Environment committee  Yes, we need more accountability on the environment, but this is, again, on the fly. This deals just with the climate change. If we want to discuss--not through Bill C-288--the accountability on the environment through the commissioner, that needs to be discussed thoroughly. On air pollution, we know that's a big, important issue for the health of Canadians.

Environment committee  Are there any other comments on clause 9? (Clause 9 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) (On clause 10—Review of Climate Change Plan and Minister’s statement)

Environment committee  If they're 7% below in all those things Mr. Bigras has said, then Quebec has nothing to worry about. As a concept, approaching climate change and greenhouse gas emission reductions by province opens this up. I'm not so sure about the constitutionality one way or the other. I agree with you, Chair, that at this table we don't seem to have the current advice to know.

Environment committee  That approach, as reflected in the second part of our amendment, would give the provinces the opportunity to lay out their own action plan on climate change. That way, we probably would not be imposing as strict rules on some industry sectors in Quebec, which have already reduced their emissions by 7 per cent; on the other hand, there would be stricter rules for other economic sectors in Quebec, such as transportation.

Environment committee  It would be pretty clear that to support the Bloc amendment, because we believe that having a good plan in place regulating climate change is about having.... Then you get to the constitutional issues, the national—

Environment committee  As I was saying before, we can't support this particular Bloc Québécois amendment, simply because regulating climate change is far too important. It's about having some national standards to ensure that all Canadians have the benefit of clean air, clean water, and clean land. No matter what province they have these in, they should have equal protection.

Environment committee  A recorded vote, please. (Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) (On clause 5--Climate Change Plan)

Environment committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Subclause 5(1) calls for the minister to prepare a climate change plan until 2013 that describes the measures Canada's taken to meet the Kyoto Protocol. In her September report and in testimony before this committee on October 3, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development said that it has become more and more obvious that Canada cannot meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments to reduce greenhouse gases; in fact, instead of decreasing, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada have increased by 27% since 1990.

Environment committee  Our government's proposed legislation is simply a much better approach to Canada's making its contribution to addressing climate change in the short, medium, and long terms. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulations with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets will be announced by spring 2007.

Environment committee  Just for the record, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 4, 2006, Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol is the item for debate today. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of the preamble and clause 1 will be postponed to the end of the proceedings, and we will begin with clause 2.

Environment committee  CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can remain in the atmosphere for several decades. So, the climate change we are witnessing today is the result of the greenhouse gas emissions produced several decades ago. I want to repeat that I am not a scientist. On the other hand, I can tell you what the scientific studies say about that.

Environment committee  This is the World Resources Institute, and it's good research. I go back to my beginning. I have worked on climate change since 1989. I am old, and I am Canada's oldest, longest-standing advocate of market measures. We'll send another piece, which is the suite of measures we recommend. I'm arguing that this graph tells you the Kyoto Protocol isn't it.

Environment committee  You are comparing apples and oranges. An expenditure of $6.3 billion was announced to address climate change, but over a longer period ending in 2012. The $1.6 billion amount I referred to is money that had in fact been expended by the end of fiscal year 2003-2004. You cannot compare the two amounts since they do not cover the same period.

Environment committee  There are different parts of the global carbon market. The EU emissions trading system is one part. I believe that Aldyen Donnelly, in her initial remarks, was referring to the so-called “hot air” credits that in theory are available to be traded under Kyoto. I might have time to elaborate in a later response to a later question, but on the specific question of the EU market, first of all, the EU market is essentially in a pilot phase currently between 2005 and 2007.

Environment committee  On the question, then, around the difference between emissions intensity and hard caps, I'm still confused as to why industry wouldn't seek the certainty of a hard cap—a fixed, across-the-board, level playing field for all of the competitors in your association—as opposed to the notion of intensity reductions. If climate change is a serious consideration and there are some, at least, in your industry willing to internalize the costs, why is there a reluctance about a hard cap concerning something we see as a threat both environmentally and, in the Stern report and others, economically?