Debates of June 16th, 2006

Public Health Agency of Canada Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a warm and sunny Friday afternoon. I am sure that none of us would rather be anywhere else but here and that we feel most privileged to discuss this bill. I thank the whip's office for giving me the opportunity to do so.

That said, it is with great concern and surprise that we find the Conservative government is carrying on the Liberal-trademarked tradition of interfering with and disregarding provincial areas of jurisdiction. We are well aware that when it comes to centralization and constitutional arrogance, there is unfortunately a rather synonymous relationship between the former Liberal government and the concept of disregarding areas of jurisdiction.

This is even a paradox within the Department of Health. As we know, Monique Bégin was Minister of Health and Welfare at the time under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was not himself particularly sympathetic to decentralization. It was she who introduced in this House a Canada health act that included a number of principles, such as universality, comprehensiveness, portability and, of course, public health.

When Monique Bégin introduced the Canada Health Act in 1983 or 1984, even doctors agreed that it seemed to thoroughly disregard provincial jurisdiction. I was rereading some documents at the time of the Romanow report, which I will come back to shortly. When Monique Bégin tabled the Canada Health Act, Ontario doctors went on strike to protest it. Typically, Ontario has not been fertile ground for socialism, revolution and overthrowing the established order.

All of this shows how difficult it is to understand how the federal government sees its responsibilities in the area of health. I was discussing this with my colleague from Laval, and I find it even more paradoxical and quite incredible to see that while the federal government fails to do what is expected of it, it goes barging in where it should be exercising considerable restraint.

Constitutionally, of course, the federal government has responsibilities, including one on epidemics. When the previous health minister introduced the quarantine bill—that work had begun with Pierre Pettigrew and continued with his successor in that department—the Bloc Québécois worked very seriously in committee. Indeed, we agree that it is the federal government's prerogative to determine certain situations where the risk of contagion or epidemics is such that quarantine zones must be established. Of course, the bill was not perfect. We would have liked it to provide for advance notice and compensation mechanisms when people are deprived from their right to go to work. Nevertheless, essentially, we did not challenge the fact that the federal government was solidly rooted in its jurisdiction.

With regard to the patent issue, the whole issue of intellectual property is an extremely important consideration. In fact, this began with the Conservatives. We will remember that, in the 1960s, there was a royalty system. Licences and patents were protected. However, it was possible for companies to copy patents on payment of a rebate. They would pay a certain percentage on what was called royalties.

We realized that this system was not beneficial to Canada—and I will get back to the special character of Montreal, that beautiful city, Greater Montreal, where 50% of the population is living, where we can see a different movie every day, where cultural opportunities are extraordinary.

It has the Olympic Stadium, the Planetarium, the Botanical Garden—

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

The Outgames.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It has public transit and the Outgames, as the hon. member for Laval so rightly informed us.

It became apparent in Canada that the royalties system was not conducive to establishing a domestic research industry for bio-pharmaceuticals. At the time, this was a demand by the brand name drug industry, the one doing the research, which was mainly located in Montreal. The generic drug industry was copying in a way and not doing a whole lot of original research. These days I know that has changed somewhat.

I was the health critic. This was a good time in my life. It was stimulating and I had the pleasure of working on the same committee as the hon. member for Laval. We got up in the morning and saw each other in committee. Those were wonderful years in our lives—a great time in my life. All that to say that the brand name drug industry was originally located in Montreal and was calling for a properly protected public patent system.

The President of the Treasury Board was still just a baby then, but he will certainly remember that the Mulroney Conservatives had introduced Bill C-91, which was warmly received throughout Canada and Quebec and which, at the time, gave patent protection for 17 years. International rules have changed. This has increased to 20 years.

All that to say that when it comes to patents, epidemics or research, we understand that the federal government wants to intervene because this is their responsibility. However, when the federal government takes steps to intervene in matters of public health, there is a slight problem, a failure to respect jurisdictions. This is going too far and we would have liked members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec to rein in the government by telling it there are no prerogatives more sacred than health and education.

Just remember Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis, the illustrious member for Trois-Rivières. It is a tradition in Trois-Rivières to elect illustrious, talented members and I am here to say that this tradition continues. Maurice Lenoblet Duplessis set up the Tremblay Commission, which called for full respect of the jurisdictions of health and education.

Why did the federal government table a bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada? I would like to point out that, for the past two budgets at least, there has been a considerable allocation of resources. I saw that the Public Health Agency of Canada was given $665 million in the 2004 budget and that its resources have been growing.

This is extremely troubling because, clearly, the Public Health Agency of Canada will want to do some nation building in the area of health care, as we all know. We in the Bloc Québécois are perceptive, astute and wise enough not to be fooled by the government's ploy.

I remember that in 1997, then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the member for Shawinigan, created the National Forum on Health. At that time, I was a young MP in this House, high-spirited, energetic and confident about the future. I told my caucus that the Liberals were going to use the forum to do some nation building and would barge into health care. I was not far off.

[An hon. member]

Not Jean Chrétien.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I do not wish to call up bad memories for the House. However, it is a fact that it was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who created the National Forum on Health—that he chaired himself— which allowed citizens from across Canada to have their say.

The idea to create the Romanow Commission stemmed from that forum. This commission of inquiry, which was not a royal commission of inquiry, no longer wanted there to be 10 health care systems. It recommended there be only one. It even went as far as proposing that there be a common procurement policy for drugs and a single order form, under the federal government's responsibility.

Health care is something that is highly visible. The Bloc Québécois cannot let the Conservative government get away with this. I hope that we can count on the vigilance of the President of the Treasury Board and that he will tell his government that health, particularly public health care, falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I salute the President of the Treasury Board, a progressive man in his caucus. I know that, in terms of ideology, he is a dove. Within the government, there are hawks, there are doves and there are night owls. However, I will not comment on that.

That said, Premier Charest—who lacks backbone somewhat when it comes to defending Quebec's interests—is a man who has sometimes been rather complacent about the Conservative government. Premier Charest used to be a Conservative MP. Once when this House was in committee of the whole, there were two Conservatives. Things have changed. That was the will of the people, and the Bloc Québécois respects democracy. Regarding the Public Health Agency of Canada—and I invite the President of the Treasury Board to pay attention—Premier Jean Charest, who was the member for Sherbrooke, said that Quebec had created its own health structures.

As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has the Institut national de santé publique. Quebec has created its own health structures, and they work. These structures will cooperate with the ones that are put in place, but duplication is out of the question.

That is the real question. How can we think that a public structure with a $665 million budget will not be tempted to dominate, to sprawl and to intervene in jurisdictions that are not its own?

I remember well the years when the Liberal government reduced health transfers and the provinces were in serious trouble.

One of the negative aspects of Canadian federalism is this sort of fiscal imbalance that can be created. The government can table a budget and cause fiscal destabilization of the provinces without any negotiations or any advance notice to the provinces.

From 1993 to 2001, successive Liberal governments completely starved the provinces. The provincial premiers—New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals and people from the Parti Québécois—took a common stand and eventually won an agreement on health and restoration of the public money that the provinces had been cruelly deprived of.

As the leader of the government knows, the health system is critically short of money. This will be important, because initially, the federal government was to contribute 50% of program operating costs. Even with the agreement that the government of the current member for LaSalle—Émard signed with the provinces, the figure is not much higher than 25% or 30%.

As you can see, this situation is not acceptable. I hope the Conservative government will have the courage to table a bill shortly to restore the transfer payments.

I saw the Prime Minister yesterday on public television, for which all members of the Bloc Québécois have the greatest respect. I saw, on the CBC French network, that the Prime Minister wanted to flip flop on the issue of the fiscal imbalance and that he was preparing the provinces for the fact that the extent of the fiscal imbalance was not so bad, even though this Prime Minister had the nerve to go to Sainte-Foy during the election campaign and tell Quebeckers that his party would resolve the fiscal imbalance. And now that I see the Prime Minister getting ready to dither and go back on his word, I certainly hope I never have to rise in this House to say that the Prime Minister has broken his word and not made all the investments expected by Quebeckers, including the Premier of Quebec.

We saw yesterday on CBC French television how worried and anxious the Quebec Premier was that the Conservatives would not deliver the goods. It is at times like this that we realize how fortunate it is that the Bloc is here in this House and is vigilant. We will not abdicate our duty to be vigilant and to force the federal government to solve the fiscal imbalance problem. It is too easy for the Prime Minister to show up at Ste-Foy and make promises that he later disowns.

In short, Bill C-5 does not respect provincial jurisdiction and the creation of a public health agency is not necessary. As for epidemics, I will say that all the public health managers can have meetings. The expected cooperation could very well be coordinated through existing interprovincial mechanisms without creating a new structure with a $665 million budget.

The Quarantine Act already includes the necessary provisions. If ever the situation necessitates it, the federal government can invoke that legislation but we will not let the federal government do its nation building with the health issue. We will not let the Conservatives follow the tradition instituted by the Liberals, either. And I know that for the Conservatives the bible on health care is the Romanow report. We will not let the Conservative government invade Quebec's jurisdictions, particularly not jurisdictions as sacred as health and social services.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

At the next debate on Bill C-5, the hon. member will have 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments.

Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

moved that Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to Bill C-288, the Kyoto protocol implementation bill.

It is well established in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of this place and in past Speaker's rulings that bills resulting in the spending of money must be recommended to the House by a minister of the crown.

Enactment of this bill would necessitate the spending of public funds. Since there is no Governor General's recommendation with it, it is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to subclause 7(1) of this bill which reads:

Within 180 days after this Act comes into force, the Governor in Council shall ensure that Canada fully meets its obligations under Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Kyoto Protocol by making, amending or repealing the necessary regulations under this or any other Act.

The referenced article in the Kyoto protocol sets out targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions for signatory countries. Canada's target pursuant to the protocol is to reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. In fact, our emissions are currently 34.6% above this target.

When the former government announced its project green plan for honouring its Kyoto commitment in 2005, it estimated that $10 billion in government investments through 2012 were required to realize the anticipated reductions.

Speaking at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on April 14, 2005, one day after the release of this plan, the then minister of the environment referred to this $10 billion as the “Kyoto money”. The hon. member informed the committee that approximately $2 billion had been appropriated in previous budgets, but that the remainder would have to come from future budgets. Budget 2005 announced some additional spending projections. A fraction of that spending was identified in the supplementary estimates for the 2005-06 fiscal year. But this money was never voted on by Parliament before dissolution last November, and this money was paid out through special warrants.

In any case, it is clear that Parliament has not authorized the extensive expenditures that would be required to “fully meet” Kyoto targets as Bill C-288 mandates.

Further, given the increase in emissions, it would seem that even the $10 billion projection was a vast underestimation of the spending required to meet the objective of this bill.

Erskine May at page 763 of the 22nd edition notes:

If there is any doubt on the matter and it appears that the new proposal may entail an extension of previously enacted purposes of expenditure or an increase in the expenditure potentially liable to be incurred in pursuit of such a purpose, a money resolution will be required.

Similarly, on February 8, 2005 the Acting Speaker ruled on Bill C-280 stating:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

I find it difficult to see how this bill can mandate the government to fully meet existing Kyoto targets without also committing the government to additional significant expenditures in the billions of dollars. Only the Crown can recommend the expenditure of funds from the public revenue and this bill does not have that royal recommendation.

I would submit that this bill requires a royal recommendation. Since it is clear that the government's policy differs from the provisions of this bill, the House should know that no recommendation will be forthcoming.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for repeating to the House what the Speaker of the House advised us the day before we started private members' business debate. He identified 10 of the 30 bills on the order of precedence that he had flagged as possibly requiring a royal recommendation.

This bill, the Kyoto bill, was not one of those flagged by the Speaker. Notwithstanding that, the member will know that even a private member's item that requires a royal recommendation, 100%, will still receive two hours of debate at second reading, a vote at second reading, committee hearings, report stage and third reading. The decision on whether a royal recommendation is required will not be taken by the Speaker, according to the Speaker's own words, until it is time for a vote at third reading. Therefore, we have much time to deal with this.

I would also remind the hon. House leader that even in the event he could argue that the climate change money available in the current appropriations of government would be exceeded by the requirements of this bill, the bill could be amended in committee or at report stage to say “to the extent but not exceeding the current appropriations for climate change”.

I thank the government House leader for repeating to us the rules of the game, as presented by the Speaker to the House. I know the government does not want Kyoto on the table and will not support Kyoto. We understand that and Canadians understand that. I know they will remember that. In the meantime, it would be useful for us to move on to the debate on this very important bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the government House leader and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their comments on the point of order. If necessary, the Speaker will come back to the House.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we just saw once more how much the Conservatives hate the Kyoto protocol and how they will try everything to get rid of it.

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate such an important bill. I take this opportunity to thank my seconder, the hon. member for Don Valley East and everyone who worked directly or indirectly on the bill.

This bill speaks primarily about the future. It is designed to make possible concrete acts today that will improve living conditions for the generations of tomorrow. I have always believed that political action should be motivated by a strong desire to make a positive difference in the world around us, a strong desire to prepare a better future for the generations to come.

As elected officials, we have the political and moral obligation to work toward building a better society, not only for those around us but, more important, for those who will follow us, our children and our grandchildren.

The environment is certainly something on which we can act, starting right now, to improve living conditions for the generations that will succeed us.

Not only can we act, we must act. We can act in a multitude of ways. We can act as individuals, through simple daily actions, and we can also act collectively, by adopting measures or passing legislation that promotes positive and responsible environmental behaviour. That is what this bill seeks to do.

The bill is absolutely necessary for a very simple reason. The Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.

In reality, the conservatives have decided to surrender without even trying to fight. We cannot let them do this. That was what this Parliament tried to prevent when it adopted the Bloc Québécois' motion on May 16.

That motion, which received the support of a large majority of hon. members, was rejected out of hand by the Prime Minister. In this way he showed how little respect he has for this House, how little it matters to him.

His reaction to the motion simply highlights the importance of the bill now before us, since if passed it will force the government to respect the will of this House. It will mean that Canada will have to comply with its Kyoto protocol commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity, not solely from the environmental perspective but also from the perspectives of public health, security of the food supply, quality of life and economic prosperity. On this last point, I should point out that doing nothing about climate change today could lead to considerable economic costs in the future.

When we talk about climate change, we are not just talking about the environment, we are talking about individuals, we are talking about human beings. We are talking about direct consequences to the health and quality of life of millions of people all over the planet.

In Canada, let us think about the way our vast natural spaces could change—the melting of Arctic glaciers, the viability of our agriculture, the threat to the cultural survival of our northern communities.

The impact of climate change is felt more in certain regions that are already among the poorest in the world. Regions that are already grappling with problems of inadequate food supplies or chronic coastal flooding.

According to the best experts, if the average temperature at the earth's surface increases by 2 degrees above what it was during the pre-industrial era, dozens of millions of people by the year 2080—which is not that far—are likely to be confronted with coastal flooding and famines, hundreds of millions of people risk coming down with malaria, and billions of others may run short of water.

This is not to be alarmist, but rather to recognize that the effects of climate change have already been felt and that this situation will worsen if we do not take concrete action in Canada as well as elsewhere in the world. This is, therefore, a collective and global effort. Everyone must shoulder the responsibility. This is the case for others and this is the case for Canada. It is in this context that I have the honour to table a private member's bill which will ensure that Canada meets its commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

More concretely, the bill creates an obligation on the government to establish an annual plan for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to make the necessary regulations to ensure implementation of the plan.

The plan will have to include a description of the measures to be taken to ensure that Canada meets its obligations.

This description will have to cover, first, regulated emission limits and performance standards; second, spending or fiscal measures or incentives provided for this purpose, if the government so wishes; third, market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets; and, fourth, cooperative measures or agreements with provinces, territories or other governments, where that applies, of course.

The government will have to set dates for the coming into effect of each of these measures, and the amount of greenhouse gas emission reductions that have resulted or are expected to result for each year up to and including 2012.

When the bill comes into force, the government will have 180 days to make appropriate regulations to establish its action plan. Such regulations could for example limit the amount of greenhouse gases that can be released into the environment by the large industrial emitters. They could also provide for emissions trading, structured to achieve the targeted objectives.

Naturally, each annual climate change plan will have to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction and take into account the respective levels of greenhouse gas emissions in each province.

It is also important to note that the bill creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review the plan and the proposed regulations, and to report to Parliament on them. His involvement will guarantee the plan's credibility and the aptness of the regulations, so that we can indeed achieve the targeted objectives.

I could continue to go into detail, but I feel it is more important to come back the spirit of the bill. Why is it necessary? Why is it so important to adopt it?

As I said a little earlier, climate change represents one of the biggest challenges facing humanity. That is why the international community saw fit to adopt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the well-known Rio Convention. The Convention, which has been ratified by Canada, came into force in 1994.

Realizing that the Convention’s scope and the tools it provided were insufficient, the international community decided to go further. That was the impetus for the Kyoto protocol.

Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol by a majority vote in Parliament in 2002, and it came into force in 2005.

The protocol may not be perfect but it represents the best weapon available to us for the urgent task of combating climate change. Various analyses have shown that if we do not start immediately, and decisively, we risk running out of time to prevent serious repercussions on our climate.

Canadians understand it, scientists understand it and all opposition parties understand it. Only the Conservatives do not understand it. In fact, they are trying to spread, without much success, various myths about Kyoto.

For example, they are trying to claim that most countries cannot achieve their Kyoto objectives, which is false. Most of the 36 signatory countries with specific objectives are well on the way to achieving them. Within the European Community some countries, including Great Britain and France, have not only achieved but even surpassed their objectives.

Even countries that are having difficulty, like Norway and Japan, are still striving to meet their targets and putting in place the measures that will enable them to do so.

The government is also telling us that the Asia-Pacific partnership, so enthusiastically touted by the Bush administration, will be just as good as Kyoto. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are two completely different things. The partnership is a formula that allows its members to exchange information. It has very little funding, sets no mandatory objectives or reductions, does not even have a timetable. On the other hand, the Kyoto protocol has become international law, with detailed objectives and a precise schedule, along with obligations for emission reduction.

As for the defeatist myth that says our objectives may be unattainable, this is merely an excuse coming from people who lack even the courage to try.

My colleagues may be sure that we can achieve our objectives. One way we can do so is by exploiting the potential and seizing the extraordinary economic opportunity that the renewable energy sector offers. We can also do it through giant steps forward in energy efficiency.

Let us not forget that it is also possible to act positively by funding specific projects in certain less fortunate countries, projects that are also beneficial for our own environment because, as we know, the environment knows no borders. Greenhouse gases do not require a passport or a visa to enter or leave a country or a region.

Those are a few of the approaches we can take and there are others. There are always ways for those who want to find them.

Canada has always been able to find solutions. Not only has it been able to find solutions to its own challenges, it has also been able to take on leadership roles on the international stage.

We have only to think of the leading role played by Canada at the Montreal conference on climate change this past December. Canada's action was recognized and hailed around the world by foreign leaders, the international media, the scientific community and environmental groups.

But now all that is changing. Why? Simply because the Conservatives have decided to abandon Kyoto. They have decided to abandon the fight against climate change.

This is a sad moment in our history, because by abandoning all this they are doing immense damage to Canada's image. But more important than that, they are hurting the generations to come.

On this very important issue, the government is out of touch with Canadians, out of touch with most of the international community, out of touch with this Parliament and even out of touch with provincial premiers.

As elected officials, as legislators, we have a duty, a moral obligation, to change this situation. We have the obligation to act right now. That is what this bill proposes to do.

When a government does not respect international law, or the will of its own citizens—when it does not shoulder its responsibilities for one of the most important challenges facing our planet—Parliament can and must force it to do so.

I therefore urge my colleagues of all parties to support this important bill. The environment is not a partisan issue, and cannot be approached in a partisan spirit.

Let us unite to work together, starting right now, for the benefit of future generations. Let us unite on concrete action to safeguard the environment. Let us do this together, for our own sakes, but above all for the sake of the generations to come.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Honoré-Mercier has laudable intentions, but once again, like most of the measures proposed by the Liberal government in the past 13 years, this one sadly misses the mark. It is rather pathetic to see a national party introduce a private member's bill on an issue as important as climate change.

I would like to reassure my colleague, because on January 23, there was a major change in this House. Canadians elected a responsible government, a government that keeps its promises. The throne speech states that our government will take tangible steps to effectively address climate change. Sadly, in the past 13 years the previous government failed to do this. We had 13 years of good intentions and fine words but no results.

In his speech, the hon. member said that one party had hurt generations to come. But it was the Liberal Party that hurt future generations with 13 years of inaction on the environment.

Let us talk about the Liberals' green plan. According to the same experts, this green plan was expensive and ineffective and passed the cost on to the taxpayers. This is totally unacceptable. Our government will take tangible measures.

I have a question for the member for Honoré-Mercier. What did the member and his party do for the past 13 years while greenhouse gas emission levels spiralled out of control? Does he support the measures that our government is putting in place to effectively fight climate change?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is an obvious reason why we have to introduce a private member's bill. It is because the Conservatives are doing absolutely nothing. If there is one thing on which I agree with the hon. member, it is that they respect their commitments, since they promised to do nothing. That is exactly what they are doing: nothing.

As for the previous government, I will remind the House that we introduced the green plan and we reserved funds for partnerships with the provinces. I remind the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that $328 million had been reserved for the Quebec government's own measures. I take this opportunity to applaud the Quebec government for the plan it introduced yesterday, which constitutes a step in the right direction. We intended to give the Quebec government $328 million, but the Conservatives cut those funds. Not only do they do nothing, they even go backward. It is shameful. We did many things.

Maybe the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse thinks that we did not do enough, but that is no reason to do even less or absolutely nothing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very eloquent speech with regard to climate change, but I believe there is a moral obligation in this country and that moral obligation is to do what we say we will do. Quite frankly, people can tout until the sun goes down today and rises tomorrow how beneficial their plan might be, but actions speak louder than words.

There has been a 35% to 36% increase in greenhouse gas emissions since the former government announced its grandiose plans. Feigned indignation and false accusations do not win the day. They do not make the air for our children cleaner to breathe and they do not make the climate change. What makes things happen is a plan that works.

We have tabled a bit of our plan and over the next short while much will be. However, I would like to ask the hon. member if it is fair to allow a new government at least five or six years to prove its record. If so, would he not want to work with that government in order for it to be able to show Canadians and the world that it will live up to its commitments?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to work with the government. All the parties would like to work with the government if it only knew where it was going on the issue of climate change. The government should at least have a plan or a direction.

What have the Conservatives done so far? They have cut transfers and money allocated for the provinces. Look at the infamous $328 million that was earmarked for Quebec. They cut excellent programs such as the EnerGuide program and the program for developing wind energy. There are even hon. members who do not believe the science behind climate change. There are even hon. members of the government who claim that climate change does not exist.

The Speech from the Throne made no reference to the Kyoto protocol and the five priorities of the Conservative government make no reference to the environment. The Conservatives need to change their direction and give us something tangible to work on together. Since they have nothing, I invite them to support the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member speaking about his private member's bill. I serve on the environment committee with the member and I find it interesting and disappointing that we did not hear any reason from him for why he and his party did not speak up when, for the last 13 years, his government did absolutely nothing.

I find it very disappointing. The member spoke about a strong desire and a political and moral responsibility. I would agree that we have that political responsibility and that is why this government is committed to cleaning up the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We will not be supporting this private member's bill, Bill C-288.

Climate change is one of the most complex, cross-cutting issues facing the world today. It is a long term challenge that cannot be addressed without effective international cooperation. The international community has always understood that the Kyoto protocol is a good first step, but it is only a first step.

The protocol has both strengths and weaknesses. It was the first international instrument under which developed countries came to an agreement to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the protocol includes only short term national targets for a relatively small number of countries. It does not address a global solution to climate change over the longer term.

In the year 2000, the countries with targets under the Kyoto protocol accounted for only 28% of global greenhouse emissions. Indeed, a mandate review of the protocol was already started in Bonn this past May. Canada is playing an active role in this review, which will assess what has worked under the Kyoto protocol and what has not worked well, in order to better inform our discussions on the future.

Future actions on climate change must address the need for long term action with all global emitters. This is why all parties to the convention agreed to begin a new dialogue on long term cooperative action to address climate change with all parties, not just the countries under the protocol.

The first workshop of that dialogue took place in Bonn last month. Canada will continue to play an active role in this dialogue process as well.

Because the situation that each country faces is unique, there are many options, considerations and viewpoints about how the international community should move forward when the first commitment period of the protocol finishes. It is precisely because each country has its own unique national circumstances that many countries firmly believe the future approach will need to allow for different types of commitments.

In Bonn, consultations started on the Russian Federation proposal for allowing voluntary commitments to be made by countries that do not currently have targets under the protocol. This important issue is moving forward.

To be effective in addressing global climate change, international cooperation on climate change must meet a number of conditions.

First, it will need to be based on the principles of flexibility, cost effectiveness and national circumstances and recognize a broad range of approaches to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.

Second, it will need broad participation by developed and developing countries alike, with an eye on long term objectives.

Third, addressing climate change in the face of rising global energy demand will require effective development and deployment of technologies within both developed and developing countries.

Finally, global action on climate change must integrate the additional co-benefits provided at the local level, such as improved air quality.

Canada is committed to working to ensure that future international cooperation satisfies those conditions. That is why we are playing a leadership role internationally on the two-track discussions under the UN framework convention on climate change new future dialogues that were launched in Bonn last May.

The dialogue on long term cooperation action is open to all 189 countries, including the United States, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and to examine innovative new future approaches to address climate change.

The dialogue is significant because it is not simply tied to the Kyoto style approach of national targets for developed countries. In addition, it can openly examine better ways of engaging countries in cooperative action on climate change. This dialogue includes participation by all major emitting developing countries, such as India and China, as well as the United States and Australia.

The United States emits approximately 20% of global greenhouse gases and India and China together account for approximately 20%. By comparison, Canada's share is approximately 2%. It is important that all countries participate in the dialogue. Climate change is a global problem and requires a real global solution.

The second vehicle is the ad hoc working group on further commitments for developed countries under the protocol beyond 2012. The ad hoc working group discussions will review and assist the implementation of the protocol to date and will discuss considering new types of commitments. These discussions should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation and opportunities for those countries that do not have Kyoto targets to participate in the future. At this point, this process is only a discussion of the items that will need to be assessed before developed countries can consider any new commitments.

These two processes are not proceeding in isolation, nor should they. They must inform each other. They must also recognize other multilateral approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is actively engaged internationally and will continue to do so, going forward in a way that is consistent with our national circumstances and that advances national interests.

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

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.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by paying tribute to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for using his private member's opportunity to bring such an important bill to the House of Commons. The short title of the bill is the Kyoto protocol implementation act. I can serve notice that the NDP is in support of Canada maintaining and fulfilling the obligations it stipulated itself to in ratifying the Kyoto accord. I can say categorically that this initiative has our support.

The first leader of the NDP, Tommy Douglas, was fond of quoting Alfred, Lord Tennyson by saying, “Courage, my friends, 'tis not too late to build a better world”. Many of us have not lost faith that it is not too late to build a better world. We are still true believers in our international institutions. Even as some countries are turning their backs on the United Nations, many of us still have hope that internationalism is the way forward, whether we are dealing with overall development aid, fighting world poverty, or in fact this critical issue of climate change. Surely the world can come together and agree on a priority like saving our planet.

When Canada ratified the Kyoto accord, there was a wave of optimism throughout the land that the world was finally seized of this pressing issue. Finally those in the flat earth society who had been denying the science about climate change had come around and matured in their thinking. We were coming together as a global community, but now, one by one, even some of those countries that did stipulate themselves to putting in place a climate change action plan along the guidance of the Kyoto protocol are cooling off and backing out.

This is an opportunity for us to serve notice to the government of the day that the majority of the members of the House of Commons disagree with the minority ruling party in this 39th Parliament. We disagree profoundly and we are demanding that the government take action and fulfill its obligation.

It was not the Conservative Party of Canada that signed the Kyoto protocol; it was not the Conservative Party that ratified the Kyoto protocol; it was Parliament on behalf of the people of Canada. The majority of Parliament say that we want Kyoto implemented. We demand that Kyoto be implemented. The Conservatives seem to want to cut and run, as they are fond of saying.

When I was the head of the carpenters union, we did a lot of research on energy retrofitting, on the demand-side management of our precious energy resources. This is an area in which perhaps the Conservatives, even in the absence of a commitment to Kyoto, could take the opportunity to engage themselves.

The federal government has direction and control over 68,000 buildings. Many of those buildings are energy hogs. They were built in an era when energy conservation was not an issue.

A unit of energy harvested from the existing system through energy retrofitting or demand-side management is indistinguishable from a unit of energy generated at a hydroelectric station or a nuclear power plant, except for a number of key things. First of all, it is available at about one-third the cost. Second, it provides a cost saving to the building owner. Third, it creates seven times the number of person years of employment to harvest this energy through demand-side management versus supply-side management. As well, that unit of energy is online and available for resale immediately instead of the seven year lag time that would be the case if we needed to build a new nuclear power plant, like Ontario is contemplating today.

The federal government could show leadership to the private sector by embarking on a comprehensive demand-side management energy retrofit program of its own 68,000 buildings. I believe the estimate is that at 30% savings, it would be $1.5 billion a year in energy saved. Look at the jobs it would create. Look at the greenhouse gases that it would preclude from being generated through generating stations. This is an idea whose time has come. All of these things would be given life. They would come to fruition under the rubric of the Kyoto accord.

I am concerned that in the absence of any structured commitment, such as this international accord, none of these ideas will occur, or if they do, they will be done in a piecemeal fashion and random ad hoc little flare-ups. It will be just enough to keep the public quiet, but in actual fact there will be no real comprehensive strategy to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions and also, by this one simple initiative, to enjoy these many secondary benefits that I have outlined.

There is a secondary point. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not remind my colleagues in the House that there is another national strategy which needs to be embraced in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that is the fact that my province of Manitoba has a net surplus of hydroelectricity. We produce and generate more electricity than we can use. We export it. We export it to the United States, whereas Ontario is on the verge of another brownout season for its want of electricity. We have no way of transmitting and selling it domestically. We end up selling it internationally. It is madness that we do not have a national energy strategy.

My colleague from B.C. will testify to this as well. British Columbia is also a net producer of hydroelectricity while parts of Canada are wanting. We need an east-west domestic electricity grid so that we can produce virtually environmentally friendly hydroelectric power. I am not trying to diminish that there is a footprint left behind in the generation of electricity, but it pales in comparison--it does not even compare--to that of nuclear energy, thermo-generated electricity, an appalling producer of greenhouse gas emissions.

Again, I am concerned that it is difficult for us to raise the east-west power grid in isolation, but in the context of the Kyoto accord protocol, in the context of implementing our commitments under Kyoto, the east-west power grid would be a logical place to begin as a benefit to all Canadians and to bail out Ontario in this emergency the province is facing, which is a looming political problem if nothing else.

I am pleased that the 39th Parliament will in fact be dealing with and be seized of the issue of the Kyoto protocol. I am grateful to my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for bringing this forward.

I should spend the last minute of my time in recognizing and also paying tribute to my colleague from the Liberals, the hon. member for Don Valley West. In the previous Parliament, he was the former secretary of state for municipal infrastructure and investment.

I would like to recognize him personally because in the last Parliament the Kyoto protocol had no greater champion. In fact, there was only one place where practical measures were not only being recognized and acknowledged but implemented. For some of the municipal infrastructure initiatives being put forward, my colleague from Don Valley West had the pleasure of going around the country signing and delivering the cheques to municipalities. We have to recognize that this was taking us in the right direction.

Again, this is the type of initiative that loses its momentum in the absence of a greater context, which the Kyoto protocol initiative offered.

If we can say anything to Canadians, we can say that they should be lobbying their members of Parliament, especially those on the government side, to make it known that Canadians expected Kyoto to be implemented. They approved it and they directed their Parliament and their House of Commons to ratify it. Now we are waiting for the action plan to implement it.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, for his very kind remarks at the end of his address.

As we move into the season of angry weather associated with climate change and global warning, I am here to support Bill C-288, an act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol.

I must also recognize the vital role played by my colleague, the member for Honoré—Mercier, in preparing this bill. It is truly very important.

I suggest that the current Minister of the Environment should also be advocating for this bill as it seems consistent and supportive of her views as recently expressed in a speech to the Canadian Club of Ottawa. The remarks of the parliamentary secretary suggest that he too should support Bill C-288.

Bill C-288 in its preamble begins with the proposition that “global climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity and Canada” and then in turn it refers to the national science academies of Canada, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and states, “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action”.

Happily, the Minister of the Environment has publicly accepted the science of climate change, unlike several of her backbench and cabinet colleagues.

Some unkind souls have suggested that the Minister of the Environment, despite the fact that she is the current president of the Kyoto process, is against Kyoto. How heartening it was therefore to hear her say, and I will quote what the minister said when she was speaking of the onerous targets of Kyoto, “Some environmental groups stated this was akin to a complete abandonment of Kyoto, which is ludicrous. It doesn't mean that all is lost or that we've given up the fight”. That is a relief. The minister is sticking to Kyoto. Who knew?

In her recent speech the minister asked several useful questions: What has worked and not worked in the first phase of Kyoto? What can we do to broaden our efforts? Those are her questions. The minister's objective will be greatly aided by the passage of Bill C-288, whose purpose “is to ensure that Canada takes effective and timely action to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol and help address the problem of global climate change”. This view was reinforced by the parliamentary secretary himself in his own speech.

To assist the minister in determining what has worked and not worked with the first phase of Kyoto, which was her question, Bill C-288 proposes that the minister prepare a climate change plan, as she said she shall, that sets out various measures, such as regulating emission limits and performance standards, market based mechanisms such as emissions trading or offsets, spending or fiscal measures or incentives, cooperative measures or agreements with the provinces, territories or other governments.

To help the minister even further, Bill C-288 proposes that for each measure outlined above, there be a careful accounting each year of the greenhouse gas emission reductions that result from the measure. In the words of the minister, what has worked and not worked?

All that, as proposed by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, in accordance with the recommendations made last fall by the commissioner of the environment.

Some skeptics have suggested that the minister actually does not like Kyoto. She certainly has spent more time talking about what has not worked than about what has worked. In fact, some point to the fact that the government website seems to be scrubbed clean of any reference to the actual word “Kyoto”, which is curious.

But hearken to the words of the minister herself, “What many people miss is that what we do at home is Kyoto”. That is splendid. The minister also said, “By being transparent about the challenges Canada is facing we have the opportunity to put in place a domestic solution which will contribute to our international efforts”. How wisely the minister links our international obligations under Kyoto to our domestic plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We in the Liberal Party are here to help and support the Minister of the Environment every step of the way with Bill C-288.

A close reading of the minister's speech to the Canadian Club shows how badly misunderstood she has been. She accepts the science of climate change. She accepts Kyoto, but wishes to improve it. She links our international obligations under Kyoto with our domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We know how keen she is to have precise targets in her made in Canada plan.

By being so precise in her criticism of the previous government's failures to reach Kyoto emission targets, she has committed herself to be measured by the same precise, demanding, stringent, numerical standards. How many megatonnes of CO₂ are being emitted every year? Where precisely is Canada now in relation to its total emissions in 1990? By describing the previous government's targets as unreachable, the minister has clearly committed herself to targets which are both reachable and, by definition, measurable.

Finally, the minister, by her criticism of previous efforts in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as being ineffective, has set herself the clear challenge of being more effective, of exceeding the anticipated results of the Liberal government's project green. Even the harshest critics of project green, such as Mark Jaccard in a recent C.D. Howe Institute study, recognized that the combined measures of project green would have reduced Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions by 175 megatonnes annually by 2010, achieving 80% of Canada's Kyoto commitment for that year.

The Minister of the Environment must now exceed that target. To help her do so, we put forward, in the spirit of constructive support, Bill C-288. She wants a made in Canada plan. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for a climate change plan and outlines precise measures. She wants to know what works and what does not work. So do we. Bill C-288 calls for an annual accounting of the precise reduction of greenhouse gas emissions caused by each measure.

Clearly, for the minister to prove that her plan is working better than previous plans and previous programs, she will need to set for herself precise, hard, reachable, measurable targets and be willing to be judged by the results. Bill C-288 is here to support the minister in her ambition and Bill C-288 deserves the wholehearted support of the Minister of the Environment in return.

I would like to turn briefly to the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary. We agree with him on the importance of long term action and goals, which we call Kyoto II. We agree that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution but we also think Kyoto is the only game in town. No alternative scheme will take us there. This is it. We can make it better and we can move to a second phase but it will be Kyoto. That is the plan which has within the UN framework 189 countries.

If the government has a better international plan, it had better show us where the 189 countries will join up for that better plan.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a long term endeavour. It requires a framework that provides clear, long term direction and predictability. It cannot involve short term targets with constantly changing policies and incentives.

That is why the government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieving sustained reductions of emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We want to see real emission reductions and real progress in reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

While the hon. member should be commended for his concern about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the essence of his proposal that Canada achieve its Kyoto target simply cannot be done, and his overall approach to a workable climate change plan for Canada is seriously flawed.

Respected Canadian, Rex Murphy, remarks that the politics, means and value of Kyoto are a basket of uncertainties or insignificance.

There is a general acknowledgement on the science of air pollution and greenhouse gases. We know enough to realize that action is needed. The first Kyoto commitment period starts in 2008, which is only a year and a half from now. Our greenhouse gas emissions are 35% above our Kyoto target following the Liberal government. This is a huge number, representing more than the annual emissions from transportation in this country.

This brings me to a serious flaw in the conception of this proposed bill. The bill would require an annual climate change plan. That is pretty much what we have had over the past five or six years and it is just what we do not need. We need to lay out a path forward and get busy acting on it. Having a plan is always important but not when it is a substitute for action. Business needs certainty, not annual plans that lay out measures upon measures.

This government is committed to developing a made in Canada approach that will focus on achieved sustained reductions in emissions in Canada and transforming our economy over the long term. We will be working with the provinces, the territories, industry and other Canadians. We will be looking at engaging communities and individual Canadians to reduce not only greenhouse gases but other air pollutants.

This government supports international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change is a global issue that requires global solutions. Our domestic policy will be our guide in future cooperative efforts to address climate change. We understand that climate change is a global issue and that we need a global solution, which is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations led climate change negotiations for longer term reductions well after the first Kyoto protocol reporting period.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the item is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 2:37 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:37 p.m.)