Debates of April 24th, 2007

Opposition Motion--Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Did the member intend to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were in Rio to represent Canada in 1992 when Mr. Mulroney signed on to the concept of the Kyoto protocol.

Climate change remains a political problem today and a solution will require political will, but Brian Mulroney is not there anymore.

We need to take action, but what kind of action? A good number of the proposed solutions are inadequate or ill-conceived. We are now in the unfortunate situation where the Conservatives are giving us an inaccurate economic message at odds with what the public wants.

Because of their poor policy analysis of the role of economy, environment and social responsibility, the famous mandatory and egalitarian treaty of sustainable development, they cancelled all existing policies and programs. Because of that and their immature behaviour, they lost a year and a half. They do not even fully understand now the need for absolute targets, fixed amounts, for the reduction of greenhouse gases for a particular region or industry. Without absolute targets, it will be impossible to achieve any fixed target.

Bush managed to convince the public that he could successfully reduce greenhouse gases with relative targets. The Conservatives, however, will not be able to fool Canadians like this and especially not Quebeckers, because the game of deception played by Bush and, unfortunately, by his spiritual son, our Prime Minister, will not pull the same rabbit out of the hat a second time.

Let us look at what the Americans did. When Bush became President, the Kyoto denigration and procrastination strategists realized that, given that they were opposed to real climate change action, they had better find a way of looking as though they were doing something. The result was to set relative targets while trumpeting the new technologies. It was all meant to be better, more effective and less restrictive than joining the other countries and moving ahead with Kyoto. That was the sham.

So the American “conservatives” decided to campaign with the emphasis on individual voluntary action and environmental progress, much like our Minister of the Environment, who makes his point loudly, as do all the powerless people of this world.

In February 2002, after a year of non-stop criticism by the Democrats and the informed members of the public, Bush responded by setting a relative target for his nation, that is, to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions by 18% by 2012, in other words, in 10 years. The word “intensity” comes back often in the United States because it is based on a complex concept, unlike the Kyoto protocol, and this fools people. But without the words “absolute and mandatory targets,” the Bush administration deceived the public, who actually got the impression that Bush wanted to reduce emissions, not let them increase.

The subterfuge was linked to the absence of the word “absolute,” by sector and by region. The subterfuge was the quantity of emissions per unit of economic activity measured on the basis of the gross national product.

As our Prime Minister is getting ready to do, Bush used two different lines to confuse the public, and the result of this was that, instead of falling by 18%, as promised, emissions in the United States will have increased by 14% over a 10-year period, given that the projected total increase was 32% for this period.

This shows how an illusion can be created. When someone cries wolf as loudly as our Minister of the Environment, it is because he is feeling weak and powerless among his pack of wolves.

The Kyoto protocol, with its absolute objectives, and its moderate, realistic and thus achievable goals, is what Canada and Quebec have committed to. It is not by rejecting Kyoto as a solution botched by the Liberals that the government will fulfil the obligations expected of it by the public. The Bush model revisited by the Conservatives and supported by the Canadian oil companies with foreign capital so as to supply the United States—how very convenient—allows the government to take the short view. I would like to debate something like that in an election campaign in Quebec.

Twenty-five thousand people marched in the streets to show how much support there is for Kyoto.

I would like to conclude with a word on the carbon exchange. Projections of American utilities are that the cost of a tonne of carbon should not exceed US $55 in 2020. This is the price that is actually accepted. There is a consensus on this in the American business community in January 2007. This cost represents 1.5¢ a kilowatt-hour for a coal-fired power plant, according to Joseph Room, whom I met personally in Atlanta a few years ago.

This is a far cry from the outlandish $195 a tonne figures that came out. These are figures the Conservatives are using to scare people. Unless I am mistaken, the increase will simply be one that promotes energy efficiency.

As a matter of fact, this new government, with its ideology and lack of experience, wants to use health and pollution as a diversion to try to hide the most important problem that will affect all of us, and that is climate change. In its diversion tactics, how is it going to deal with the mercury emissions of coal-fired power plants, 90% of the effects of which affect our children? Conservatives may not have children, but I have a seven and a half month old daughter, and I wonder what kind of air there will be for her to breath and on what kind of planet she will live.

A carbon exchange, or the setting of a market price for a tonne of carbon in the exchange, is after all a conservative and capitalist concept. The new government should buy into this old concept that everyone should pay the price they want to. This would promote energy efficiency, cogeneration, renewable energies, the sequestration of enormous amounts of CO₂ released by the production of oil from tar sands, and the sequestration of CO₂ in coal-fired power plants.

Conservatives try to make believe they do not understand what the real solution is. I have this to say to them. Their grandchildren, for those of them who will have some, will tell them one day, “Hey, grandpa, it was really stupid of you to consider just the financial side of things”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before going on to questions and comments, I wish to thank the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert for filling in for me for a few moments.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on his excellent speech.

Even though the Quebec nation will be able to reach its Kyoto targets with a small contribution from the federal government, as a Quebecker, I am deeply concerned about Quebec's ability to reach all its Kyoto targets in spite of all the efforts Quebec has made over the years.

Since the neighbouring country, Canada, will not be able to respect the principles of greenhouse gas reduction, I am concerned about the effect that could have on Quebec, because it is surrounded by Canada, the other provinces, and on Quebec's ability to reach its targets.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, excuse me but, being too engrossed in my text, I missed a very rare opportunity to address Madam Speaker.

My colleague's question is excellent since, in fact, we have only one planet. CO₂ emissions in another part of Canada will also affect Quebec, which, in turn, affects Europe. This is the reason why we adopted an international accord called the Kyoto protocol, to discuss our needs and work together on a common and collective project.

Unfortunately, certain individualistic, selfish countries have not adhered to it. But even countries like China and India have signed on and will, starting in 2012, have targets of their own to reach. The United States and Australia are the only two countries that have not ratified the protocol and, sadly, Canada now wants to withdraw its ratification. This really is terrible, because emissions in one country can affect other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. My question will be very simple.

Earlier this morning, the parliamentary secretary said that the Conservative government would support this Bloc Québécois motion because it does not refer to the establishment of a carbon exchange in Montreal exclusively.

I would like to know if this is a cause for concern for my colleague. Also, does he have any comments to make on the fact that it seems it will take forever for the clean air bill to be brought back to the House?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent question.

We will indeed have to find a place to establish this exchange. Obviously it should be in Montreal. It is the obvious choice because agreements have already been made in that regard and it would be unfortunate not to have it in Montreal. However, all in all, it is still more important to have a carbon exchange in Canada, wherever it is, than to have it in Montreal immediately. I would not mind if it were in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield or in Sherbrooke, but it would be a good thing to have a carbon exchange.

As for the bill, this morning, a government colleague told us that the government would probably deal with this issue through regulations. If this is the case, it will sidestep the law.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Don Valley West has time to ask a brief question, so I will ask him to pay attention to my signal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member if the federal government is the one that will decide where the carbon exchange will be established or if the market will simply make that choice itself among the competitive exchanges that may exist anywhere in Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Brome—Missisquoi has 20 seconds to respond.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the private sector could make that choice. But in Europe and the United States, the federal governments have always chosen the place they considered most efficient. Montreal has been chosen—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The member for Honoré-Mercier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I am pleased to rise today to take part in this important debate on one of the most fundamental issues we are facing today, which is the protection of our environment and the future of our children.

We are once more discussing the issue of climate change, because the government refuses to understand.

I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for introducing this motion, which 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, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montréal.

This motion is directly linked to my private member's bill, Bill C-288, which seeks to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto protocol. This motion, as well as my private member's bill, are primarily focused on taking concrete action immediately for the future.

I think, however, that the motion, and my private member's bill, should not have been necessary.

Indeed, as a Canadian, I would have expected the government of my country to take action against climate change and to respect international agreements. Unfortunately, violating international law does not seem to bother this government. Nor does it seem bothered by the fact that we are headed for a climatic catastrophe and must face the irreversible consequences.

The Prime Minister spent his career denying the existence of climate change, questioning both the science and the need to act. Now his government has spent more than a year, consistent with its Reform and Alliance past, trying to avoid taking action, looking for sound bites, excuses, misleading statements and misinformation, instead of making good policy.

That is wrong. 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, for our children and for our grandchildren.

This is why, when it comes to climate change, failing to take action is not an option.

Let us take a moment to look at the state of our planet today. Without being alarmist, I would like to share a few facts.

We all know, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest levels in 650,000 years. We also know that 11 of the last 12 years have been the warmest years ever recorded. Average Arctic temperatures are increasing at almost twice the global average rate. Scientists have also discovered that Arctic sea ice is melting even faster than their models predicted.

Here is what scientists predict a rise in temperature of 2° Celsius would mean for the planet: tens of millions of environmental refugees fleeing from rising sea levels; more intense rainfalls and storms; tens of millions of additional people at risk of hunger from crop failure; and increased water shortages that could affect billions.

Add to that the economic impact, which we know would be considerable, and we can see how unacceptable, even irresponsible, the government's failure to act is.

If I may, I would like to focus for a few minutes on the economic aspect, since the Conservatives are trying to instill fear in this regard. They are trying to scare Canadians with their completely apocalyptic scenarios.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, where he put on quite a show. He had one goal in mind, and that was to instill fear in all Canadians. He shouted himself hoarse as he presented a study based on false premises, a study that is incomplete. That study does not take into account all the mechanisms set out in Kyoto and claims:

—that there are no breakthroughs in current energy efficiency and other technologies pertaining to GHG emissions.

The minister does not, in fact, at any point see the campaign against climate change as an investment. His hatred of the Kyoto protocol is so strong that it renders him incapable of seeing beyond its costs. He is incapable of seeing the benefits in the short, medium or long term. He just envisages one disaster after another. For him, the beneficial impact of energy efficiency does not exist. Job creation in fields related to the new environmental technologies does not exist. The export potential of these new technologies to such countries as China, Brazil or Mexico does not exist either.

What makes me say this? Because there is no sign of any of these in his apocalyptic report. His report does not mention a single benefit. It is as if he had instructed its authors to set aside anything that was good, to take no notice of it, and to merely focus on all the bad things; to focus on all the things that will cost the most and to tell us just how much they will cost. It is as if he had done exactly that. The minister has made a fool of himself in everyone's eyes. He has shown himself to be incompetent, so much so that he should even be apologizing.

What he does not understand is that an end must be put to this old-fashioned attitude of forcing us to make a choice between jobs and a healthy environment. In this 21st century governments need to understand that economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. He does not get it.

In a highly credible study, former chief economist of the World Bank Nicholas Stern has calculated that the cost of unchecked global warming would be somewhere between 5% and 20% of the world GDP. However it would cost around 1% of the GDP deal with the situation. According to Mr. Stern, addressing climate change is good for the economy and ignoring it is what is likely to create a recession in the long term.

There are, in fact, a number of examples of businesses or sectors which do consider action against climate change as fostering economic growth. British Petroleum, for example, has managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 10% compared to its 1990 level. It did so as long ago as 2001, nine years before the deadline, and estimates that the changes it made to achieve this have increased its worth by $650 million.

The Forest Products Association of Canada tells us that in the last ten years, the forest industry has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% compared to 1990 levels. Why has it done so? It has done so voluntarily because this is good for the environment and also because it is good for the economy.

As the Pembina Institute has shown, it would be possible and affordable to set targets for heavy industry in line with the Kyoto protocol targets. Even in the tar sands, reaching those targets would only cost $1 a barrel, when right now, oil from the tar sands costs $60 a barrel.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, neither the motion nor my private member's bill should have been necessary. The government should have taken concrete measures to fight climate change, but it did not do so.

Instead it chose to renounce the Kyoto targets. It decided to do nothing and refused to act.

I want to say again that when a government does not comply with international law, when it does not recognize the will of the people, when it does not shoulder its responsibilities to address one of the most important challenges facing our planet, the opposition can and must force it to act.

Today's motion is an important step in the right direction, because it is clear that Canada must adopt absolute targets and establish a carbon exchange right away.

That is not an end in itself, but it is a tool to reach the Kyoto targets. It is a lot more than what the government is prepared to do. The government says that it would be difficult to reach the Kyoto targets. To that, I reply that just because something is difficult to do is no reason not to try. The sheer difficulty of the task makes it more important to fight with energy, courage and determination. When one wants to find solutions, one can find solutions. They do exist. One only needs the courage and the determination to put them in place, and the government does not have that courage or that determination.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way during his presentation. This House is still looking for answers to why the Liberals did nothing when they were in government after signing on to the Kyoto protocol. After ratifying the Kyoto protocol they continued year after year to do nothing to protect the environment.

There is proof that when the Conservatives took over government, Canada was 35% above the Kyoto target commitments. The government is committed to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. My party supports this motion, but the question that is still unanswered in the House is: Why did the Liberals not do something to clean up the environment when they were the government? Canadians want to know what was the reason for not getting the job done.

The hon. member has talked about courage. I would ask him and I have asked him many times to tell the House why his party did not get the job done when it had the chance? Why did the Liberals create the environmental mess with which we are faced?

The environment is incredibly important. Canadians want Canada to do something. We now have a government that is finally taking action on the environment. Why did the Liberals not get it done when they had a chance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind or, perhaps, inform my colleague that it was the Liberal government that signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol. Moreover, we had a green program worth $10 billion, and more money was to come. However, a new government was elected.

We know what we had. But what do we have now from the people across the way? Inaction and a bill that was totally ridiculous initially. Bill C-30 was amended by all the opposition parties. Once amended, it was much more acceptable. However, the government is refusing to bring it back to the House of Commons.

What is its latest strategy? Fearmongering. Fear is the weapon of the weak. Fear is what people who do not want to act use.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He talked about the courage that one must have. I totally agree with him. It takes courage to realize that we must act faster than ever and that a year and a half has been wasted by the present government. He also said that there are solutions that we must start to apply right now.

I would like him to say a few words about solutions that have been found and could be applied immediately, so that we do not have to listen to the Conservatives say anymore that the Liberals did nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his excellent question.

Numerous actions could obviously be taken. Bill C-288 is already in the Senate, and I hope it will be adopted, at least when the Conservatives stop obstructing it. Bill C-30, as amended by our colleagues from the Bloc Québecois, by the NDP and by ourselves, is an excellent bill that includes all sorts of measures.

We know that we have to act now. As stated in the motion from the Bloc, we must certainly establish fixed reduction targets. This must clearly be done. A carbon exchange must be created. There are excellent green projects abroad in which to invest. They are accredited by the United Nations and include true reductions of greenhouse gases.

We have these solutions, but we also have other means. Regulations could make things more efficient. We are ready. We have talked and found solutions. What is missing, unfortunately, is the courage and the will on the other side of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The honourable member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques should know there is less than a minute left for the question and the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

As a matter of fact, speaking of courage and political will, I would just like to ask my colleague if he has any comments about Bill C-30 having been held up for a very long time. We could even say that the government is unduly holding up the process.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member has 30 seconds to answer the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question.

Bill C-30, which was originally introduced by the Conservatives, did not contain anything for the short term. There were no objectives, no mechanisms, no timetables, nothing. Having been amended by opposition parties, it is totally acceptable and is an excellent tool to fight climate changes today. This bill is also being totally obstructed by the government, which does not want to bring it back to the House. Let us bring it back to the House so we can pass it and move to action.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion of the Bloc Québécois which really has two elements in it. It first talks about the importance of fixed targets, a regulated system for Canada's greenhouse gases; and second, that it has to be a precondition for the establishment of a carbon market in Montreal or indeed anywhere else in Canada.

I would like today to focus on the carbon market aspect of this and I think there are 13 important lessons when it comes to carbon markets.

Lesson number one is that a carbon market, in and of itself, does not lower emissions. To be real, somebody somewhere has to be undertaking activity, whether it is industrial or agricultural, that actually demonstrably lowers greenhouse gas emissions. This is why we keep asking the minister and his parliamentary secretary for the government to show its plan, so that we can get on with establishing a carbon market.

Lesson number two for the minister is that we cannot have a carbon market if carbon emissions are treated as free if the atmosphere is treated as a waste receptacle. If emissions are free, there is nothing to trade and that is why the Liberal Party put forward its carbon budget plan to put a value on CO₂ emissions. That was further demonstrated in Bill C-30, which was amended to reflect a true climate change plan and a true clean air act.

Lesson number three follows, therefore, that to have a carbon market carbon has to have a precise value or price. It has to be determined by the market and in order for that to happen emissions have to be capped by regulation and, hence, targets. That is why our carbon budget plan said that the price of carbon for those who exceeded their budget would be $20 in 2008, rising to $30 in 2012. That is what it means to put a value on carbon.

Lesson number four, which follows, is that caps on emissions have to be absolute, not intensity based. I am told that it is theoretically possible to have a market with intensity based targets, but it will likely be more complex and not fungible or compatible with systems like that which have been set up in the European Union.

This is why the Bloc motion is so important. This motion puts the emphasis on absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets so as to meet the Kyoto targets.

Targets have to be tough and get tougher to create a sufficient price signal to provide incentive for the formation of a market.

We will see how tough these targets really are next Thursday, if I understood correctly, when the government's intentions will be made known.

Lesson number five is that a carbon trading market needs to be simple, completely transparent and liquid. It cannot be complex. It cannot be an over the counter system where only big players can understand it and participate. It has to be accessible and fair to smaller companies and to individual investors.

Lesson number six deals with quality. Credit certification must be of top quality, of top environmental transparency and integrity.

Lesson number seven is additionality. We cannot give credit for carbon reducing activities that would have happened anyway.

Lesson number eight is that for maximum efficiency a domestic carbon trading market has to be compatible or interconvertible with the North American market, such as the Chicago exchange, and ultimately with Europe and with the United Nations clean development mechanism. That again is why we need absolute targets to establish an absolute price.

Lesson number nine is that, as with any market, we need to give this new derivative market time to work out the bugs, to establish investor confidence and to build credibility. Both the European system and the United Nations clean development mechanism have gone through a pilot period project where mistakes were made and the learning from those mistakes was used to improve the system. Perfection is not automatic or instantaneous.

The Chicago market is essentially a voluntary market for carbon where participation is not mandatory, as it is in the European Union. Chicago, too, is learning a great deal about how to build a successful carbon market. I would note that, because the Chicago market is voluntary, carbon prices in Chicago are lower than they are in Europe. We also need to learn from these types of experiences so that we can avoid their early mistakes, and there were mistakes.

Lesson number 10 is that it is a huge political challenge to explain to the public in simple language what a carbon market actually is and why it helps. As I have said before, an atmospheric tipping fee no longer treats the atmosphere as a free waste receptacle for what we call CO₂.

Lesson number 11 is that it is extremely important that we have a carbon trading market located in Canada. Otherwise, it will end up being located in Chicago or elsewhere, which is why we need a clear signal now from the government about the nature of the system it intends to create.

That leads to lesson number 12, which is that it is critical that we get a regulated system in place as soon as possible in Canada for greenhouse gases and the carbon market.

As for lesson number 13—and I see my friends from the Bloc—it is not for me to decide between Montreal or Toronto. It is as if I was asked to choose between the Senators, the Canadiens or the Toronto Maple Leafs. Personally, I always choose the Maple Leafs, because that is where I was elected. Nevertheless, we must let the market decide, as we must let the Stanley Cup decide among these three teams; it is not up to us. Ultimately, quality will win out.

In closing, I can certainly say that the Liberal Party supports the concept of creating a carbon trading market in Canada.

The Liberal Party also supports the development of an integrated climate change plan that deals with all the major sources of emissions in Canada, that is to say, industrial, electricity, upstream oil and gas, big industrial energy consumers, transportation, residential, commercial, agricultural and waste, but we have to be part of the only global system going, the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol, which flows from that.

We have to set ambitious fixed targets for ourselves and give it our best effort to reach them.

We have to honour our international obligations and Canada's promise to the world.

We have to save our country and our planet.

Most of all, we have to pass a better world on to our children and to their children.

A Canadian carbon trading market, wherever it is ultimately located, is a small but important part of that effort.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech this afternoon very interesting. I am very interested in the direction we are now taking in Parliament. However, I do remember the 38th Parliament, when the plan that was given out then by the environment minister for the Liberal Party was for voluntary emission standards. That was the message we heard from the Liberals: let us have voluntary emission standards for industry.

At the time, New Democrats said that we do not have voluntary drinking and driving rules. We do not have voluntary seat belt rules. We do not have a voluntary gun registry. The Liberal Party seemed to think voluntary standards for industry was the way to meet targets, and that we would have a one tonne challenge and all the average folk like me and the folks back home would turn off their light bulbs, but we would not do anything to deal with industry.

Does the hon. member now admit that for the last 13 years the Liberal policy in dealing with the environment was a complete utter failure and an embarrassment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member is mixing up two things.

There was a voluntary agreement with the auto sector, something, by the way, that was supported by organized labour in the form of the Canadian Auto Workers. There was not a voluntary agreement for the large final emitters, that is, the three major industrial groups that produce 50% of the greenhouse emissions in this country: heavy industrial users, upstream oil and gas, and electrical users. The system was not voluntary for them. It was to be regulated and targets were set.

He is confusing two different aspects of project green.