following phase, Kyoto 2.
This bill provides for enacting regulations to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets. We wholeheartedly support this approach to regulating greenhouse gas emissions, especially for large industrial emitters. Until now, the preferred approach has been to sign voluntary agreements with industrial sectors to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets. Large industrial emitters will be responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Emissions are increasing rapidly, and there is no reason to believe that, even with a voluntary approach, large industrial sectors will reach the targets.
We will therefore have to consider a regulatory approach that aims to define clear targets for large industrial emitters.
This would help ensure that we reach the Kyoto protocol targets.
Third, any requirement to develop a yearly plan must take into account provincial areas of jurisdiction, in accordance with the very principle of the bill.
We would like to remind the House that we support a territorial approach based on bilateral agreements with the provinces. I am not talking about agreements like the ones we have seen in the past, which were signed with some provinces, including Ontario. While they certainly show willingness on the part of the provinces to fight climate change, we would prefer that these agreements be part of a partnership with the provinces—a financial partnership—and that they include recognized targets.
For example, yesterday Quebec released a greenhouse gas reduction plan that aims to reach two thirds of the target set out in the Kyoto protocol. However, we are still waiting for the $328 million to support reaching that goal.
Quebec could reach all of its goals if we could be certain of receiving the $328 million through a funding agreement with the province that would enable it to cut an additional four megatonnes, thereby reaching all of its greenhouse gas reduction targets.
Here are the spirit and letter that we would like to include in the bill: that the agreements signed be bilateral, and that these financial agreements include a transfer of the sums needed to reach our Kyoto targets.
Another aspect of the bill before us is the environment commissioner's evaluation regarding the government's progress in terms of reaching our Kyoto targets.
I think we will have the perfect opportunity, beginning this fall, to become fully aware of the importance of the role of the environment commissioner in the evaluation and follow-up of measures taken by the federal government to enforce the Kyoto protocol. The commissioner will table a report on climate change this fall. In her report, we will certainly begin to see important benchmarks that will allow us to evaluate the government's progress in the fight against climate change.
The federal government has the means to contribute to the fight against climate change. For example, it could bring in manufacturing standards for automobiles equal to those of the state of California and ensure that all vehicles, both big and small, now on the market use less gasoline and produce less greenhouse gas per 100 km.
We must move closer to European standards, which demand that vehicles be more fuel efficient. This will help us reach our Kyoto targets.
Europe is on the right path to reaching its Kyoto targets. Why? Because they have taken concrete action, because agreements have been struck among the sovereign countries that are members of the EU, by enforcing a common strategy for the entire EU, yet a strategy that is distinct for each member country.
This is an interesting territorial approach that we would like to integrate, in a concrete way, into the bill presented by the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.
We would therefore support Bill C-288 at this stage, on the condition that our proposed modifications be adopted in parliamentary committee.