Nathan Cullen

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Chair, I am disappointed the hon. member did not get to finish his speech. I was looking forward to the conclusion and summation.

The harmonization aspect that he is talking about is exactly what we are looking at. When we have California, New York, Maine, Washington and a number of other states starting to sign up, we start to look at 50% of the auto market. This is harmonization. Having George Bush at the table would not help us. It is not controlled at the federal level. It is controlled at the state level. This is what harmonization is about. This is the market that we are going toward.

Buzz Hargrove also supported our green auto policy. We are going outside the focus and mission of the motion that has been put forward by our party today which is the debate between mandatory, which we are suggesting and which the critic for the member's party has also agreed with, versus the optional system that the Liberals have been pushing for years without any results.

The question I have for my hon. colleague, for whom I have great esteem, is this. Is he in support of mandatory emissions standards? If so, why not support this motion? That is what it specifically calls for.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened to have missed the beginning of the parliamentary secretary's speech. I was on a call-in show in Victoria and another one in Vancouver. Canadians are deeply impressed with this motion and the concept of finally bringing forward mandatory regulations. I am glad to see the Liberals applauding it.

The question, the premise or the philosophy of this motion is between mandatory and voluntary regulations. The Liberals are asking us to trust them after these many years of promises and budget after budget showing that emissions have gone up in Canada, popping us to the back of the OECD and making us an international pariah with respect to Kyoto. Who else shows up on the day of the exam without a plan or any concept of how to get there?

My question is with respect to the voluntary requirement. I will take the Americans as a quick example. In 1975 the American Environmental Protection Agency was requiring that the big three automakers make public the mileage their vehicles were getting. They said, “No, we cannot do that. It is going to expose us to unfair practices and unfair competition.”

The EPA threatened with regulations and said it would make this mandatory. Of course then the big three automakers started to disclose their mileage rates and now the rates are part of purchasing a car. Canadians and Americans clearly understand that when they purchase a car they find out what mileage they will get from the vehicle.

Why is the parliamentary secretary so resistant to the idea of increasing the strength of the government's hand in the negotiations with automakers? We say that it has been a long time and there has been a lot of waiting. This government has not had the foresight to just enforce mandatory regulations and then bring about actual change rather than just rhetoric.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc member for his comments. I have only one question.

The Liberals have said that they are unable to support this motion, due to ongoing negotiations with the industry. I would like him to comment on this.

As for the Conservatives, they say that it is very easy for the Bloc to support this motion, because there is no industry of this type in Quebec, and that this is why the Bloc will vote in favour of the NDP motion.

So, I would like the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to comment on the reasons why the Bloc is supporting this motion. Also, I would like to know if the two reasons mentioned by the two parties are true and whether this adds to the quality of debates in the House?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that was done excellently well with a straight face.

The government talks about blazing the trail. I am curious as to why I did not hear support for the motion in the hon. member's speech.

We have heard the rumours that various ministers are involved with negotiations in the auto sector seeking to have an actual number put in place. When can we expect those regulations to be brought in and, if they are not brought in, what will the consequences be? Will they be brought in this week, next week or will Canadians have to wait while the government continues to dither?

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government is asking me to analyze the effectiveness of its own policies. Clearly if the plans that the hon. member mentioned were effective, we would not have had a 20% increase instead of the promised 20% decrease.

We talk about the plan constantly. Yesterday was the day for the plan to come into force. Yesterday was the day of the exam and the students did not show up. They were still cramming for the exam. The day that Canadians were expecting something, a coherent policy and plan, we were told to wait, that it was coming. It sounds like the foreign policy review to me; it is coming, do not worry, it will be there. We cannot wait any longer.

In terms of international standards, the OECD ranked us 24th out of 24, and 144th out of 146 in terms of exporting our pollution around the world. I would suggest that one actually has to make an effort to end up at 144th out of a list of 146 in terms of environmental standards and exporting one's pollution overseas.

While I have great respect for the hon. member as well, when he speaks to plans and the effectiveness of plans, simply stating how much money went out the door does not a plan make.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and a fair observation.

The most important aspect of the motion is that it creates the framework for the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the auto sector to say that voluntary standards are no longer an option, that it must move toward the mandatory.

The reason there is a need for an auto policy in Canada is that clearly we do not have one. In the absence of one, the industry has little direction as to where it needs to head with respect to the policy of the government.

If the government came forward and said that as a result of a motion in the House and under the direction of the Canadian people, there will be mandatory emission standards, the number would then be set in conjunction with our partners in the auto sector. Clearly we need to have a number that answers our environmental commitments and allows the sector to survive, while meeting consumers' needs. What consumers need is something better at the pump; they need something better coming out of the tailpipe.

The motion sets the framework for that in saying that voluntary is no longer an option, that it must be mandatory. Then we would work with our partners in the auto sector and the unions to arrive at the numbers, depending upon the vehicle and class.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excitable question. The motion has brought forward a great amount of ire. I am looking to the motion to find out where the great amount of fear is and the specifics of what the member is describing.

The member asked what our plans are and what devious contraptions we have hidden within the motion. The motion is as it stands. The voluntary regime that has existed within Canada has not worked according to the government's own reports. We are asking that the voluntary regime be mandatory.

In terms of the numbers, this is what the debate actually entails. What are the numbers that the sector can live with? What are the numbers that most benefit Canadians?

In terms of the California emission standards, California has done a great deal in helping the environment and in helping to develop a new sector. Looking at what sectors actually have sustained an economy while building these emission standards is very important. Light duty vehicles is a class of vehicles that we have designated in Canada.

In terms of the member's question, the basic premise of the motion is to move from voluntary toward mandatory. In terms of the actual numbers, clearly the auto sector has to believe that the government and the House of Commons are committed to bringing in mandatory requirements.

Since 1982 the spirit has not been there. The auto sector knows it does not need to do it because it is voluntary. If the auto sector can continue on a voluntary basis, there is no need to make the significant changes we are asking for and which we know can be met. The auto sector itself has indicated that it has the improvements on the shelf for 17% of the changes.

Clearly, the point of the motion is a mandatory regime rather than a voluntary one because the voluntary one is no longer working.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Waiting for Godot

and others. We might need to rename this Liberal Party.

Many people say that we should not have mandatory regulations because this will hurt the auto sector, that this will drive jobs away from Canada. Drive jobs away to where? We know that California is looking at strict emissions as well as New York, Illinois and Maine. The United States is one of our main locations for export. These states are all looking at the same regulations. That is where many of our cars go. That is the market to which we look. Clearly, the industry is moving toward lower emissions coming out of the tailpipes of cars. How could this drive jobs away when the very people who will be buying these cars will also be under a regulatory regime?

Canada needs to be at the forefront of this. Canada needs to look to the future. We cannot go forward looking back. We need to look at what the sector and consumers want. I searched the websites of Toyota and Honda for hybrid options, and there are waiting lists. Imagine the businesses in Canada that would like to have waiting lists for their products, that would like to have people lined up in queue or putting deposits down on their products. Clearly, there is a market for these cars.

Canadians clearly enjoy the concept of not only of polluting less as they drive to and fro, but also paying less at the pump. Our party has recommended taking the GST off these cars to help consumers out at the front end.

I know a number of people in the auto sector who sell cars. The appeal they make to their consumers is this. While the car may cost them $2,000 to $3,000 more, they will recoup that cost in a few months, in a year to two years, depending on the original consumption of a normal car. After that time they will make money off the price of the car, while helping the environment, and having a clear conscience about what they are doing.

Taxi companies are coming on line and offering hybrid options. If Canadians had a choice between a hybrid vehicle or one that pollutes more, I wager that most Canadians would choose a hybrid taxi. They would feel better about the trip and about the day. Taxi companies certainly feel better about it. They make more money because they pay less at the pump.

The government has decided another tactic, which is the usual one of throwing money at an issue. It hires a comedian, puts together a $26 million package and calls it the “One Tonne Challenge”. Then it tries to convince Canadians that it is their responsibility to lose a little weight, that it is within their jurisdiction and that it is their fault where we are today. The responsibility clearly rests in the hands and homes of Canadians. If they do not find their way to it, then I guess it is all their fault.

The government completely ignores its role and responsibility in this. To enter into a major international agreement with 140 other countries as of yesterday without a significant plan speaks to the greatest irresponsibility ever. It speaks to the lack of commitment, focus and ability within the cabinet to work out a plan, to find out where the sector can benefit, where our economy can grow and where we can do better by our environment and for the health of Canadians. Instead the government stumbled in backwards to yesterday's most auspicious and celebratory date without a plan.

The only announcement is that it will be embarrassed in Montreal in November, when the world comes to Canada to fully describe to Canadians how badly we have done on the environment. We can only hope that there is not a smog day in Montreal during the COP11. Aside from that circumstance, the government has completely failed. We know Canadians were believing and hoping that the government had taken the horse by the bit on the environment, but it has completely failed to do that

A lot of people decry regulations in general. They say that we should not regulate business, that we should allow the free flow of commerce and that businesses will find their own way. The report from Transport Canada has said that the mandatory emission requirements Ottawa has come forward with are not sufficient and that it is breaking those commitments. That is tragic.

I remind the House to hearken back to the debates when seat belts, air bags and unleaded fuel were being suggested as regulations. Some in the auto sector brought forward the same arguments that jobs would be lost if there were seat belt regulations or because air bags were too expensive, it would drive jobs out of the country. Now we find the sector proudly advertising the effectiveness of seat belts, air bags and the efficiency of cars.

The sector finds some benefit in being able to approach consumers and say that they will be safe in their cars. Within every sector there are more progressive elements and there are lesser progressive elements. We need to reward those who seek to be more progressive on this. We need to reward those manufacturers that have decided to look the future, that have decided to say to Canadians and world that they can produce vehicles that are better for the environment and better for money in their pockets.

The government will try to table the greatest green budget in history, yet to be seen, and another promise. What Canadians and members of House have to ask themselves is this. Is there a level of trust with the Liberal government, after the number of broken promises with respect to the environment, that a green budget will actually be a green budget?

The government said that it had spent $3.7 billion on Kyoto so far. Then we found out that was allocated and it had not been spent. Did we get good value for our money? The government is not sure of that either. It does not know if the money already has been effective. Clearly not. Emissions are getting higher and higher. We need to become more determined and much stricter with the way we deal with our environment.

We seek support for this motion from all four corners of the House.

I have spoken to members from all four parties who find within their own constituencies a great concern and a need to be proud of the way we are developing our auto sector. They want to be proud to get into their cars. They want to feel good about purchasing another vehicle.

Saving Canadians money means more money in the economy. It means more purchasing. It increases the GDP. When we put more money into the pockets of Canadians, that has a ripple effect on the economy.

The NDP, under the leadership of our leader, has made recommendations. We have said that we need to put more money into the hands of Canadians with respect to cars. We need to offer them a subsidy when they purchase cars. They will recoup the costs through fuel. For low and middle income families, how much money they put in the tanks is a huge part of their weekly and monthly budgets. Reducing that by 22%, 23%, 24% and upwards, depending on the type of vehicle, is a huge savings for those families. They then can take that money and put it into an educational savings account or buy better food for their families, rather than put it into the fuel tank and pollute the air.

Today, we will attempt to step away from the rhetoric and talk about the real numbers. Today, we will spend our time, ideally, talking about what is good for Canadians.

Canadians have been demanding change in this file for a number of years. The auto sector has said that it will meet it through voluntary measures. The time has come and gone. The time has come for the government and the House to make directive policy that makes sense for consumers, that makes sense for the health of Canadians and that makes sense for the sector. It has to make sense for the sector so it can export its technology and its products to emerging markets around the world.

If anyone in the House has any notion that we can have the developing world come on line with the same consumption patterns that we have and maintain any semblance of an environment, they are obviously dipping into something they should not be dipping into. We cannot have China and India, with their massive middles classes, consuming and polluting at the rates we have over the last number of years.

We need to be at the forefront of this, not the international pariahs as we have been. The OECD ranks us last. There are two countries that pollute more per capita than Canada, the United States being one. Under George Bush, the Americans have done far more on climate change, as 39 states move toward their Kyoto commitments, than the Prime Minister has. The Prime Minister has not found his way to achieving even the small measures of success that the Americans have under George W. Bush, who is no great friend of the environmental lobby. I am not sure if he attends its galas very often.

However, under the direction of the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and three majority governments where all the power was in a few hands, they have been unable to find their way to the progressive changes suggested in this motion.

We need to look to the future. We need to look to the leadership that Canadians are asking us to hold, the responsibility that Canadians are asking us to take along with them in solving and meeting our challenges under Kyoto and meeting our responsibility to future generations.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Absolutely shameful.

We think we have found a way that makes sense for Canadians and the auto sector to step into the new economy and into a future that we can be proud of for all Canadians.

Some people dispute the seriousness of smog. I would like to quote a few numbers for members so they will understand how important this is to Canadians as they go about their daily business. The Ontario Medical Association states that 2,000 deaths per year in Ontario alone can be attributed to smog. The Government of Canada estimates 5,000 deaths a year attributable to smog, almost five times the rate of murder in the country.

Clearly, this is of significance to Canadians and to their health. These are statistics of the people who finally succumbed to the health effects of smog, never mind the people who suffer through the respiratory illnesses and asthma. In many of the major cities smog days are now being seen in February, of which was previously unheard.

We need to do something about the vehicles that drive through our cities. We need to imagine a future in which commuting to and from work or bringing our children to school will not harm us or our children. We need to imagine a future when we can walk to the House of Commons and not see vehicles idling in front of the House. It would be a novel concept for the government to take on. We need to identify a culture within the House, within the representatives of the country. We must do something about the increasing amount of smog throughout our cities.

Months ago the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council tabled the need for a national auto policy, and we are still waiting. If the government had the leadership and understood what Canadians needed and wanted, a national auto policy would include some of the suggestions that we will hear today. With the lack of leadership in the auto sector and a lack of clarity and certainty in where the government views the auto sector going in the future, we will continue to have greater uncertainty. This hurts business. This hurts investors looking to invest in this marketplace because they do not know where the government wants the auto sector to go. It does not know what profitable partnerships we can form with the auto sector.

In 1982 the House and Senate looked at mandatory regulations. The auto sector said not to do it, that it would voluntarily comply. It said that there was no need to force it because it would get there eventually. Therefore, the bill was never passed into law.

In 2002, according to Transport Canada, there has been regular violations of the voluntary agreement. This is the problem with a voluntary agreement. Not only do we not get reports on this because it is voluntary, but if someone breaks the agreement, there is no consequence to it. If we had a voluntary law against murder, depending on the circumstances, would we find out if people were being prosecuted for their crimes? We need to get serious about this. Waiting for the Liberal government's inaction on this file is no longer acceptable to Canadians.

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I have been a runner poised in the starting blocks for the last 25 minutes. I hope those watching CPAC have been as riveted by this morning's procedural debate as I have.

We are about to enter into an important debate today around a number of key issues for the government, for this minority Parliament and for the future of all Canadians. I would like to touch on a number of key topics this morning, around leadership and promises made and promises broken for all Canadians. This is about the health of Canadians and the health of our economy. It is about policy and the role of government in making policy to maintain the health of Canadians and the health of our economy.

I am very proud to stand here today. I had full intentions and hopes that our leader would be able to present this motion, as this is one of the key reasons he entered the political realm. His disappointment in not being here is great, but I am sure the House will be happy to know that he is recuperating well and is continuing to push the government for some serious action around climate change in this country.

With respect to leadership and vision about where this country needs to go, the Liberal Party of Canada presented its now infamous red book to Canadians in 1993, with a whole series of promises. Most of them, we now know, have been broken outright.

In particular, there was a promise made around greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday we heard the tone in the House on the most auspicious day of the Kyoto accord coming into effect, where all parties rose, opposition parties at least, and denounced the government for its lack of planning, lack of foresight and readiness for this most important agreement. The parliamentary secretary called it a day of celebration. I am not sure the minister would agree with him after yesterday's debate.

It was not a celebratory mood in the House. It was a mood of frustration shared by all opposition parties and by Canadians over the lack of basic advancement and planning on the Kyoto file. When we look at auto emissions in this country, we see yet another example of lack of foresight, planning and vision on the part of the Liberal government.

We brought this motion forward today to raise the debate to the next level, to remove the rhetoric and start to talk about the actual numbers, the important numbers facing Canadians each and every day as they make decisions about the way they move themselves around this country, about the health of their communities and cities, about the smog, about the important things facing Canadians and not the rhetoric and broken promises that we have heard in election after election.

We know that light duty vehicles are very important with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. We know there is an important part to be played by the car manufacturers of this country in responding to the pollution problem that is facing Canadians each and every day, these serious effects of pollution that we are seeing in our hospital wards and schools as young Canadians face increasing health risks from the very air we breathe.

Twenty-five per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from this sector, about half of that from the vehicles we are going to be talking about today. Clearly, a significant part of any solution that we are going to arrive at comes from this sector. Looking for the innovation and leadership around this important issue in terms of mandatory fuel requirements is important for us all.

I am happy to share a note that was passed to me yesterday, which states that we already have support from a number of corners of the House. The chief critic for the Conservative Party of Canada, the member for Red Deer, in a response to a questionnaire from the Sierra Club in the last federal election, committed his support to mandatory regulation of car fuel efficiency standards. This is fantastic. This is good to hear. We will be looking for support from that party today for our motion, which clearly outlines the very same thing.

We have spoken to a number of members of the Bloc who also seem supportive of this notion of finally responding to the needs that Canadians have been expressing for many years, of finally responding to the promise made by the Liberal Party and never acted upon. We have seen that voluntary standards just do not make it. We have not arrived.

In 1993 the Liberal Party promised a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases. It got the number right, but it got the plus-minus sign wrong: we have seen a 20% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in this country.