Debates of April 30th, 2009

Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, would you give me 20 minutes to answer my colleague's question? I will be able to give just a few examples if I have only one minute.

We voted this week on the harmonization of the GST with the QST. That is another example. We also had to ask the government on several occasions to stop trying to manage education, health care and wait times in our province. We asked the government several times to stop taking money that belongs to Quebeckers and using it to its own ends. There are so many measures, whether they have to do with child care, social housing or other things.

In closing, this government is definitely not in favour of decentralization. It is a centralizing government.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite Patrie has the floor. I would advise him at the outset that I will have to interrupt him at 5:30.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important that we have this debate today on Bill C-11, An Act to—allegedly—promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins.

There is a paradox right in the title the government has given this bill. This government is talking about the safety of pathogens, and yet in a media release dated April 29, 2008, when Bill C-54, the predecessor of Bill C-11, was introduced, the Minister of Health at the time said: “The risk to Canadians posed by the presence of human pathogens and toxins in labs is low .”

In 2008 they were saying that the risk to the public was relatively low. And now the government is introducing a bill to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins, as if there were numerous risks.

So what does the bill that is before us do? First, it makes the guidelines that have been presented by the Public Health Agency of Canada mandatory. Second, it makes it mandatory that licences be obtained for regulated activities, so that existing pathogens can be monitored, to determine where they are and to know who has them. Third, it institutes a scheme of offences and penalties.

We are not opposed to oversight of these pathogens. That is a basic principle: the risk has to be managed, we have to ensure that the precautionary principle can be applied, of course.

In reality, however, what impact would the implementation of this bill have? It would create operating methods in workplaces like universities, research centres, clinics and hospitals. It seems clear to me that these sites are under Quebec’s authority. And today we have a federal government that would use the Criminal Code to get directly involved in how our hospitals and clinics operate, in the name of criminal law.

As I said, the precautionary principle must be applied, of course, but at the same time, the federal government has to understand where its authority to act begins and where it has to end.

We on this side of the House are not the only ones who think the government is going too far. This is an excerpt from a letter written on April 6, 2009, which makes it very recent, barely three weeks ago, by the Minister of Health of Quebec, Yves Bolduc, to the federal Minister of Health, concerning Bill C-11:

Quebec notes that the measures proposed in the bill would have a significant impact on the organization of medical laboratory and diagnostic services, which are normal services within Quebec's health system. However, these services fall under the jurisdiction of the government of Quebec.

Health Minister Yves Bolduc wrote further:

Accordingly, the Government of Quebec is calling on the federal government to reconsider its approach to ensuring the biosafety and biosecurity of human pathogens and toxins, rather than pursuing the parliamentary work currently underway. It is important that that approach better reflect the respective roles of both levels of government in this matter.

This is a letter dated April 6, which the federal health minister has received. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Health, who merely tried to get the government side to approve an amendment to ensure that the provinces would be consulted during the development of the regulations, got a resounding no for an answer.

Not only did the minister not deign to withdraw her bill but the members of the government party and some opposition members refused, I firmly believe, to make sure that at least those concerned by the application of it, that is the Government of Quebec, the hospitals and research centres, were consulted. It was a categorical no. The federal government is trying to use the terrorist threat in order to meddle in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the reality.

The federal government has all the tools it needs to handle pathogens of this kind. It can do so under the Terrorism Act. At least three countries have done so. The United Kingdom decided to take action under its terrorism act to regulate pathogens of this kind. But the government refuses to use the legislative tools at its disposal. It decided to go further and meddle directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

There is clearly a constitutional problem with the bill. This is not the first time this has happened. The government already used its power to legislate in the area of criminal law to make some laboratory biosafety guidelines obligatory through the issuing of licences. However, the bill exceeds the federal jurisdiction, as happened as well in the case of the federal bill on assisted reproduction, among others.

On June 19, 2008, the Quebec Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in the reference from the Government of Quebec on the constitutionality of sections 8 to 19, 40 to 53, 60, 61 and 68 of the Assisted Reproduction Act. The Court of Appeal stated that the sections in question exceeded the authority of the Parliament of Canada under the Constitution Act, 1867. In short, the judges said that the basic, overriding purpose of the part of the act that was challenged was to protect health and not to right a wrong. The provisions that were challenged could therefore not qualify as pertaining to criminal law under the Constitution Act, 1867.

There are precedents, therefore, for the federal government trying to use its power to legislate in the area of criminal law to introduce bills concerning health that are obviously outside its jurisdiction. Workplaces, universities, clinics and hospitals are clearly provincial jurisdictions.

We would have hoped today that the government would listen to reason at the stage the bill is at and withdraw Bill C-11, as requested by the Quebec health minister.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work with its North American partners to promptly pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute greenhouse gas emission targets based on scientific knowledge, using 1990 as the base year.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to debate my motion today, but before beginning, I would like to congratulate you. I think that it is the first time I have the floor with you in the chair. There are about 68 women out of a total of 308 members of Parliament. It is reassuring to see that a woman is in the chair today. That is why I wanted to congratulate you. There are no coincidences in life but I consider myself lucky to be able to debate the first motion in my name since I was elected, in January 2006, with you in the chair. Once again, I congratulate you.

We know, and the people who watch us on television know, that when it comes to consideration of private members' business, members are chosen by lot. Since I was elected, my name had never been lucky enough to be among the first 30 names. Since we have been working with successive minority governments, and there have been many elections, I had never had the opportunity to table a motion or introduce a bill that could be debated and voted on. Now, it is my turn and I am pleased to debate my motion with my parliamentary colleagues in this House.

The choice of the subject of a motion or bill is a serious matter. In choosing the subject of this motion, I felt it was important to contribute, with the means at my disposal, to improving a situation that affects the largest number of people possible. In this particular case, we could say the subject affects everybody and the effects could be disastrous according to the latest scientific studies.

Will I succeed in changing the situation by presenting this motion all alone? Obviously not. This is a global problem that affects us. Still, I will do what I can in this struggle that effects us all and put pressure, in my own way, on the current government to change its positions.

There were many different avenues open to me in the fight against greenhouse gases, but in my case, the choice was easy because the Bloc Québécois already has a comprehensive and credible climate change plan.

The Bloc is not just the only party that has consistently supported the Kyoto protocol. The Bloc is also the one party that has never stopped calling on the federal government to develop a plan that respects its own objectives. We have even proposed bold and constructive measures targeting both the environment and the economy that would enable Quebec and Canada to be well positioned for a “post-petroleum economy.”

Among our proposals is a carbon exchange that is compatible with international markets. This idea, which was ignored by the Liberals and ridiculed by the Conservatives, is now the route that the United States wants to follow. It is not surprising that we feel this government is backtracking towards the creation of a carbon exchange tied to mandatory targets. There is such a lack of environmental leadership in this government that the Americans are now deciding the policies Canada will follow in the fight against greenhouse gases.

In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the Conservatives have closed their eyes to this problem for too long. It is now time for Canada to shoulder its responsibilities and make a commitment to significantly reduce greenhouse gases.

Let me read my motion again:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work with its North American partners to promptly pursue a North American cap-and-trade market with absolute greenhouse gas emission targets based on scientific knowledge, using 1990 as the base year.

Simple as it may be, this motion contains several elements, which I will explain shortly, after putting them in context to clarify the scope for those who find the motion a bit convoluted.

As I said earlier, climate change represents one of the biggest challenges humanity has to deal with. As scientific evidence piles up and we see just how staggering the extent of the consequences is, it becomes imperative to act without delay, and in an efficient and fair manner.

It is only by adopting credible greenhouse gas reduction measures that we will fight climate change and prevent the serious and irreversible damage and the enormous economic costs created by climate change.

I remind hon. members of the findings of former World Bank chief economist Nicolas Stern, who said that if nothing is done to fight climate change, the economic impact would amount to a annual 5% decline in global GDP. However, if measures to fight climate change were taken quickly, the negative impact on global GDP would only be 1%.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Kyoto protocol targets are still the ones that must be reached. Canada is still a signatory to the Kyoto protocol and its targets have been confirmed by numerous recent scientific studies, including that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

I want to be clear: it is perfectly possible to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions while jolting the economy. In order to achieve that, we must take strong action to reduce our dependency on oil, and to stimulate the economic recovery of Quebec and Canada by investing in green technologies. How do we do that? By using, among other tools, tax and market instruments such as the carbon exchange, to which the Conservative government suddenly seems to find positive aspects, after criticizing the position of the Bloc Québécois and of environmental groups on this issue.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing a credible plan that will allow Canada to get back on track and to move as close as possible to the targets set by the Kyoto protocol by 2012. Furthermore, the plan will attempt to meet the reduction target recommended by the IPCC to prevent climate change with irreversible consequences. We are talking about a reduction of 25% to 40% in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 1990 levels, this by the year 2020.

The plan is based, among other things, on the establishment of absolute reduction targets in the short and medium term, that is by 2012 and 2020, with 1990 as the reference year. It also proposes the use of science-based targets, a territorial approach, and the establishment of a carbon exchange in Montreal, which is the main purpose of this motion.

The idea is quite clear. We apply the polluter pays principle. Any credible plan to reduce greenhouse gases is based on that principle. In other words, the polluter must pay for the costs generated by his polluting. It is simple common sense. However, as we know, the Conservatives opted for the opposite principle, the polluter-paid principle, which rewards those who have done the least to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Indeed, by substituting the reference year of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and of the Kyoto protocol, which is 1990, with the year 2006 proposed in the Conservative plan, or the year 2005 suggested by the U.S. administration, all the efforts made by Quebec businesses since 1990 are being swept under the rug. We are starting all over again, and businesses, whether or not they have reduced their emissions since 1990, are now all on the same footing and they must reduce their emissions in the same fashion. We can see how totally unfair and inequitable this situation is.

Let us talk about the territorial approach. Given the urgency of acting while fully respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that the most efficient, swift and equitable way to share the greenhouse gas reduction effort is to implement a territorial approach instead of a Canada-wide sectoral approach which, as we know, has been a monumental failure.

The territorial approach is the act of dividing Canada's greenhouse gas reduction target up among the provinces. It is a flexible approach that allows each province to choose its own plan or to join in the federal plan.

Let us take, for example, a scenario where the target would be a 6% GHG reduction for 2012, with 1990 as the base year. Quebec, which has already reduced its emissions by 1.2% since 1990, would only have to reduce them by 3.98 megatonnes. Alberta, which increased its emissions by 36.6% since 1990, would have to reduce them by 73 megatonnes.

Let us talk about the carbon exchange. The Bloc proposes to include in such a territorial approach a tradeable permit market, called a carbon exchange. I would remind the House that a carbon exchange is a tool enabling a company which has brought its greenhouse gas emissions below its reduction objectives to sell the tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions it would still be entitled to emit. For example, a carbon exchange would enable a province which has exceeded its targets to sell its surplus to another province experiencing difficulty reducing its emissions. With the territorial approach, provinces and Quebec will also be able to set targets for their industries and authorize them to buy or sell their tradeable permits with other industries outside their borders. Thus, there would be a powerful financial incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since the company could make money with its reductions.

A carbon exchange cannot, however, achieve its full potential unless absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets are set. This creates a dynamic market where there are both sellers and buyers. The federal government must therefore set absolute greenhouse gas emissions for the short and medium terms, thereby making it possible to make a significant, but achievable, reduction in emissions. Such a reduction will stop Canada from losing all its credibility on the international scene.

This implies that some severe financial penalties—for example, twice the cost of a permit—should be mandatory for each tonne of emissions by a company in excess of the allowed limit. Finally, this would require the creation of an independent body or bodies responsible for certifying emission reductions and imposing fines on companies that did not produce permits in conformity with their actual emissions.

The last, but not the least, component is the scientific criterion. What point would there be to measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if they do not make it possible to achieve appropriate results?

The IPCC was set up in 1988 by two UN bodies and the United Nations program, and brings together close to 2,000 scientists from all over the world. After gathering data from numerous scientific studies, the IPCC formulated recommendations on the follow-up to the Kyoto protocol in its fourth assessment report, released November 17, 2007.

In order to avoid warming with irreversible consequences—that is 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels—the IPCC has recommended the capping of global greenhouse gas emissions within the next 10 or 15 years, and a reduction of over half the emissions compared to the 1990 levels by the year 2050.

I am proposing a motion that both respects the objectives set for greenhouse gas emissions and includes significant financial and economic incentives in order for us all to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus to contribute to fighting climate change.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for moving this motion, one that is very important, especially in light of the United Nations climate change conference being held in Copenhagen a couple of months from now, which aims to establish a post-Kyoto agreement.

As she said, basically, there are three parts to this motion. First, there are absolute reduction targets, although the Conservative government favours intensity targets. Second, the Conservative government has always refused to take into account the reality and scientific facts. Lastly, the reference year should be 1990, and not 2005.

I wonder if my colleague can tell us why the government across the floor refuses to listen to the Bloc Québécois' arguments. Is it not in fact to protect its economic base, which is in the west? Is it not specifically to protect a single industry, the oil sands industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I am happy to answer it.

First, I will explain that in Quebec, the paper companies, for example, or the aluminum companies were visionaries. They knew that one day, they would be forced to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraged by certain regulations in Quebec and thanks to their vision, they decided on their own to reduce their emissions, and they have made significant efforts since 1990.

Other industries, such as the oil industry in the west, have made no effort to reduce their emissions. It is a question of critical mass. Using 2005 or 2006 as the base year reflects a deliberate and conscious decision to penalize the manufacturing sector in Quebec and favour the oil and petrochemical sector, which is primarily in western Canada. The economic impact is easier on the oil companies than it is on the manufacturing sector in Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Many people in the House are talking and making it hard for me to concentrate, but that is all part of the verbal sparring in Parliament.

In closing, I can add that using 1990 as the base year is not a whim of the Bloc Québécois. I believe that many businesspeople and scientists are calling for this. It is logical, and people are not stupid. Since it came to power, this government has always favoured western Canada and the oil companies over Quebec and its manufacturing industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt my Bloc Québécois colleague but I have a specific and important question to ask my Bloc colleagues. The motion itself is very clear. It is very clear and very important for climate change.

This morning I heard that the leader of the Bloc Québécois was going to ask the government for something that would guarantee its support in future.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No, no way!

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

Are climate change, the carbon exchange and other things of this nature included in the Bloc Québécois request that would allow it to support the Conservative government?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been a member in this House for quite some time. Thus, he has noticed certain things on a number of occasions. For example, the Bloc Québécois motion of April 24, 2007 called for a reduction of greenhouse gases and absolute targets.

My colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the Bloc Québécois environment critic, has asked various governments hundreds of questions, and i am not exaggerating. Our focus remains the same: to provide this government with very specific means to reduce greenhouse gases based on 1990 levels and establish absolute targets.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Support Obama!

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

We also wish to adopt a territorial approach and establish a carbon exchange.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You are against Obama!

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Perhaps the minister is trying to stir things up, but we will resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.

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

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada does not support Motion No. 287.

We have made it very clear that we are committed to working with the United States to develop a coordinated approach, an approach that will advance our respective environmental and energy objectives and renew the North American economy at the same time.

Given the great and deep integration of our economies, it is critical that we get it right and that we get it right the first time. Those are the words of my good friend, Mike Holmes, and a good friend of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. That is the message we all need: to get it right the first time.

We also have made it clear that the Canadian government is committed to science-based goals to set realistic and achievable targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, as well as regionally and globally.

However, the use of 1990 as a baseline for absolute targets, as proposed in Motion No. 287, does not make sense for Canada. We saw Canada's greenhouse gas emissions actually increase for 13 dark years under the previous Liberal government. It is no wonder that the Leader of the Opposition said that with regrets to the environment, “we made a mess of it; we didn't t get it done”.

Our commitment to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 uses 2006 as a baseline year.

Canada is not alone in using a more recent baseline year.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Obama.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

The United States has signaled that it will use 2005 as a baseline year.

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

Focus, Mark. Focus.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Australia is using a 2000 baseline--

My apologies, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I believe the hon. member's colleagues are disturbing the member's speech. I would call my colleagues to order, including those who are ministers in this room.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, Australia is using the year 2000 as its baseline for greenhouse gas reductions, and there are indications that Japan will likely use the 2005 baseline. Europe has also announced that it will be considering using the 2005 baseline as its target starting in 2013.

This reflects certain realities. For one thing, governments have much better emissions information from more recent years. Also, we need to recognize that regardless of the baseline year used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the important thing is the results that will be achieved from the targets. We need to focus on the results.

We remain committed to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020, and 60% to 70% by 2050. Those are the toughest targets in Canadian history.

In 2007, the government set out a comprehensive strategy to reach these ambitious and achievable targets in its climate change policy entitled, “Turning the Corner”. This plan included significant action to reduce greenhouse gases across all sectors of the economy, including stringent short term targets for the industrial emitters, our recently announced fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and energy efficiency standards for consumer products.

Our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is on track. However, the economic downturn and the opportunity of working with the new United States Obama administration has required that we fine-tune our approach to tackling climate change. We are currently refining our strategy to reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions and intend to put the regulatory framework into law in the coming year.

Unlike the opposition parties, we will ensure that our plan provides the right balance between protecting the environment and ensuring economic prosperity. We will continue to work closely with the Obama administration, as well as with our provincial and territorial governments, and our stakeholders to develop and implement a North American cap and trade system for greenhouse gases that reflects our interests.

We have made significant progress on this front. As the House knows, our Prime Minister met with President Obama in February of this year to discuss how our two countries can work together to address shared issues related to energy and the environment.

The minister has also had the opportunity to meet with senior American officials to continue to build and develop this clean energy dialogue that began with the president and the Prime Minister. This dialogue includes expanding clean energy research and development on research related to advanced biofuels, clean engines and energy efficiency. It includes developing and deploying clean energy technology, in particular carbon capture and storage technology that has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. The world is counting on us.

We are also building a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable generation to make electricity delivery more reliable and to reduce congestion that can cause blackouts and power losses.

We are also working with the United States in other areas, such as transboundary air pollution, water quality and fuel efficiencies.

The government recently announced that we will introduce tough new regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the auto sector. These regulations set limits on the tailpipe emissions of automobiles and they will be developed under CEPA. They will align with the mandatory national fuel efficiency standards in the United States beginning with the 2011 model year vehicles.

In addition to advancing its climate change agenda domestically and in the North American context, the government will continue to advance its climate change agenda at the international level as well.

This is a pivotal year as we work toward the United Nations climate change convention in Copenhagen in December of this year. We are committed to playing an active and constructive role to achieve a comprehensive and ambitious agreement at the international level that includes all the major emitters. That is what is missing in the plan from the Bloc and the NDP. They want to give a free pass to the major emitters. We cannot globally reduce greenhouse gas emissions without the major emitters involved.

In summary, we are working on revisions to our detailed regulatory framework to regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We are also continuing to work constructively with the United States to develop a North American approach on energy and the environment to achieve a balanced and comprehensive outcome that represents real progress in addressing climate change and working proactively internationally.

We are getting it done on the environment. The Canadian government will continue its realistic and responsible approach to addressing the challenges of climate change.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry on her comments and her speech this evening. I would also like to congratulate her on having brought this motion before the House.

This remains an extremely important subject, despite the parliamentary secretary's ridiculous comments about the Conservative government's position and performance over the past three years.

First, Canada led the fight for the inclusion of market mechanisms like a cap and trade system in the Kyoto protocol and the international agreement called the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was the Liberal government that fought hard with an American administration before the arrival of the far right Republican movement in Washington, under President Clinton. We fought for the inclusion of this market mechanism because we knew from the experience in the United States, under the U.S. clean air act, that it was less expensive to achieve reductions of greenhouse gases by using a market mechanism like a cap and trade system.

That was the genesis of the reason for all three countries pushing so hard during the negotiations backstopping the Kyoto protocol to include the market mechanism called cap and trade.

As my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry said, it is a system that has proven to be successful in achieving reductions of air pollution from coal-fired electrical stations in the United States under the U.S. clean air act.

Therefore, it is important to support the notion of cap and trade. It is important to be prudent with taxpayer money, Canadian industry money and other moneys as we seek the best and most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases. It is why I am so personally supportive of the notion of a cap and trade system.

It also, as the member who proposed the motion suggests, creates a massive market for carbon trading. I asked the minister in question period this week whether he had any idea how we would capture what Deutsche Bank now describes as the trillion dollar carbon market, which will be up and running planet wide by 2020.

The government has no plan, and it is important for us to step back and be honest about this, so it cannot answer the question about how much we will take in Canada of the global environmental technologies marketplace, which is rapidly increasing, what part we will take of the global carbon market, which is rapidly increasing, while the Germans, Americans, French, Dutch and 10 or 20 other countries rapidly position not just their trading systems and their securities and exchange commissions, but their economies as well to go forward and capture so much of the wealth that is there for us to have.

My colleague is right: the Conservatives do not have a plan. Eleven groups analyzed the proposals. They all said that the targets were not realistic. She was also right in saying that the Conservatives are still going for intensity targets rather than absolute targets.

Intensity targets are completely out of sync with the notion of a cap and trade system. To have a cap and trade system, we need to have a real, hard cap so industry can trade within that cap, know exactly what it can or cannot emit into the atmosphere, trade away surpluses and create the marketplace by putting a value on the right to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

There is no hard cap when one talks the nonsense talk of intensity targets. No matter how many times the Prime Minister stands beside the President of the United States and repeats that intensity targets are fungible and can be connected with real, absolute targets, it is not believable and no one believes it. It is not really responsible for our Prime Minister to speak in that kind of tone. He knows he is not disclosing the reality of the situation.

No other country has abandoned the only international treaty to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. No other country is pursuing a so-called cap and trade system, using intensity targets. No other country is now so utterly dependent on another country to develop a plan for the climate change crisis. This motion is extremely important, but I fear for the motion because we now completely know that many things are happening beyond the sovereign control of this nation-state called Canada.

It has happened deliberately on the watch of this particular Conservative-Republican regime for historical reasons that we do not have time to get into. However, here is the net effect of three and a half years of pretending and window-dressing that they are dealing with the climate change crisis. Canada will now be taking a price from the United States on how much we will value carbon emissions at. Canada will now be taking its design for a cap and trade system from the United States. I predict the government will be reeled out of the corner like salmon at the end of a fishing line and it will be forced to back away from the nonsensical talk of intensity targets. It will adapt and adopt absolute cuts because it will be forced to do so by an American administration, which is not in line with the particular ideology of the government.

Canadians must remember that for all the time this regime and the Republican administration were in power in Washington, they worked hand in glove to first deny the existence of climate change, then to delay the implementation of a climate change crisis plan and then to deceive the Canadian and American peoples respectively about what they were or were not doing on climate change.

I think I counted the parliamentary secretary saying that we needed to get it right three times. He even quoted his good friend the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who said, “We need to get it right”. Here is the problem. We have had three plans and three ministers in three years. Have they got it right? There is no plan. The Conservatives are running cap in hand to Washington, asking it to provide us cover because they have no domestic plan. They have not prepared our industries. They are going to punish our industries.

It is so bad that the first minister of the environment did not even understand the concept of cap and trade. Then the Minister of Finance was asked point blank in the House whether he knew the carbon market was coming. He did not know what the carbon market was. Then the second minister of the environment said in the House that we could not trade internationally to achieve our greenhouse gas reductions. Then he changed his mind and said that we could trade, but we would cap the percentage of trade. Then he backtracked yet again. He said something else and he was yanked from his position.

Now we have a third minister who is in the United States this week telling the Americans and 16 other nation-states that Canada has an intensity-based cap and trade system. Really? Where is the cap and trade system for Canada? Where are the regulations? What is the price on carbon? Nobody in the government's caucus has an idea because the Conservatives do not even know what this design looks like.

Instead, we have a situation where theMinister of the Environment is skating with the sharpest blades he could possibly put at the bottom of his skates, pretending among the G17, led by the Chinese and Americans today, that Canada is ready to go with a climate change crisis plan.

There is no plan and no price on carbon, but it gets worse. Now we find out, because our domestic market is so small, that a cap and trade system, which would be just exclusive to Canada, would drive the price of carbon through the roof. It would cause so much pain because the market is so small and so liquid. Using the unfortunate words of the Conservative ideological leaders, it would simply increase the price of everything.

What I would like to hear from the government now, instead of nonsense and fairytales, is this. When will we see a price on carbon, what effect will it have on Canadian industries and their competitive practices and how high will the prices of energy in all their forms go?