House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was change.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, upon reflection of this government's record on greenhouse gas reductions and the actions taken by the Minister of the Environment, in particular our reductions of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050, Canadians will see that this country has finally taken aggressive steps toward achieving reductions on greenhouse gases.

For 13 years under the Liberal government these reductions were not only nonexistent but actually plunged further down to a negative situation. Emissions actually went up by 35%.

Our government has done something about that, but we have also done more. CO2 is not considered to be a pollutant. It is a greenhouse gas but not considered a good one. This government has decided to reduce those things that make us sick and has identified over 220 negatives in the environment.

Canadians are applauding that and they will continue to applaud what our government is doing. They will see some concrete action, some direction.

We heard earlier this morning the NDP ranting and raving, and complaining about inaction. What they should really be talking about is a way of working collaboratively with the government to make sure that we reach these achievable goals.

One of the things that Canadians really need to know about all the bluster that we have been hearing from the NDP is that it will cost literally thousands of jobs. Yes, we have to do something about this, but it goes down a path that I do not think any reasonable Canadian wants to go down.

We heard during question period and during questions from the NDP in debate this morning about some of the serious threats we are under from the global economy vis-à-vis our manufacturing jobs and the actions that the finance minister has taken to stop that flow.

I fear that the action that the NDP is taking will have an even more negative effect not only on manufacturing jobs, jobs in the forestry sector, mining jobs and other sector jobs but on Canada's ability to be a world provider of energy. I refer specifically to things like nuclear energy, natural gas and petroleum that are actually helping to drive the economy.

On Saturday we had a town hall meeting in my riding and we discussed industry and jobs and manufacturing. ESCO is a company in my riding makes furnaces and items such as that. It ships a huge percentage of its products to the oil sands in Alberta and to Saskatchewan. I wonder about this preoccupation by the NDP members. How can those members tell companies like ESCO that it has to do away with its huge market that is providing jobs to people in my riding who have lost manufacturing jobs? I caution the NDP from going down that road.

In my previous intervention, I talked about some of the statements made by environment ministers in the previous government. That should send a signal to Canadians. No matter what official opposition members say about the environment, they should be ashamed of their track record. Once they come to that realization, they should then work with the government to make this better. I do not see that from them right now.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member talk about loss of jobs. Certainly, in British Columbia we are seeing loss of jobs due to the impact of the climate change crisis.

Earlier during debate, the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley talked about the pine beetle epidemic. The forests in British Columbia are literally being laid waste.

Without the kind of urgent and meaningful action, the forestry sector in British Columbia, particularly the interior in the north, will continue to see massive job losses. Not only are we talking about massive job losses, many communities are at threat in terms of the fire season and fires that could get out of control.

I would like to ask the member about the kinds of strategies that are required to look at forestry and fishing. We have certainly seen some climate change impact on fishing.

Children are showing up in hospitals with asthma. We simply cannot disregard the impact of climate change. I wonder if the member would like to address the impacts of climate change on some of our industries in Canada.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does bring up some very salient points.

What are we doing? The $1 billion community trust is specifically for those communities which are totally reliant or significantly reliant on an industry such as the forest industry.

She mentioned the pine beetle. This government has contributed millions upon millions of dollars that will help communities that are affected by the pine beetle infestation.

I know something about the pine beetle infestation from personal experience in British Columbia, visiting my son who lives there. When I first flew out to see him some years ago, as we entered into B.C. airspace, we could see the vast green forests. A few years ago those green forests had patches of rust. Now there is just simply too much of it.

What caused the infestation? Climate change. We know that at -30° for two or three weeks helps control the pine beetle. Forest fires have also been mother nature's way of keeping control of the pine beetle.

It is a terrible scourge on the forest industry that we know is moving into Alberta. We are working with the provinces to do something about it.

The hon. member is right that it is a problem, but she is wrong when she said the government is not doing anything about it. As I said, there is the $1 billion community trust and the huge amounts of money being poured into the communities with regard to how we are fighting the pine beetle.

She mentioned the things that do make us sick, the real pollution, the things that cause asthma. The government is taking action there, not just voluntary action, as the previous government did, but we brought in some of the toughest environmental legislation. It will not be voluntary. There will be significant fines for people who produce too much greenhouse gases and significant fines for those who pollute our air.

Right now as we speak, the Minister of the Environment is working with industry to develop ways, in a cooperative stance at the present time, on how they can meet those reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Very shortly, those numbers will be released by the industry and the minister will be making some significant announcements with regard to what the government will do in the next step in reducing those greenhouse gases by 20% by 2020.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the NDP's motion today.

Before I get into the substance of some of the issues raised in the motion, I do want to make a few general comments about the nature of the motion and some of the motivating factors behind this motion.

First, I would like to remind the House that the official opposition of any political stripe does possess, in the case of a minority government, a certain amount of power. That power culminates, I believe, in the exercising of a decision which would take down a minority government and cause an election. It is a power which, I believe, has to be exercised responsibly, judiciously, and one that cannot be taken lightly.

It is fair to say that this motion is more than tinged in partisanship. The leader of the NDP made comments this morning that were somewhat troubling to me and to the official opposition. He made comments, for example, around the notion, in my view, that the NDP is prepared to put this motion in a confidence form because it is unwilling to cooperate with the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party of Canada in taking the time necessary to expose for Canadians just what has been happening with this minority government.

In particular, this minority government has taken some effort to cover up what are now four raging fires out of its control: first, the in and out election advertising scandal; second, the Ian Brodie affair now spiraling out of control in the United States of America fed, in my view, by the leader of the NDP going on CNN international news just last night and telling the world about Mr. Brodie's conduct; third, the Cadman affair, where the Prime Minister refuses to refute what is clearly irrefutable, that is, his voice on tape speaking about offers to a tragically sick member of Parliament at the time; and fourth, the O'Brien affair, where the Minister of the Environment is now involved in having to defend himself repeatedly from all kinds of negative coverage involving his interference in municipal affairs.

There are other issues that are ongoing here that the government does not want Canadians to know about. Why is that? Why is it wrong for the NDP to play partisan politics with this motion? It is wrong because it is important for Canadians to get to know more about the character, the nature, the values, and the approaches taken by this Prime Minister and his reformed Conservative Party.

So, with respect to the politics of this motion, that is all I really wanted to say, except that it is unfortunate that the NDP, by couching this important climate change debate on a motion of confidence, is really aiding and abetting the government in its attempts to hide from plain public view what has been happening on a number of key fronts.

Let me turn now to the substance of the issue which is in the motion.

The motion is right in this respect: the reformed Conservatives cannot be trusted to do the right thing, either domestically or internationally, to fight the climate change crisis. They simply cannot be trusted.

We know the scientific evidence is overwhelming. This at a time when the government refuses to renew the funding of the climate change and atmospheric research foundation's programs and at a time when, last spring, the government cancelled the largest single university-based research initiative and effort in climate change science.

The world's leading scientists told us again in Bali that an increase in the earth's temperature of just 2° to 4° would lead to a catastrophic disruption of life as we know it today. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that a 1° Celsius increase could lead to 10% of land species facing extinction and 80% destruction of our coral reefs. This is now very serious business, business that should not be couched, in my view, in partisanship, as has happened here through this NDP motion.

The IPCC's fourth report in May 2007 says it is possible to limit temperature increases to 2° to 2.4° but only if we stabilize within 15 years our worldwide emissions and we move to cut those in half by 2050. Here is the kicker: We know that the economic costs of taking action now, today, aggressively are much less than the costs in the future if we fail to act.

The former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, conducted a review on the economics of climate change for the planet. He concluded that the costs of ignoring climate change could be 5% to 20% of GDP, more than the costs of the two world wars and the Great Depression combined.

In contrast, the cost of tackling the problem can be limited to 1% of global GDP today if we act now. There are many effective low cost options already available: financial incentives to develop and deploy existing technologies; tradeable permits and carbon credits; renewable power investments; and voluntary programs, of course, which have been used around the world.

In 2007 the world's largest and leading management consulting firm, McKinsey and Company, showed that a great deal could be achieved in the fight against climate change without placing an undue burden on our economy, if governments provide incentives for the development and deployment of green technologies. It concludes that the annual worldwide cost for making the needed emission reductions to avoid worst climate change in 2030 is only .6% of that year's projected GDP.

We agreed to the Kyoto protocol in this country in 1997 and despite all of the desperate misinformation from the Conservative Party, it became international law in this country only in 2005, when enough countries had ratified the protocol. It set targets, yes. It also created a mandatory international trading system, one now abandoned by the government because it has unilaterally abandoned Canada, the only country of over 170 to abandon the Kyoto treaty. We have been completely isolated, as we saw in Bali, when we came together with the world to negotiate a framework for the second phase of the Kyoto protocol.

The Minister of the Environment went there and in the last two hours of a seven day meeting, he finally folded because he was under so much pressure to sign on to an international declaration calling for a 25% to 40% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. He was the only minister to hold out, working in partnership with the Republican administration which was not even part of the official negotiating sessions, but under pressure he finally folded.

Here is the problem with signing on to such a declaration. The government's own “Turning the Corner” plan runs completely in the opposite direction of that commitment.

Study after study, including the Conservatives' own advisory body, have shown that the Conservatives will not even meet their own modest targets and will allow our emissions to continue to rise until 2050 and beyond.

The Conservatives talk about regulations. We just heard one of their members say that they have the toughest regulations in Canadian history. Check the facts: There are no regulations. The government has tabled no regulations yet. Nothing has been brought into force on clean air. There are no regulations on climate change greenhouse gases. They have exempted new facilities by giving them a three year grace period. They are pricing carbon at a $15 a tonne payment into a technology fund which is grossly less than what it should be.

It has been a pattern that we have seen south of the border about denying, delaying and ultimately deceiving one's own people about taking action on climate change when in fact that is not happening.

First the Conservatives came into power in 2006 and killed all of the Liberal measures that were in play, but then they brought them back in a re-gifted fashion in half measure. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the National Energy Board and many others, their plan cannot meet their weak targets, and emissions will continue to rise.

The claim that emissions will peak in 2010 in their plan is baseless. The claim that it will meet its target of 20% below 2006 by 2020 is baseless. There are so many exemptions, loopholes, bogus compliance options and such lack of detail that there is no way to conclude that this framework will have any positive effect at all.

In fact, because of the overall weakness, Tom d'Aquino, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, representing 150 of some of the largest companies in Canada, came to committee just two weeks ago and said that the government's, I think negligence using my words, in this respect is actually harming Canadian industry by perpetuating policy uncertainty that hinders rational investment decisions so we can continue the transition that we started years ago to a carbon constrained future and carbon constrained economy.

Those are the facts about the domestic plan and our international performance. It is not even worth getting into the details of the minister's performance in Bali because that action speaks for itself.

What happened previous to the Conservative government arriving? While the Prime Minister was denying even the existence of climate change--he said that he did not believe in greenhouse gases--we brought in four increasingly aggressive climate change plans during the two previous governments, culminating in project green launched by our leader of the official opposition in 2005.

The Pembina Institute said at the time that project green was “over six times more effective” than what the Conservative government has offered today. We offered large scale funding for alternative energy. It was cut. We invested in biofuels. It was cut. We conducted a highly successful public awareness campaign to teach Canadians about the dangers of the climate change crisis. It was cut. We introduced energy efficient retrofit programs for Canadian homes and buildings. It was cut, particularly for the poorest in Canadian society who need the most help. That is the track record of the government since 2006.

Let us talk about where we want to go now. Let us talk about how we intend to deal as an official opposition with the climate change crisis.

First, we are going to have a comprehensive plan using the full range of tools to fight global warming. We are going to do that first and foremost by putting a price on carbon so the polluter pays. We are going to provide serious support for renewable energy and other ways to reduce emissions. There will be help for Canadians to conserve energy.

Here is a twist: We are going to work in partnership with our provincial governments on both mitigation and adaptation. We will not dispatch in this case our Minister of Finance or the Minister of the Environment to pick fights. Canadians are sick of the tawdry games. They are sick of the intergovernmental bickering. They want their governments cooperating not just on economic plans, but of course, on environmental plans, and we will do so.

That is why approximately a year ago our party, the official opposition, produced the “Balancing our Carbon Budget” plan. This plan is the backbone of the reworked and reformulated clean air and climate change act, Bill C-30, which the government killed. In fact, it is my theory the Conservatives prorogued Parliament in order to prevent that bill from coming back to the floor of the House of Commons to be debated openly. That has been raised by the leader of the official opposition several times. This--

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am seeking correction if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the member used a report of some sort as a prop during his speech. I think that is the Liberals' fifth environmental plan or some number like that and it is still not workable. Is the member permitted to use that book as a prop? If not, perhaps he could withdraw it. If so, then I stand corrected.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member for Ottawa South knows that we do not use props, but sometimes members use a report when they want to quote from it. That is likely what he was doing. I will trust in his good faith and he will continue his speech, for which he has three minutes.

The hon. member for Ottawa South has the floor.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected, and I thank you for your lenience. I would put to my hon. colleague that if he would like a copy of the report, it is available on our website.

We have a plan to move forward. We have devised a carbon budget plan that brings in the 700 largest polluters responsible for 50% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions, a plan with the support of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party for that matter, and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We had to rewrite the feeble Bill C-30, the clean air act, but as I mentioned, the Prime Minister in his wisdom killed that when he prorogued the House and refused to bring the bill back.

We are going to continue by bringing in our new power production incentive to expand renewable power to 12,000 megawatts by 2015, instead of the 4,000 megawatts the Conservatives are planning. We want incentives for onshore wind, offshore wind, small hydro, geothermal, wave and tidal, solar and biomass energy. We want 10% of Canada's total electricity output from low impact renewable sources by 2015. That is enough for three million homes.

We are going to create a $1 billion advance manufacturing prosperity fund to help position Canada as a leader in the manufacture of greener technologies and products. We are going to remain committed to the Kyoto protocol process and the UN negotiations that will set targets for the second commitment period post-2012. The fact is good environmental policy is very good for our economy, encouraging research and development, new technologies and lots of jobs.

In conclusion, it is no wonder that Matthew Bramley, the president of the Pembina Institute has called our carbon budget available on our website, “the strongest proposal for regulating industrial greenhouse gas pollution made by any political party in Canada”.

With respect to the motion, the NDP may say that it cares about climate change, but it is the reason we have a Conservative government today. Its members brought down the Liberal government right when the world came to Canada for the 2005 Montreal climate change conference, despite all of the leader of the NDP's rhetoric. He is accountable to the Canadian people for that decision. He will ultimately be accountable for these kinds of partisan moves. As we move forward, I look forward to working on behalf of Canadians to deal with the climate change crisis.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear a member of Parliament stand in this House of Commons and brag about his party's five different plans to deal with climate change. Of those five different plans, he claims that all of them supported the Kyoto accord.

It is interesting that he himself has been a noted opponent of the Kyoto accord. I will read what he said in the Globe and Mail on January 29, 2002. He said, “If Canada does ratify Kyoto...the cost...would be as much as $40-billion a year”.

He then said, “But when people see the costs, they are going to scream!” He said that in Canadian Speeches, January 1, 2003, volume 16, issue 6, if anyone wants to look at that.

His brother also promised to close Ontario's coal-fired plants by 2007. Of course we all know that to this day roughly 30% of Ontario's electrical generation comes from coal fire, so that promise has not been kept and those coal-fired plants continue to emit greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

It is interesting that he is taking a different position now that he is the Liberal spokesman on the environment. I could go through quote after quote of evidence that he was a lifelong skeptic of the Kyoto accord. As soon as it came into the public lexicon around the environment, he said that it was impossible to meet and that it would cost billions of unaffordable dollars to make it happen. Even in 2002, while his own party was in power, he said that Canada had a huge job ahead to meet Kyoto, a job that his party did not get done, according to his own deputy leader.

I have another quote from the National Post by the Liberal environment critic on the Liberal Party. He said, “the [Liberal] party was involved in a 'medium-sized car crash' during the recent federal election”.

That member is a man who has become the high priest of hypocrisy on the environment. He has said one thing for his entire professional life and performed a spectacular backflip since taking this position in order to take advantage of political opportunities.

I wonder it the member would indicate whether he was telling the truth then or telling the truth now.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, those remarks are hardly worth stooping for.

I would like to go back to some of the evidence around the government's turning the corner plan.

The Pembina Institute is now saying that the government has little chance of meeting its target whatsoever. It says that there are at least eight loopholes and gaps that undermine the credibility of the government's target for 2020.

The World Wildlife Fund and the Tyndall Centre have said that the government has set reduction targets that are well below what is achievable, and, in some cases, cuts that have already been achieved in the oil sands by companies operating there are well below what the industry already plans to do. My that is aspirational.

The proposed plan means that the windfall profit for tar sands companies could be in the order of $30 million to $700 million, according to the report.

The C.D. Howe Institute says that the government is likely to miss its 2020 emissions target by almost 200 megatons.

The National Energy Board says that under two of its three scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise.

It is all there in black and white. The government does not have a track record.

With respect to the member's personal comments, I will leave that to the voters of Nepean--Carleton to decide.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I know the member was here listening to the New Democrat speeches that started this debate and , therefore, heard the history that it was 17 months ago that the government introduced the bill. It went to a special committee which the leader of the New Democrats asked for. There was reluctance at first but then we as parliamentarians gathered round the table, brought ideas from all sides and rewrote the legislation from top to bottom, All parties, I remind my colleague, moved amendments.

A number of months ago, the NDP brought forward a motion to the House calling upon the government to bring the legislation back. The motion carried because the majority of members in this place, including those in the member's caucus, voted to bring it back.

We all put our best efforts forward, our best ideas and our best work, to make the legislation work in order to take on the issue of climate change, which many of us talk about, and this was the action in which we could back up our talk. This is what Canadians were looking for.

What is my colleague's opinion on the government's agenda in the absence of bringing Bill C-30 back? What has the government put in its place? Has it put something better that the member feels more comfortable with? Is there any sign of hope in the government's current agenda to deal with climate change in juxtaposition to what we were able to accomplish as parliamentarians together and that was the clean air and climate change act?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the NDP environment critic but I am also in agreement with the Prime Minister who, when as leader of the opposition, was asked about abstaining on the Liberal government's 2005 budget vote. This speaks to my earlier comments. The Prime Minister said:

What's become apparent is that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP will grandstand on these things [but] it is up to us in the Conservative Party to decide whether the time has come to have an election. In our judgment -- I think in Canadians' judgment -- it is not that time.

The Leader of the Opposition will decide in due course when the time is right.

It is important to be honest with Canadians that part and parcel of the motion put by the NDP is a partisan tactic. We are not prepared to have the Conservative government's four or five scandals swept off the table because we believe it is important for Canadians to get the true sense, the nature, the values, the approach and the tactics of the Prime Minister. Whether it is the Brodie affair, the Minister of the Environment's meddling in municipal affairs and all kinds of other things, we really want Canadians to get a sense of the in and out scandal. We want them to get a sense of exactly what kind of government we are dealing with.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have Canadians get a little more sense of exactly what type of government they have because it is a government that is creating a better economy. It is a government that has created over 800,000 net jobs. Year over year, net income increases per household have been 4.5%. We are moving on creating new justice reforms that will create safer streets and communities.

We are moving on the environment. This budget alone set aside over half a billion dollars for new green technologies, such as carbon sequestration. We have a new auto strategy for the auto industry that will create greener, cleaner cars.

The member held up a Liberal Party plan a few moments ago and said that it was the Liberals' plan for the environment. Let us talk about what that would cost. It would cause gasoline to go up to more than $1.60 a litre by 2008-09; 275,000 Canadians, principally in manufacturing, would lose their jobs; and the unemployment rate would rise by 25% by 2009.

Is the member standing in the House and saying that the Liberals will be fighting the next election on “Vote for me and I will cause a recession?” I do not think it will work.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is very revealing going to the character and value of government. The numbers cited by the member are the numbers that were cited by the Minister of the Environment at the Senate committee when he mounted an attack on the Kyoto protocol implementation act for Canada.

I will again ask the member and the government to table one shred of analysis but, of course, there is none. What we found out was that the government was just making it up. When people do not have evidence, they bamboozle and raise their voice but they do not actually answer with evidence.

The challenge for Canadians, who now know that they need to cut through the noise, is to understand that there is no climate change--

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the New Democratic Party's opposition day. To begin, I would like to reread the motion put forward by the member for Toronto—Danforth.

That the House regrets this government’s failure to live up to Canada’s international climate change agreements, and its refusal to bring forward for debate and vote, the Clean Air and Climate Change Act, the climate change plan called for by a majority vote of the House, and that therefore the House no longer has confidence in this government.

At the outset, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this non-confidence motion because the Conservatives have clearly reneged on Canada's promise concerning the Kyoto accord. I expect that all over the world, governments that signed the Kyoto accord are wondering why the Conservatives have chosen to do this to Canada. Why did the Conservatives go back on our country's word, tarnishing Canada's reputation and, unfortunately, that of Quebec, on the international stage? More specifically, the Conservatives chose to ignore the fact that Quebeckers want Ottawa to comply with the Kyoto accord.

Even worse, since they came to power, the Conservatives have done nothing to step up federal efforts to fight against greenhouse gases. They should perhaps acknowledge this. They have been in power for nearly two years now. Yet they are constantly blaming the previous government, which, it is true, did not live up to expectations. However, the Conservatives are responsible for dealing with this issue now, and they have had more than two years to put in place a credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they have not done so.

As I mentioned, since they came to power, the Conservatives have stubbornly delayed coming up with a credible plan, for example, by not bringing Canada's Clean Air and Climate Change Act before this House for final debate. The government is dragging its feet on developing a credible plan and implementing real, effective measures. Even worse, the Conservatives cut the few environmental programs the previous government had put in place. As I mentioned, these programs were relatively weak, but they were still a step in the right direction. In most cases, the government realized its mistake and reintroduced watered-down versions of the programs.

The budget provides fresh evidence of the Conservatives' approach, which is to cut a program, then realize their mistake a few months later and try to bring back a watered-down version of the program. For example, in the previous budget the government introduced a rebate program for purchases of hybrid vehicles, which are more compatible with our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Consumers were extremely frustrated with this program. I know that every member of this House must have received letters and comments about how long it took to set up the program. It was announced with great fanfare, but there was still no money, and there were no regulations in place so that consumers who bought hybrid cars could receive the rebate the Conservative government had promised.

This measure is slowly being implemented, but it is not yet as effective as it could be. Last week, it was announced in the budget that the measure will be withdrawn next December 31. It is just unbelievable and I am convinced that Quebec and Canadian consumers are wondering why the Conservatives are acting this way. What was useful last year is no longer applicable. We just laid the foundation for this program which, I am convinced, will be re-established by this or the next government.

We need these types of incentives. Many believe that the reason the Conservative government cut this program has more to do with the fact that North American manufacturers find it quite difficult to compete with Japanese auto makers in particular. I am convinced that that also applies to European car manufacturers and that this measure benefits Japanese car dealers.

I noted when Parliament resumed that most ministers who drive hybrids—and I congratulate them—own Toyotas.

This leads us to believe that the elimination of this program was prompted by the demands of North American car manufacturers. Once again, the government gave in rather than trying to have North American car manufacturers do the right thing and adapt to the new demands of consumers, who are aware of the effects of greenhouse gases produced by individual transportation. We know that we have to reduce greenhouse gases and support public transportation. When we buy a vehicle, if we decide to buy a green vehicle, the government should acknowledge that effort—particularly since these cars are relatively expensive—and recognize that state assistance is not at all inappropriate.

Even worse, as I mentioned, the government cut programs and then brought them back. As if that were not enough, the Conservative government tabled a so-called green plan designed to spare the major western oil companies, which is clearly not the objective of the Kyoto protocol. In short, the Conservative government completely ignored the clear will of Quebeckers, 75% of whom, as we know from poll after poll, support the Kyoto targets and Canada's commitments in that regard.

For that reason alone this motion deserves to be adopted and this government no longer deserves the confidence of the House.

I am thinking about the Conservatives' extremely ideological decisions that respond to the interests of certain industry sectors. Obviously I am referring to the oil industry. As soon as it was elected, the minority Conservative government showed its disregard for the Kyoto protocol, even though it was trying to say out of one side of its mouth that it would not renounce the government's signature. From the other side of its mouth it seemed to being saying—and we understood this quite well—that the Kyoto protocol targets were not at all on the government's radar.

This government's actions contradict Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol. Hon. members will remember that the Conservative election platform did not mention the word Kyoto once. That was already an indication for the entire population of Quebec and Canada that this government—and many of us are not surprised—prefers to meet the financial needs and appetite for profit of the major oil companies in western Canada rather than the environmental and economic needs of Quebec. This is also true for a number of regions in Canada. I am thinking of Ontario, among others, which is currently going through a major manufacturing crisis.

On October 19, 2006, after pushing back the presentation of its plan to fight greenhouse gases a number of times, the Conservative government finally delivered Bill C-30, presented as the Clean Air Act, to address the smog phenomenon, but it did not contain any fixed targets to reduce greenhouse gases or any timeline consistent with the Kyoto protocol.

Worse yet, in the notice of intent introduced at the same time to indicate the path the government intended to take in the application of Bill C-30, the Conservatives mentioned that they would hold consultations in three phases to determine the reduction targets with the provinces and industry, effective fall 2006. This would be staggered through to 2010, giving a clear signal that nothing would come into effect before the end of 2010. The first Kyoto targets are set for 2012.

Just in the way the government announced its very clear timetable in its notice of intent, it was already reneging on Canada's signature at the bottom of the Kyoto protocol.

As for long-term targets, the government said that it was determined to ask for advice on the feasibility of reducing Canadian emissions by 45% to 65% based on 2003 levels—not by 2015, not by 2020, but by 2050. This is a perfect example of how the Conservatives do not take this seriously, and these targets are much lower than the Kyoto proposals. This does not bode well for the future of the Conservative government's position in international negotiations.

Since the bill was completely unacceptable, in terms of targets, timetable and methods, and had no chance of being passed in its original state, on December 4, 2006, the Conservatives authorized Bill C-30 to be sent to a special parliamentary committee for amendment. However, it categorically refused to improve the bill and include the Kyoto targets, which clearly showed that the government was repudiating its international commitment and heading off on its own.

This time, it was not the international community or consumers, but all the members in opposition who wondered how the Conservatives could—based solely on ideology—go against the democratic will of this Parliament and of all Canadians and all Quebeckers. We must remember that the majority of Canadians and Quebeckers voted for parties other than the Conservative Party. It is practically a coincidence that the Conservatives are currently in power.

This kind of stubbornness is very questionable. It not only shows an undemocratic tendency and the clear intention not to comply with the Kyoto protocol, but also represents an ideological straitjacket that will be very difficult to get out of, unless, as we hope, there is an election very soon.

The Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties had to reshape Bill C-30 in order to include reduction targets that comply with the Kyoto protocol and the territorial approach. It is extremely important to remember that we need the territorial approach, which Europe has been taking since 2005 with its carbon exchange. This approach would allow us to reward the efforts of Quebec's manufacturing sector and penalize companies that have been making no effort and have continued to pollute since 1990, the reference year for the 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This means that Canada, with Australia, is one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. We need to ask these corporate polluters to increase their efforts.

I often refer to the following example, and the members of this House will understand. In a fundraising campaign, the first dollars are always the easiest to bring in. It is when we have nearly reached our goal that it becomes more difficult.

In Quebec, manufacturing companies have been able to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 20% to 25%. They have nearly reached their targets. Now they are being asked to make an effort as though they had done nothing already, and this will be the hardest part. The effort the oil industry is being asked to make, however, will not only scarcely or not at all make up for its lack of effort over the last two decades, but will also be the easiest action it could take. Not only is this completely unacceptable from an environmental standpoint, it is also completely unfair to Quebec and the sectors that have been making an effort since 1990, particularly Quebec's manufacturing sector.

Still stubbornly refusing to join the Kyoto protocol, the Conservative government refused to proceed with further study of the bill. Finally, after months of waiting, countless delays and a campaign presenting Kyoto compliance as the economic apocalypse, earlier, during the last speech by a Conservative member talking along those lines, we heard a complete lack of credibility.

Only the American Republicans are falling for it—and at least they are more subtle. President Bush issued a directive stating that federal institutions should not purchase oil derived from methods that emit more than the world average of greenhouse gas emissions. This worries several of our oil companies in western Canada, and rightly so, since our oil sands extraction methods produce a great deal of pollution. Sure, this concerns only a very small part of the American market. But it sends the message that even Bush's Republicans are more progressive than this Conservative government and this Prime Minister.

The government has made the Kyoto protocol out to be the apocalypse. On April 26, 2007, it reproduced an action plan to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution, but the plan is tailored to be gentle on the oil companies. As part of this plan based on reducing the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions, companies will have to reduce the intensity of their emissions based on the 2006 levels.

There are two problems here. First, the date they have chosen is 2006, and not 1990 as set out in the Kyoto protocol. Choosing 1990 as the date would honour the efforts made by the manufacturing sector.

This means that all that was accomplished in Quebec between 1990 and 2006 will not be taken into account, which is completely unfair, once again. Second, intensity is a measure of the reduction per tonne of emissions produced. But if a company produces five times more, it will contribute even more pollution than it does now. We need absolute reduction targets, and not intensity targets.

Even if the Conservatives like to believe that their plan will stabilize Canada's emissions between 2010 and 2012 and reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 relative to 2006 levels, we have to say, quite frankly, that this is not enough. Just as in a number of other issues dealt with this week and last week, whether it be the Cadman affair, the NAFTA leak or the Soudas affair, the government's explanations always come up short. In this case, it is very clear that with the plan presented to us on April 26, 2007, greenhouse gases will not be reduced in Canada and these emissions will continue to increase. Even if the Conservatives' most optimistic forecast is realized, that would allow Canada to achieve the level required under the Kyoto protocol by 2024, or 12 years after the deadline. Again, that is the most optimistic forecast. It will very likely be some decades later.

I want to reiterate that the Clean Air Act, as reshaped by the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois, responds to the Kyoto protocol targets, the needs of Quebec's economy and a good portion of Canada's economy, and to Canada's and Quebec's environmental needs.

This legislation includes fixed targets for greenhouse gas reduction that are consistent with the Kyoto protocol. In other words, it calls for a 6% reduction of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions for each year from 2008 to 2012, with respect to 1990 levels. As I said, these are fixed targets, but this time for the post-Kyoto period. They include the creation of a carbon tax,which is extremely important for establishing a carbon exchange that would allow market forces to support government regulations; the creation of an independent agency to monitor and govern the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrial emitters, not only to ensure that we achieve the targets, but also to be able to establish this carbon exchange with the necessary credits that will be sold by those who perform well to those who perform less well; and finally, the fact that the territorial approach is recognized. This bill corresponds to the democratically expressed will of the Canadian and Quebec public, and responds to the needs of the public and to our international commitments. We therefore have no problem with the NDP motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that you are allowing me to continue my speech for another two minutes. I still have a lot of information that I would like to share with my colleagues, those from the Conservative Party in particular.

Galbraith, the Canadian-born economist who lived in the United States and served as an advisor to Kennedy, said something like “Democrats read only other Democrats; Republicans do not read at all”.

I think we have the same situation here in this House. Perhaps the opposition parties read only what the opposition parties produce, but the Conservatives do not read. This forces the opposition parties in the House to present documents that do not reach the Conservative members, documents that those members would likely be unable to read. I would therefore remind the House that the environment commissioner issued a report yesterday, a report that is extremely critical of the Conservative government's actions. The report contains 14 chapters and describes any progress made as quite mixed. Nine out of 14 sectors are completely inadequate. I will discuss at least one or perhaps two of them, if time allows. I will begin with the federal contaminated sites.

In Shannon, Quebec, a site was contaminated by the Canadian army and the Department of National Defence stubbornly refuses to decontaminate this land, as the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for years.

The strategic environmental assessment process is also the topic of one of the chapters on which the commissioner worked the hardest. We are told that it makes no sense at all. I hope to have the opportunity to quote part of this report during question period.

In closing, everyone in this House, in Quebec and in Canada is wondering what the Conservatives think they are doing.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

On questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo--Prince George. I hope this will be a short question, because I will have to interrupt at 1:15 p.m.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Joliette as he gave his presentation and all the time I was thinking about the hypocrisy of what he was saying. He is criticizing this government in saying that our plan is not this and not that and does not meet his expectations.

Yet when this government put forward a program of $116 million for the public transit trust to help with vehicles in Quebec and clean up the pollution and emissions coming from those vehicles, that member and that party voted against it.

While the Bloc continuously called to the previous Liberal government for $300 million for an ecotrust and was refused, we gave $350 million for the ecotrust to help Quebec clean up its environment and meet some of its goals, but that party voted against it.

That party and the NDP are brothers and sisters in hypocrisy. They say one thing but do another. They do not know good environmental programs when they see them.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The member for Joliette has the floor. I hope his reply will be just as brief.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, all I have to say is that the Conservative government is the real hypocrite.

For months we were told that the Kyoto protocol would be honoured, but that was never this government's intention. During the election, they were not honest enough to tell Quebeckers and Canadians that the Kyoto protocol would not be respected. They have introduced a plan that will increase greenhouse gas emissions and they want to make Canadians and Quebeckers believe that the plan will reduce emissions. That is not true.

They are suggesting that the fight against climate change is bad for the economy when the opposite is true. It opens new economic opportunities, particularly for Quebec. The only way the government wants to help Canada's economic development is by supporting the oil industry and the Alberta oil boom. They could not care less about anything else.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

As it is 1:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.