Debates of April 24th, 2007

Opposition Motion--Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is important to have absolute targets because it is crucial for Canada to have clear and definite targets, especially for the 700 largest emitters in Canada. These emitters belong to three major industrial sectors and they are seeking targets they can work with.

It also helps, because judging by the U.S. experience with their system of domestic trading permits established further to their Clean Air Act, absolute targets ensure certainty regarding prices—for example, the price of a tonne of sulfuric dioxide—and they also provide certainty for the big emitters of chemicals that cause acid rain.

It is also important because science is now telling us, especially in the wake of the Paris and Brussels meetings, that if we see even a 2° increase in temperature, as Sir Nicholas Stern has warned us, absolute targets are indispensable or we may see a 10% cost in our collective international global GDP. This is very serious business. Unfortunately, these numbers were not factored in by the government in last week's analysis.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question of my hon. colleague.

My comment is that the comment on the socialist plan to use trading systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is really nonsense. The social democratic countries around the world have the best record in dealing with the reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions, whether it is Germany, Sweden or Denmark. They have done it through very concentrated efforts in their own countries to reduce energy use and to move to alternative energy sources. They have been effective. Social democratic principles applied to greenhouse gas reductions work very well and the weight of evidence is there in the world.

On the question of emissions reductions, in the oil and gas sector quite clearly Natural Resources Canada says that the emissions intensity of the product we are producing in Canada is going up, whether we like it or not. The sources of natural gas and oil are going to be more carbon intensive. That is a fact.

When we look at emissions reductions and alternatives, what are we going to look at? Is it going to be exporting raw bitumen to the United States to take that problem into another country so that we do not use emissions in its transformation to a usable fuel? Do we import liquefied natural gas and push the emissions from that production offshore as well? Or do we in Canada sit down and do the companion piece to a greenhouse gas strategy, which is a national energy strategy?

Would the member opposite support the effort that we need to understand how our energy system works and how we can make changes in the future? Without it, the potential to achieve Kyoto is limited.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for years I have been calling for a national energy examination in this country, not a national energy policy program of the kind that is often referred to from the 1970s, and intelligent jurisdictions, wealthy, leading industrialized jurisdictions, have already performed these analyses. It was done by the United Kingdom. It was done by Germany. It was done by France. It has been done by Australia. It has even been done by the United States, but not by Canada.

The government is not coming clean with Canadians and talking about how we are going to have to reconcile, obviously, our need to continue to do good business in the fossil fuel sector and our need and our imperative to reduce our greenhouse gases.

One thing is for sure, though, in that it is astonishing for most Canadians to think that the Conservative Party of Canada, now forming this minority government, would rule out the use of market mechanisms. It is supposed to be the party of the free market.

It is now deliberately ruling out the use of international trading mechanisms, which were brought into the Kyoto protocol largely through the demand of American, Canadian and global multinationals that want to harness the use of a free market mechanism to reduce the costs of compliance. They want to take action. They want to move forward. They want to become more energy efficient. They want to sell their environmental technologies that are forthcoming.

The oil sands are filled with environmental technologies that we ought to be selling all over the planet, yet the government is telling the free market in this country that it is not prepared and will not allow them to join the ranks of the international community, 168 countries that signed on to participate, and use this tool more efficiently. It is astonishing for those of us who are trying to understand this. It makes no sense. It is seriously disadvantaging Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the House shares my opinion that the member, through his long experience, is very well informed on all of these issues related to the environment.

I would like to ask him, though, in order that we do not get divided on this road to Kyoto that we are all committed to--and through this motion we can achieve that--would he make a comment with respect to where an emissions trading carbon exchange should be located? It has been suggested in the motion, and it is linked, that it should be in Montreal, and perhaps it should, but would he give an opinion to the House with respect to the process we might undergo in order that we do the right thing with respect to this particular part of the Kyoto regime, the emissions and carbon trading system?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the first comment I would make with respect to the location of any emissions trading market would be this. If the Conservative government holds this country to a mere domestic emissions trading system, that is, with a small number of traders, we are going to have a very illiquid market and a very small market. I can assure the House and all Canadians that no matter where it is located, in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto or elsewhere, this market would be so small as to be almost insignificant. If we are not participating more fulsomely in the international markets, then it is going to be difficult for us.

The second comment I would make is this. In Europe a number of markets have emerged. There is of course a primary trading market in London. There is a market emerging in Amsterdam. There are tertiary markets now that are coming up in Germany and elsewhere. Italy is now examining a small market in Rome. This is going to become, once it is up and fully running, the largest single market that the planet has ever seen: international carbon markets. There will be a lot of room in this country for perhaps a location in Montreal and perhaps another location in Toronto.

Finally, it is difficult for some Canadians to understand why we would situate such a market in the city of Montreal. If in fact the Bloc Québécois is still now pursuing a policy of independence, why would that market remain in Montreal if it is to serve all of Canada?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. The hon. member has been talking about the U.K. economist Sir Nicholas Stern, who has reported on his opinions about where we are going for the next 30 to 50 years. However, the member has been using these analyses for his own particular benefit--over the next three to five years--in the application of the Kyoto accord. Therefore, I want to know why he would take the report by Sir Nicholas Stern and twist it to try to substantiate his facts when they are totally different from what was proposed by Sir Nicholas Stern.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I can respond to that question directly because I am not sure how I am not citing Sir Nicholas Stern accurately, but I would suggest to my hon. friend and colleague that he ought to look at the latest McKinsey report.

It concludes that greenhouse gas reductions needed by 2030 to avoid a 2° average warming effect could be as low as 40 euros or roughly $60 Canadian per tonne. These are price points in the marketplace now in the European trading market and the emerging Chicago-based United States market and global markets and are very much in keeping with what is going on.

The study also concludes that the annual worldwide costs for making the needed emissions reductions to avoid worse climate change in 2030 is only 0.6% of that year's projected GDP.

I would perhaps place more credence in these numbers from the McKinsey firm than in those of the few economists selected last week by the government. These numbers are actually very much in keeping with Sir Nicholas Stern's report.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his motion on climate change, especially concerning the carbon exchange. This concept is really necessary for our country, which should make an immediate commitment to emission trading. Otherwise, it will be impossible for Canada to meet the Kyoto targets and to continue discussions with the rest of the world.

The government is somewhat confused because I believe that the government will support this motion. However, it is possible that the confusion is caused by language. The French version contains some very specific elements that do not appear in the English version. Therefore, we should closely examine the French text today. First, there is this sentence:

Que la Chambre invite le gouvernement à établir au plus tôt des cibles absolues de réduction des gaz à effet de serre permettant d’atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto—

The words “cibles absolues”, or “absolute targets” are very important, and they are the reason that the NDP will support this motion.

The English version has a slightly but important different expression that is important for us to rectify here today. I know members in the House will work with us to perhaps fix this.

The motion reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol--

The language around the mechanisms in Kyoto is very specific in its use and phrasing. In English, the government may be reading in some cover for its intensity based targets because the word “absolute” is not applied. In the language of Kyoto, absolute targets mean an absolute cap. That is the common reference that we use when talking about large industrial polluters.

It is also the language that we use when we talk about an absolute target for countries, not a moving target, not a target associated to energy intensity, which was previously supported by the current leader of the Liberal Party and his party in the former Parliament. This intensity based target was supported actually by the current leader of the Liberal Party all the way through his leadership campaign. These are the same criticisms the Liberal Party is now vaunting upon the Conservatives, that an intensity based target was the way to go.

Let me explore this topic for a moment because it is important for Canadians listening to understand the differences between an absolute target and an intensity based target.

Intensity allows a country to set intensity based targets. That means if a country becomes more efficient in its business processes and industrial process, if that intensity improves over years, then that country gets credit for having improved when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

The problem with an intensity based target is that it can allow, under an expanding economy, and as we have seen in Alberta that attempted this in its provincial targets, an improvement of 19% in intensity over a 10 year period, but an increase of almost 40% in the absolute greenhouse gas emissions for the province.

When countries come together at international conferences to talk about reducing our impact on the planet and the planet's atmosphere, what they are always talking about is an absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That is the only conversation held. It does not matter one's political perspective on the topic, right, left, American, Australian, or Canadian. They are talking about seeking a way to lower the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are sent out by our industrial processes. That is the critical component of this.

This issue seems to have been a bit of a moving target over the last number of weeks. The government says we are within the Kyoto protocol, but we are not going to meet the targets.

Now, it is suggested that we support the Bloc motion to have absolute targets for reduction of greenhouse gases. The words “absolute targets” are very, very clear. They establish a very strong connection with the Kyoto protocol and Canada’s international commitments. It is also necessary to establish a carbon exchange in Montreal, or a general carbon exchange, wherever it may be located.

In the context of all this, as we have heard in the speeches from the environment critics and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, the parties will take out their natural barbs and hooks for each other around the issue of the environment, which has become increasingly important for Canadians.

There has been almost a seismic shift in the consciousness of Canadians who are interested in the affairs of government and their nation to say that the environment, and climate change in particular, has become one of the leading issues for our country.

I would strongly suggest the government did not get elected on an environmental platform. I clearly remember the platform document the Conservatives ran on. I think there were three phrases in the entire document devoted to the environment. It was a platform piece. The Conservatives were vague. There was something in it about clean air and clean water, and a third one that has since been forgotten.

Now arriving in government, those members find themselves in a bit of a predicament, having spilled much ink in their brochures and pamphlets about the evils of international obligations like the Kyoto process, and are now faced with a population that wants something done.

To take some small pieces in lessons from history, when the Conservatives introduced their clean air act last fall, there was much excitement and anticipation by many in the Conservative cabinet at least, but I am not sure about the Canadian public. Minister after minister came to me and said how impressed I was about to be with what was going to be called the clean air act.

It was the clean air act. According to them it was very strong, very specific and very generous.

At the end of the day we found out that the act was wanting in specifics, deadlines and lacking in efficacy. We were unable to support the act and were able to encourage the other opposition parties in the House to do the same because there was almost no moral ground to stand upon in pushing off serious action in respect to climate change for another 20 years, 30 years or 40 years. That was not responsible.

What is responsible is to recommit to our international obligations, a legally binding document which we have not heard a murmur from the government on how it is going to square this circle in being signatories, which it is in representing the Canadian people, to this protocol that has built-in penalties for countries that do not abide by that signature or their targets.

The government is trying to square the idea that it can both be in the protocol, adhere to international obligations, and yet not meet those obligations. It is fundamentally flawed and intellectually dishonest at worst.

When the act was introduced, it was dead on arrival. It was disappointing and frustrating because the legacy that the Liberal Party had left behind in government was known throughout the land as being a record of an over concentration and focus on media and optics, spin and announcements, and little to do with concrete action.

The sad part of this conversation for Canadians, and there is a great deal of skepticism in the public when the government makes announcements, is that they have some justification for the skepticism when looking at the so-called new government because after some 13 months or 14 months, some incredibly long feeling period of time short on the calendar but long when we look at the amount of delay, we are still waiting for serious action.

It may feel beyond even 10 years for some in the Liberal Party who are not quite used to the feelings of what it is not to be able to control the media's spin cycle. However, when we look at the principles of their bill, we realize that the bill as proposed was dead in Parliament.

I remember the leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto—Danforth standing in his place, two weeks after the bill was introduced calling upon the government and the other parties to work together, to form a special committee, give us a forum to bring the best ideas forward, and to rewrite the bill from top to bottom in order to include within it things that are called for by the motion from the Bloc today, and other motions that have come from Conservative and Liberal members.

It was a fascinating experience and important because Canadians heard stories of parliamentarians attempting to work together, of finding common ground. Looking through the record, as I have, for the various votes cast for this particular piece of legislation, I found members from the Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc and New Democrats voting for many aspects of it. They did not agree with all of it, but they say the principles of a good negotiation are always based upon each party giving up something. No one gets it all.

As much as the Prime Minister would like to wage a war of attrition and decide that whatever he writes is law, he must come to the realization that he is working within the confines of a minority Parliament. This is the House that Canadians constructed for us and most clearly want us to work together, particularly around issues that we have said from all four corners of the House go beyond narrow partisan interests because it is the future of the environment, the climate and future prosperity of generations to come.

We rewrote the bill and adopted aspects of the bill that were written initially. Much of the actual air pollution sections, the air quality sections, were modified but adopted by the various committee members. We included new pieces, leading edge ideas, that have been accepted by the parties and no one party voted for every one and no one party voted against every piece. It was a mix.

To my perspective, and I believe the perspective of many Canadians, that is the sign of a healthy Parliament, a healthy debate, when people are able to give their input and have various coalitions form around the table on any given day. As members from that committee know, there were various votes cast. Some things were defeated and some things not. To make Parliament work, to make Parliament deliver for Canadians on the environment, that is what the NDP was focused on. That is what the member for Toronto—Danforth, the leader of the NDP, was entirely focused on through the process and he has received proper credit for his work there.

I will now break down the notion of a carbon exchange market.

It is very important to understand to what extent this tool is good for Canadian companies and for everyone, and that it will make it possible to advance this concept of greenhouse gas reduction.

I will quote a brief extract from the testimony of Mr. Bertrand, the president of the Montreal Exchange, on the subject of absolute targets. In response to a question from the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, Mr. Bertrand stated the following: “We think that an intensity-based system would add another element of uncertainty to the market.”

All the business witnesses said that it was impossible to invest in the reduction of greenhouse gases with a system that creates uncertainty. The concept of intensity targets does not work for Canadian companies or for our country’s Kyoto targets. It is not possible for the Conservative government, on one hand, to say that intensity targets are sufficient and, on the other hand, to support the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie which begins, “That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol—”.

That is the intention of Bill C-30. They have changed the name because it is a very important bill that deals not only with air quality, but also with climate change. That is the reason that the NDP will support the motion. It will support the effort to put more pressure on this government. It is necessary to ensure the passage of Bill C-30 concerning climate change and Canada’s clean air act, as it has been called by the government.

For Canadians watching who are not familiar with carbon exchange markets, it is a very simple concept based fundamentally upon market concepts that exist. Canadians invest in the markets every day, for their retirement, for businesses to secure enough capital to make the investments, create an economy, hire more people and put Canadians to work. The market based system, the exchange of value for future promised value that is the basis of the Toronto Stock Exchange and other stock exchanges around the world is the same concept that was borrowed from those trying to fight this climate change process.

A very wise witness came before the committee and said not to think of the Kyoto process as an environmental negotiation as much as it is an economic negotiation because this is changing some of the fundamentals of our economy. It is demanding that at long last the polluter must pay. This is a concept that has been bandied around in this Parliament and others for far too long. It is simple. The concept says that those who pollute, in this case those who emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, must pay for that pollution, otherwise we invoke the greatest tragedy we have ever known. Who is responsible for the atmosphere, who is responsible for the quality of the air if not those who are contributing to the ruination of the atmosphere and the quality of air?

It seems to us and to many others that this market based approach is one of the most effective tools that government can apply in setting up the terms of reference, in setting up clear rules and regulations so that companies can compete. It will allow industries to choose the lowest cost solutions to reduce their pollution and have a net overall benefit to our atmosphere and our economy.

At the end of the day, in order to achieve the short term targets that are outlined in the Kyoto protocol, and to which Canada has obligated itself, unless the government plans on tearing up the protocol, which it may be doing quietly but has certainly not publicly said it will do, then we need this tool. Businesses which are unable to make the transition in three to four years, which is Kyoto's requirement now because we have wasted so much time in the 13 years previously and in the almost year and a half with the present government, need this tool.

We have made some shift with the government. There has been some release of the ideology in small ways. I can remember the minister coming to the committee and when asked about the clean development mechanisms and other trading mechanisms that are available within the protocol, he said absolutely and definitively no.

At the time I thought he may have misspoke himself. It was not until we saw business representative after representative come before the committee and say they want access to these tools. The oil and gas sector, the coal fired energy sector are saying they want access to these tools and mechanisms because they think it is important and useful for their business. They need to be able to factor into their spreadsheets and costs of doing business the concept of pollution, the concept of greenhouse gas emissions. The notions of a carbon exchange allow them to do that and they want access to it. Why would the government deny them? They are supposedly much of the government's support base, certainly within the Alberta energy sector. They asked for access to this market. It becomes a question of who the government is defending from these tools. It is certainly not the companies that are most involved with the process, the large polluters in this country.

The government made an absolutely false and almost silly presentation on the cost of these international obligations to which we have committed. The minister was out trumpeting that last week. That needs to be set aside once and for all. We can no longer have this pitched battle of ideology between doing things for the environment and doing things for the economy. That debate for many Canadians is long since over. If the government continues to wage this campaign and die on this hill, I believe both politically and personally the Conservatives will be punished for it because it is a false debate. We have moved well beyond that. Our international competitors have shown us that.

Canada runs the desperate risk of being left in the dust in innovation, new energy production, and a more sensible and sane policy for this country and for our economy.

We will be supporting this motion and look forward to the support of all parties. We look for support from all parties to finally move forward the so-called clean air and climate change legislation, so that we can get the solutions on the table that will allow industry and Canadians to engage with government and not have a government in direct opposition to those efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and congratulate him for his speech today.

Clearly the colleague opposite knows how the emission credit exchange mechanisms work better than the minister and better than all the government critics.

I would remind my colleague, and the government, that a recent study by the CIBC, published less than a month ago, shows that the potential carbon credit market would be somewhere in the order of $12 billion a year. This is in addition to the possible $77 billion internationally.

In his opinion, does this not further show that there are certain economic advantages and certain economic opportunities for Canadian companies in establishing this emissions credit exchange in Canada?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question.

The possibilities that come with the carbon exchange are incredible. There is a lot of interest among major polluting companies and other countries and states. For example, California, New York and Massachusetts and many other U.S. states are very interested in this project and this option for their companies.

There are advantages to Montreal having a carbon exchange now. There is an association or a relationship with the other markets, in Chicago and Europe, for increasing the amount of credits and the possible amount of money.

This money and possibility will make it easier for Canadian companies to compete effectively in reducing greenhouse gases and in introducing innovations. Canada is strongly committed to investing in education to promote technological innovation in the automobile and aviation sectors, among others. However, this is impossible if there is not enough money to do so.

Based on what we see in Europe, the Europeans obviously have an advantage that Canadian companies currently do not. This is not right and it is not good for our future and for future generations, when it comes to global competition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow the line of questioning that our colleague from the Bloc initiated. My comments for the member are similar to those for the member for Ottawa South. The member has a tremendous amount of knowledge in this area. His views are extremely relevant and credible. My question is similar to the one that I posed to the member for Ottawa South.

It could appear that this motion, in positioning the Montreal exchange, might be somewhat divisive in the inference that other exchanges draw and that Canadians draw. The member for Ottawa South indicated the wide spectrum of activity, from resourced based industries to our manufacturing industry, to technology and innovation. I think the House and Canadians would be interested to hear the member's view with respect to that ultimate potential, such that no wrong inferences would be drawn from our supporting this motion. This is very much a national strategy that will add value to every part of the Canadian economy. The emissions credit regime and exchange would in fact underpin that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his work on the environment.

There is a specific carbon exchange named within the motion, the Montréal Exchange. Many in opposition to this will fixate on that and ask why the government would pick one exchange over another. There are two places of confidence for us in supporting the motion.

I have raised some concerns with parts of the translation of the motion between the French and English versions, but this part is quite certain. The reason we are going to fix absolute targets for Canada with respect to greenhouse gases, as it reads in the motion, is “a prerequisite for the establishment...of a carbon exchange market in Montréal”. It is almost self-evident that the carbon exchange market in Montreal is impossible if there is no absolute cap on greenhouse gas emissions, nor is the market possible in Toronto, Winnipeg, or anywhere.

The motion cites what has been seen widely as the leading contender to house this market because of those relationships with Chicago, which is a predominant market in the U.S. and the European markets. The Montréal Exchange has done a great deal of work in fostering those relationships which are critical. We simply cannot have a solely Canadian based market system. It will not work. We need to have access to those larger markets.

The motion directs the most important piece, which is to have absolute targets. This is the point which I think the government is still trying to figure out too because it has refused absolute caps. It is called a cap and trade system for a reason. If there is no cap, there is no trade. That is fundamental. If there is not an absolute cap, there is not an absolute trade.

The business community came forward and the Chamber of Commerce on down said that with an intensity based target it is very difficult to ascertain how to trade because it is a moving target. What is the value? We do not know the value because that intensity target does not allow the prediction of what a company's emissions will be the following year. It is intensity based. It is a percentage of production, whereas an absolute says there is a limit and what it is. Nor could there be any kind of market exchange, a stock market or anything else, which allowed a floating fixture for a company to say how much it is actually worth based upon some intensity figures that it would release a year later. It does not work. The two go hand in hand.

The oil and gas sector in Alberta pointed that out. The Montréal Exchange people, the Chamber of Commerce and the business community pointed out that in order to have the certainty required for the investment needed to make the changes to our economy, there had to be certainty in the price. If there is no certainty in the price, companies will not trade on it. The market will not work. It will not function. Now the government seems to be encouraging a market. That is a move and we encourage that, but it has to understand the principles that are set behind it.

Know this. In the Kyoto negotiations originally, it was the United States and Canada that lobbied very hard for this mechanism. In particular, the United States was the most reluctant country entering into the Kyoto regime. The U.S. said, “If you give us this market, you free up the capital and we are now interested”. That is what caused the U.S. to sign on. The market is absolutely critical. It is fundamental to free up the capital necessary for the most advanced companies to make those investments and create the wealth that for so long we have been looking for in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There is less than a minute for both the question and the answer.

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley gave an eloquent statement. He obviously has extensive knowledge on this issue.

I would like to pick up on a comment he made about the Kyoto agreement being an economic agreement. We have heard a lot of debate about jobs versus the environment. I wonder if he could comment briefly on how he sees job creation taking place under this agreement.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley should know that the clock has run out, so the answer will be very short.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give a statistic according to the Library of Parliament in order to answer my colleague's question.

We asked the library to look at the industry of photovoltaic cells. These are the solar panels that produce electricity in Canada: 700 jobs in Canada, 50,000 jobs in Germany and over 200,000 in China. It seems like a lost opportunity--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. the Hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House to speak on the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois on this Bloc opposition day. This is a clear and straightforward motion calling on the government “to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

The debate we are having in the House of Commons today is a very important one, a debate on one of the greatest challenges we have ever had to face: climate change. In recent months, numerous credible scientific studies have improved knowledge of the magnitude of the environmental issues and challenges we are currently facing, and explained to some extent what most people have been realizing for themselves: we have a role and responsibility where the current climate disruptions are concerned.

I will not discuss the research commissioned by the Conservative government, which serves as the basis for the campaign of fear it has been engaged in for the past week. Acting like a lobby for the oil industry, this government has always denied the existence of climate change. One can hardly lend any credibility to such a catastrophic, apocalyptic scenario.

Instead, I will remind the members of this House of recent reports by a former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern and the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The first report recommends that each country invest 1% of its GDP in fighting climate change to prevent future economic losses up to 20 times higher than the cost of reversing the trend now. There is increasing certainty about climate change, and particularly its effects: increased tropical storms, heatwaves, smog episodes, hurricanes, forest fires and droughts, not to mention glaciers melting, sea levels rising and reduced availability of drinking water.

While we do not want to be alarmist, we must be clear and honest. According to the second report, the UN report, at least 30% of the species in the world are in danger of extinction if temperatures rise two degrees above averages in recent years. As well, 250 million people could be without water by 2020. In addition, an increase in extreme weather, such as tsunamis and storms, may occur, along with other disturbing events.

During this time, as if to justify its failure to act, the Conservative government has continued to blame the Liberals' poor performance in combating climate change during the time they were in power.

Day after day, since they were elected, the Conservatives have promised us action. After 14 months in power, we see that Quebeckers and Canadians have lost 14 months in the fight against climate change. That is precious time, and in this important battle no responsible government can stand by while time is lost.

And yet after slashing climate change programs at the beginning of its term, the government then recycled the Liberal programs, under public and political pressure. Once again, precious time has been lost.

The Conservative government underestimates Quebeckers and Canadians when it comes to the importance they place on the environment and climate change. It still does not seem to be hearing them today, or even to understand what they are saying.

Issues relating to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are very important to Quebeckers. In fact, 76% of Quebeckers believe that the government must reach the objectives in the Kyoto protocol. Quebeckers are actually the lowest producers of greenhouse gas emissions in North America, and we are one of the only developed societies, with Norway, where oil does not account for a majority of our energy consumption. This is explained, in part, by the choice we made to develop the hydroelectric system.

We in the Bloc Québécois have echoed the concerns of the Quebec public regarding these environmental issues, on the federal scene, at least since the 2000 election campaign in which we made it one of the central topics. In 2003, the Bloc Québécois made a major contribution to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol and since then has made implementation of the protocol a priority.

Recently, we helped to collect over 120,000 signatures on a petition calling for compliance with the commitments made in the Kyoto protocol.

Quebeckers demand an exemplary contribution to environmental protection both from themselves and from their elected representatives. This fact is one of the major reasons why the Conservative government, which is trying to seduce Quebeckers by every imaginable means, has for some time been trying to portray itself as a green government.

Quebeckers are not fooled, and they are well aware that the Conservative government has never had any genuine interest in environmental causes. Its heart and soul have long been promised to the oil industry in western Canada. That is no secret to anyone. That is why it does not believe in the Kyoto protocol.

Here are some examples to illustrate that fact. First, the House of Commons has twice given official recognition to the importance of meeting the Kyoto targets, and rather than honouring the wishes of a majority of the members of this House, the Conservative government commissioned a study to justify its failure to act, because the Kyoto protocol would cause significant damage to companies in the west, and especially oil companies.

Then there was the Conservative government's refusal to put an immediate and complete end to the accelerated capital cost allowance (CCA) deduction available to oil companies exploiting the oil sands, in spite of the billions of dollars in profits they are pocketing.

In addition, the government has long refused to meet its own time frames and set targets for greenhouse gas reduction. It is proposing to set intensity targets rather than fixed targets. Now we learn that it is considering changing the reference date for these reductions, making 2006 the reference year instead of 1990.

Furthermore, we do not know the future of Bill C-30, which required so many hours of work over many weeks by parliamentarians on the Standing Committee on the Environment and which was significantly improved by the opposition parties. We have a good bill at the moment, which meets the expectations of Quebeckers and Canadians. What is the Conservative government going to do? It may well be in no hurry to bring it back to the House for passage.

The Conservative government is once again demonstrating that Canada's interests are at the other end of the spectrum from Quebec's. While oil makes Canada rich, it makes Quebec poor.

The oil and gas industry substantially bolsters the Canadian economy, be it oil in Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan or natural gas in Nova Scotia. The inflated dollar fluctuating with the cost of a barrel of oil and heavily impacting the manufacturing sector affects Quebec's economy.

Quebec produces no oil. It must therefore import it. In 2006, Quebec purchased $13 billion worth, while facing a trade deficit of $7 billion. This dependence on oil has plunged Quebec into a full blown trade deficit. In truth no one can deny anymore the problem with climate change or that specific and effective action must be taken immediately.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is repeatedly calling for the implementation of the Kyoto protocol to reduce Canadian gas emissions by 6% under the 1990 level, with absolute targets.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is demanding a mechanism based on a territorial approach, that is, an approach that will give Quebec the fiscal instruments to enable it to implement the most effective measures possible to reduce greenhouse gases within its borders. This is the most effective approach, the only truly fair one reflecting the environmental efforts and choices made by Quebeckers and by the province's industrial sector in recent years, especially in the area of hydroelectricity.

And this is why the Bloc Québécois is insisting that the plan include the establishment of a carbon exchange, to compensate the provinces, companies and organizations that lead the way in the reduction of greenhouse gases. Such an exchange is needed urgently in order to impose reduction targets on the major polluters. That is the producer pays policy. A business wishing to modernize could therefore finance the modernization to some extent by selling credits to other companies. The oil industry would be one example.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is very short and very simple. I thank my colleague for Beauharnois—Salaberry for her remarks.

What does she think of the statement made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment of the Conservative government, that the only reason the Conservatives support this motion is that it does not refer exclusively to the creation of a carbon exchange in Montreal?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I believe that in the French version, the motion reads as I said in my introduction, which is that we call for absolute targets to implement a carbon exchange.

My colleague’s question gives me an opportunity to explain briefly what we mean by “intensity targets”. We sometimes have the impression that the Conservative government, and especially government members from Quebec, do not understand the difference between intensity targets and absolute targets.

We could, perhaps, take a very concrete example that would help people create a mental image and understand the real definition of an intensity target and the impact that could have for Quebec.

For example, let us look at the petroleum industry. Let us suppose that they are required to make a 20% reduction for every barrel they produce. The companies will comply with their targets. However, if they increase their production by a significant number of barrels, at the end of the day, the intensity targets will have been achieved but the amount of greenhouse gas will have increased because growth and production have increased. That is an important distinction. Having established intensity targets does not mean that greenhouse gases will be reduced. On the contrary, greenhouse gases will increase if production increases.

The Bloc Québécois supports the setting of absolute targets. That will enable us to truly reduce greenhouse gases and establish a carbon exchange market. Moreover, in addition to reducing greenhouse gases, with a carbon exchange, we will be creating economic wealth. Our companies are calling for that.

The call for a carbon exchange is not a whim on the part of the Bloc. The economic community demands it. We are into an era of emissions credit trading, and we have the means at hand to create wealth for our own Canadian companies. Since all the major industries in Quebec and Canada agree on that, we wonder why the Conservative government insists on its intensity targets and rejects the idea of establishing a carbon exchange.

There is clear evidence everywhere in Canada that we have reached a crossroads and we must now choose this direction so that Canada can achieve its objectives in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, as set out in the Kyoto protocol.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie will be mindful of the fact that there is less than a minute left for both the question and the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member agree that, when it comes to determining whether or not an energy sector in Canada produces greenhouse gas emissions, we should always look at the source of these emissions?

Quebec generates 95% of its power from hydroelectricity. Is it important to take into consideration the provinces' energy policy when setting targets?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry must know that I have been very generous to her so far. This time, I will have to interrupt her after 30 seconds.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your great generosity. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is right, and what he just mentioned illustrates the importance of promoting a territorial approach, rather than a sectorial one.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for her excellent presentation. I also thank her for splitting her time with me.

I want to read the Bloc Québécois motion, which was so well presented by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is our environment critic and who, incidentally, does an excellent job. He is now recognized in Quebec, and even across Canada, as an expert in this field. I will read the French version of the motion because, before the end of my presentation, I will amend the English version, which is slightly different. The French version of the motion reads as follows:

Que la Chambre invite le gouvernement à établir au plus tôt des cibles absolues de réduction des gaz à effet de serre permettant d’atteindre les objectifs du Protocole de Kyoto, une condition préalable à l’établissement, dans les meilleurs délais, d’une bourse du carbone à Montréal.

Before getting to the essence of this motion, I want to talk about the differences, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, between the Canadian provinces, by taking as a starting point the date set under the Kyoto protocol, that is the year 1990. I am referring to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, by province, between 1990 and 2004.

Greenhouse gases have increased by 10% in Prince Edward Island, by 6.1% in Quebec, by 16.5% in Nova Scotia, by 11.4% in Manitoba, by 15% in Ontario, by 4.3% in Newfoundland and Labrador, by 29.9% in British Columbia, by 46.9% in New Brunswick, by 39.4% in Alberta, and by 61.7% in Saskatchewan.

For Canada as a whole, that is a 26.5% increase in greenhouse gases, using 1990 as the baseline. Without Quebec, it would be 30%.

Clearly Quebec has made its energy choices, namely hydroelectricity. Once again I am pleased to say in this House, to all my colleagues from the other parties and the other provinces, that Quebec, without any federal contributions, has paid for its own hydroelectric resources out of the taxes and the hydro bills of the taxpayers of Quebec.

Quebec decided to go for hydroelectricity, which today makes it the province where greenhouse gas emissions have increased the least since 1990. I think that this is an example that the rest of Canada should follow. It is not for nothing that Quebec and the Bloc Québécois are today defending Quebeckers, who are prepared to meet the targets of the Kyoto protocol and are asking the rest of Canada to follow Quebec’s example and meet those targets.

This is a choice that Quebec has made. When we do an inventory of greenhouse gases in Quebec, the picture shows us that the transportation sector is the largest source of emissions, representing 38.5% of Quebec’s total emissions. Of our 6.1% increase, 38.5% is from the transportation sector. In this sector, road transportation accounts for 85.3% of greenhouse gases.

So we have to get to the heart of the problem, and one of the most significant parts of this problem is road transportation, passenger motor vehicles and oil pollution. This is the battle to be waged. We have to be able to reach our objectives.

This is why the Bloc Québécois tabled this motion in the House today. This motion is based, as I mentioned earlier, on absolute targets so as to allow the creation of a carbon exchange in Montreal.

I am going to talk about the advantages of a carbon exchange. This will create a market in tradable permits. The carbon exchange is not new and it already exists. There are carbon exchanges in Chicago and in Europe. The principle is operational. I am going to summarize this and take the trouble to read my notes because it is important for things to be understood clearly.

A carbon exchange is a tool that a company, government or organization that reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to below its reduction targets could use to sell the tonnes of greenhouse gases that it would still have been entitled to emit. That allows companies that make an effort to sell the surplus greenhouse gases they saved.

Unsurprisingly companies in Quebec that have made that effort, as compared to their 1990 emissions, for example in the forestry and aluminum industries, are impatient to see this kind of carbon exchange in place, so that they will be able to sell credits in order to make savings and increase part of their assets.

A permit market will, for example, allow a company that exceeds its targets to sell its surpluses to another company that is finding it difficult to reduce its emissions.

We are accused of taking government money so that we can finance this whole carbon exchange objective. The opposite is true; companies, including oil companies, that want to exceed their emissions will have to buy credits or permits from companies that have made savings. The companies will be the ones paying; there is no government money. That, as my colleague explained so well, is the polluter-pay principle.

My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has always argued that principle in this House. I have heard him on many occasions asking the government whether it would one day accept the polluter-pay principle. Someone who wants to continue polluting will have to buy credits in order to do so. It is as simple as that.

This is how Europe has managed to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. At the same time, this is a powerful financial incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the company can cash in on its reductions. This system will encourage the most successful companies to be in a position to make money on emission credits. Those who cannot, and we often think of oil companies and their enormous profits, will take their surpluses, and rather than paying dividends to shareholders every three months, may be able to use part of them to stay in business.

But a carbon exchange cannot be created unless absolute greenhouse gas emission targets are set. The reduction is simple: 6% under 1990 levels. The Bloc Québécois had good reason to be very logical in drafting its motion. We are calling for absolute reductions in order to be able to establish a carbon exchange. This requires, however, that an independent body or bodies be created and given the task of certifying greenhouse gas reductions and imposing financial penalties on organizations that fail to meet them.

The principle adopted by the Bloc Québécois is obviously that a carbon exchange be established in Montreal, based on the principles of absolute reduction targets. That is why I am moving this amendment. I move the following amendment, with the consent of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and supported by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry:

That the motion be amended by substituting the word "absolute" for the word "fixed" in the English version.

That is the amendment I am moving.