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.
