Bill C-311 (Historical)

Climate Change Accountability Act

An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change

The purpose of this enactment is to ensure that
Canada meets its global climate change obligations
under the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change by committing to a long-term
target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions
to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by
the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the
period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on
the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable
Development to review proposed measures to meet the
targets and submit a report to Parliament.
It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Disposition of an act to amend the Excise Tax Act

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Of course, I would never suggest that about my namesake. But he is from New Brunswick and perhaps he does not quite understand what happens in Ontario.

To talk about what we are doing here, this opinion piece comes from the Intelligencer, no friend of the New Democrats. To summarize it, it says that the provincial Liberals, supported by the federal Conservatives, want to bring in a new tax to help business. Clearly, there is a linkage between the two. It goes on to say that thanks to the NDP which has kept its traditional stance, NDP leader Andrea Horwath, our leader in the province of Ontario, has slammed the tax recently saying it makes no sense for the province to be handing billions of dollars to large corporations while creating a new 8% tax for the residents of the province of Ontario.

Thank goodness Madam Horwath is working on behalf of the ordinary people of Ontario because clearly the premier of the province is not. With the help of the federal Conservative government he is finding a way to take money out of people's pockets.

One of my constituents sent me a letter. She had written the premier of Ontario because she is very upset about what the HST was going to mean to her and her husband. They are both on pensions. I will be very careful with what I say because I know the language could be unparliamentary if I were to repeat it verbatim. In talking about a letter that came from Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, she said, “This letter is 100% bulls---. I hope you and your MP friends can do something about this pile of,” and the word begins with a “c” and is referred to as manure in more pleasant circumstances. I quote the premier, “I would like to take this opportunity to tell you why we are making these important changes together” and he goes on to say together with whom. What is the federal government opinion of this b.s. idea? Clearly we now know that the federal government is in total agreement with the harmonized sales tax.

In fact, the Conservatives are so much in agreement with the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia they have used the draconian measure of closure, not after the bill was put before us. Perhaps they were concerned that things were being delayed unduly and it would go back to committee, as has happened with other bills. We did not get up in arms when the Conservatives with their Liberal friends took the decision to send Bill C-311 back to committee. But this is a bill we have not seen yet and they want to use closure.

It seems really unfortunate that before we even get a chance to debate it, there is a decision to limit debate, which is not what the residents in my constituency sent me here to do. They sent me here to debate measures important to them. No measure that has come before this House since it convened last year is more important to my constituents and other residents in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia than this dreaded HST.

Far and away, the greatest return to me personally, as far as calling me, emailing me and indeed taking pen to paper and writing personal letters, is this one seminal issue, yet the government is saying, “We cannot talk about it for very long. We want to move it along. The province is doing likewise. Let us get it over with by Christmas”.

I know I cannot refer to the hon. Prime Minister by name but some would refer to the HST as his tax. Some might call it the “happy sales tax” as we head toward Christmas, except that would be an undue measure on the folks in my riding who are struggling. People are having a great deal of trouble trying to work through these deplorable times when their incomes have been cut by 40% or 50%, in some cases by 100% because their EI has run out. Now they are drawing on what little equity they may have and what little value they have left in their homes or any other things before they apply for social assistance.

It really is reprehensible that we are about to embark upon a major decision in this House without taking the time to have proper debate, without taking into consideration that nearly 80% of Ontarians and British Columbians say no to the HST. Those are the indicators that all of us in the House are getting. I am sure my colleagues on the other side are getting similar responses from their constituents as well.

In fact, the Conservative MPP for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound stayed in the legislature in Toronto, along with a fellow member of the Conservative Party. I know the MP from that riding as well has said on other occasions that he thinks it is the wrong tax. Unfortunately he has not decided to vote against it on behalf of his constituents. I guess that is a decision one always has to make.

I have heard my hon. colleague from Mississauga most of the day say numerous things about the tax package that is before the Ontario Parliament. On a couple of occasions he has actually mentioned that the tax revenue in the province of Ontario will go down. I would remind him that the deficit in Ontario is approaching $25 billion. If this tax were such a great tax that drives revenue down, which I am not so sure that I buy, but if indeed it does, which government in its right mind would impose a tax regime that would decrease its revenue at a time when it cannot afford to pay the bills as it is?

That would be the same as saying that I would like my mortgage to be $100 a month but I only want to make $85 a month so that I cannot pay it. I do not think anybody around here would do that. In fact I am sure the government would scold us and say that we do not understand how to balance our chequebooks. Clearly the member from Mississauga does not understand how to balance a chequebook if he is saying the revenue stream is going to go below what is needed to actually balance the budget. It makes no sense.

There is the debate on the other side. There is the yin and yang of this debate. We are told, “Trust us. It will create jobs and prosperity”. I heard that in the 1980s, and it was called the free trade agreement. What did we get as workers? We got jobs that disappeared by the thousands and now the hundreds of thousands and wages that either went down or stagnated. If the government is going to create prosperity the same way as was done with the free trade agreement, then I am afraid it is a sham.

It is a sham on the constituents that I represent, on Ontarians and British Columbians, perpetrated by a government that basically is going to take those poor taxpayers to the cleaners. I use the word “poor” purposely because indeed they are poor. The constituents in my riding are poorer today than they were 20 years ago. For members to stand in this House and suggest that somehow we will be better off because of this is utter nonsense. It is about time they learned tax policy and economics. I am guessing that a lot of them did not pass economics 101.

The Environment

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the whole world is demanding action on climate change. That is exactly what the NDP asked for and proposed in its Bill C-311.

Yet the Conservatives are treating Copenhagen the same way the Liberals signed Kyoto: as a big public relations stunt, nothing more. We need action, but the government does not have a plan, nor is it taking concrete action.

When will this government show real environmental leadership for Canada?

Comments by Member for Ottawa South

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on November 23, at 12:04 p.m., I raised a point of order regarding a false statement made November 20 in the House by the member for Ottawa South on Bill C-311. He stated that it was not two weeks ago that his colleague, referencing me, the critic for the NDP, was in agreement with the extension of 30 days in committee as it was extremely important to hear other expert witnesses. This is, by the way, a complete falsehood. I had voted against the extension and had spoken very clearly in the committee and outside. I wanted an expedited review and vote on that bill.

To my knowledge, the member has not yet withdrawn this false statement and I seek your intervention, Mr. Speaker, to resolve this request.

Federal Sustainable Development Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-216, which seeks to amend a bill adopted in the dying days of the 39th Parliament. The bill was sponsored by a former colleague, John Godfrey, who retired from the House just before the fall 2008 election.

Mr. Godfrey was a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. I remember that he did everything in his power to ensure that his bill would make it through the committee stage and be passed in the House before the end of the spring 2008 session, because he realized that the Prime Minister was likely to call an election in the fall, which is exactly what happened.

Mr. Godfrey's bill, which is now a Canadian law, requires the federal government to develop a sustainable development strategy for its departments and agencies. Among other things, it requires the federal government to submit a preliminary version of this strategy to a House of Commons committee to be evaluated. Following the evaluation, the preliminary version would become the final version.

The purpose of the bill was to force the federal government to show leadership on environmental issues through its own activities. To that end, it must set an example for the rest of Canada and the world by taking action to protect our environment and fight greenhouse gases.

Bill S-216 would resolve a significant shortcoming in Mr. Godfrey's bill. It states that the government must consult both the House of Commons and the Senate. In other words, if Bill S-216 is passed, the preliminary version of the federal government's sustainable development strategy will be referred to committees of both the House of Commons and the Senate.

It seems very clear to me that the Senate must play a role in evaluating the Government of Canada's sustainable development strategy, and I will explain why.

First, there are many senators who consider the environment a priority and who have been interested in the environment for many years. These senators have something to say about sustainable development, and we need to ensure that their knowledge and experience will be brought to bear in developing the federal government's sustainable development strategy.

There are four senators who come to mind. The first is Senator Grafstein, who will retire from the Senate before the holidays.

Senator Grafstein has a special interest in water and has been working on this issue for years. There is Senator Lapointe, a great Quebec artist, actor and star, who has an awareness of environmental issues. There are also Senator Grant Mitchell of Alberta, who considers the environment a priority, and Senator Banks, who, when he chaired a Senate committee a few years ago—I do not know whether he is still the chair—released an extremely important report on water in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The Senate, in terms of the senators who sit there, is well equipped to take a considered and informed look at a federal sustainable development project.

Second, we know that the Senate is sometimes a bit more representative than the House of Commons, because senators are appointed. For example, aboriginal Canadians represent 1.62% of members of the House of Commons, but nearly 6% of senators. There is also greater representation of women in the Senate than in the House.

The diversity in the Senate's membership is quite interesting. In the case of aboriginal senators, I would like to point out that these senators represent sectors or regions which, unfortunately, suffer the most devastating effects of climate change. We have Senator Watt who represents the Arctic. The Arctic is unfortunately seriously affected by the negative impact of climate change. These aboriginal senators often have a great interest in the environment. Because of the diversity in the Senate's membership, I believe that it is very important that it be consulted on these matters.

I would like to address another point. It is well and good to want to refer a bill on sustainable development to a committee, but we all know that the House committees are swamped. For example, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development is presently conducting a number of studies. The work has backed up somewhat like traffic at rush hour on the Turcot interchange in Montreal. We are currently studying Bill C-311 on climate change. Next, we want to study the oil sands and water resources. We are also conducting the five-year statutory review of the Species at Risk Act. And we have other work.

The House committees are very busy. Why not ask a Senate committee to also have a look at it? This is another reason why I believe the Senate should be involved.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Godfrey's bill, which we are attempting to amend, required the federal government to show leadership on environmental issues. It is the type of leadership that the Liberal party has always exercised, especially with respect to climate change. Consequently, I believe that it would be a very good thing for our country if the Senate were to be more involved in this matter.

The Environment

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a large number of people in my riding of Trinity—Spadina calling on the Government of Canada to support the NDP's Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act.

It also calls upon the Government of Canada to invoke a moratorium on the further expansion of tar sands development until carbon emissions are capped significantly, environmental and health impacts are addressed and protected areas are set aside.

The petitioners are concerned that the federal government is failing to enforce law that protects water and public health and regulates toxic pollution leakage. My constituents are concerned that over 4,800 square kilometres of wetlands and forests will be lost because of the expansion of the tar sands.

Opposition Motion--Climate Change

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North for his great leadership in bringing forward Bill C-311 and for his great contribution to this debate. I know we are supporting this motion brought forward by the Bloc today. I know he makes the point very well that this idea of dividing the economy from the environment is a fatal mistake.

The member spoke about the economic benefits, such as the building of transit cars in Thunder Bay. I just wonder if he could expand more on the importance of the economic opportunity that is contained in meeting climate change targets and how that could actually be beneficial to all of us in our local communities and the planet as a whole.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, would the hon. member give the House his thoughts on why the Liberal Party would vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hard-working member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I am delighted to speak in support of the motion from my hon. colleagues on federal climate change policy. It has become blatantly obvious to Canadians and the international community that the Conservative government has no plan for the future on climate change. It is especially important that this Parliament fill the void in leadership by proposing real solutions.

The motion has three parts, but the first and third parts really flow from the second part. The first part says we should commit to proposing targets that reduce absolute greenhouse gas pollution to 25% lower than 1990 levels, not 2006 ridiculous levels, by 2020. This is, of course, the same 2020 target in my private member's bill, Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, which has unfortunately been stalled in committee for some time now by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

This target is the logical extension of the temperature limit, which is the second part of the motion. The science has become very clear recently that we must avoid a 2°C increase from pre-industrial levels if we are to escape catastrophic climate effects.

In order to check temperature increases, 99% of scientists tell us that we need to stabilize the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere at no more than 400 parts per million. Incidentally, we are already basically at 390 parts per million today.

The third and last part of the motion is about supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and adapt to the damaging effects of climate change. While that is very vague, I can certainly see that supporting others is integral to pulling our own weight to reduce global emissions.

A ton of carbon pollution reduced in a developing country is like a ton reduced here as far the climate is concerned. This could represent the greatest economic opportunity since the second world war to export Canadian technology and business know-how abroad. It would be a sort of environmental Marshall plan.

Other countries have already seen the potential of being leaders rather than laggards versus the bleak economic future of business as usual. In fact, at this point, delay is economically irresponsible. We know that former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has reported that the cost of inaction would be far higher than action. Unchecked emissions would cost us as much as 20% of global GDP per year, whereas the cost of bold action to reduce emissions could be limited to less than one-tenth of that on average. It does not take an economist to see which option is more affordable.

Here in Canada the recent TD Bank study by Jaccard and Associates shows that even with firm targets, such as the 25% 2020 target in Bill C-311, Canada would still be able to surpass the 2% annual growth led by Alberta.

Canadians have not seen any economic modelling of this type from our federal government. Why not? Not planning economically for something of this colossal magnitude is planning to fail and is grossly negligent. Perhaps the government has done the modelling but is reluctant to release its study. Canadians deserve to see what the government has, if the government has it.

We have just spent billions on corporate tax cuts and on the recent economic downturn, but the government has yet to seriously address the much more costly and damaging climate crisis. It has admitted it has no plan and no targets going into the Copenhagen summit next month. In fact, the Minister of the Environment said just this week that the government will wait to regulate greenhouse gas pollution until the United States takes action and until the global climate action deal is first reached by 192 other countries. We will be the last in. Talk about lack of leadership.

Years ago the government promised a plan would be in place and working by this year. Then it was delayed, but a plan was to at least be published by January 2009, then by the beginning of next year. Now it will not even be until perhaps late 2010 and more likely 2011. The minister admitted that under the American timetable, people will not even see regulations take effect until as late as 2016. No wonder our government has so little credibility on the international stage anymore. No wonder countries walk out when Canadian representatives take the podium on the world stage.

The principal reason the environment minister now gives for avoiding setting targets today is that we should wait until other countries set theirs so ours are not drastically different.

The environment minister's logic has not held back the EU. Yesterday the European Union's new ambassador appeared before the House environmental committee on Bill C-311. He testified that the EU has already set firm, science based targets like a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas pollution over 1990 not 2006 levels by 2020 and are willing to go up to 30% if countries like Canada step up to the plate with an ambitious agreement at Copenhagen.

The high commissioner for the United Kingdom also appeared before that committee yesterday and showed that prosperity and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas pollution was not just possible but that it was already happening in Britain.

The U.K. has already adopted targets like those in the Climate Change Accountability Act, but instead of just 20% over 1990 levels by 2020, it has committed to a 34% reduction in law. It has already achieved today a 21% reduction. More than a million homes are powered by wind alone in Great Britain. Almost a million Britons are employed in the new green economy there. The Brits see that reducing greenhouse gases is not a cost but a huge economic opportunity.

Instead of avoiding responsibility to cut carbon pollution as our Prime Minister has done, Prime Minister Brown said this year that “a vast expansion” of carbon-cutting technologies was in fact crucial to their economic recovery.

It is not surprising that Great Britain should be enthusiastic about reducing its emissions, after all, it is fundamentally about increasing efficiency. It is about using less energy and less resources for more goods and better services that the country produces. That is good for business and necessary for prosperity. The U.K. knows that there is not much of a future left in the Canadian Conservative business as usual process of wasting energy.

So the British government has already adopted this target and is well on its way to meeting it and beating it. In fact, this is the more cautious plan in the U.K. The opposition Tories there are demanding even more ambitious action yet. Conservatives in our country would do well to take their climate cues from their British brethren rather than the Bush era conservatives south of us.

Conservatives in the U.S., as here, have tried to make the environment the enemy of the economy and in doing so condemn them both to decline. They have used this excuse to delay action for decades.

The Conservative government here continues to delay, even to this day. To continue in this way in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, ignoring the demands of both industry and Canadians alike, is irresponsible to the point of being criminal.

We are now skating very close to the edge. We have little margin for error left and little time. The government should know that past that tipping point, over that cliff to climate chaos, lies economic ruin as well. There can be no prosperity on a dying planet.

If we harmonize the two, the environment and the economy, realizing that new economic opportunities and green industries will emerge if we fulfill our environmental obligations as other countries are doing, we will open up the possibility of a richer, more sustainable and fairer world for us all and a more prosperous Canada with new green jobs.

Decisive targets, policies and action on energy policy will create jobs across Canada, including in Thunder Bay where Bombardier can and will build the trains of the future or the giant windmills that we need.

The forestry and mining industries have already met the 2020 targets in Bill C-311 and in this motion.

There is something else that must be reconciled with climate change that the government has virtually ignored. Climate change poses the greatest threat to Canadian security and international security since the cold war.

It is not only Arctic sovereignty we are talking about, although that is significant enough, but spreading pests, drought and desertification, among other things, will result in an acute and permanent global food supply crisis. Canadian crops will suffer too. The geopolitical consequences of this alone are huge, including in North America. Water will be much scarcer for much of the world but overabundant on many coasts where regions and entire countries will be flooded.

For every degree the global temperature rises so do the mass migrations of people, the number of failed and failing states, and wars.

Britain now sees climate change as its number one national security priority. The United States military takes climate change seriously too. Even the youngest schoolchildren seem to know what the government does not, which is that controlling climate change is vital to the health of our planet and civilization. Lack of strong action to defend Canada's long-term economic prosperity and our very security—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, members will not be surprised to hear that a lot of the preamble to that question is simply untrue.

I would like to respond, though, by saying that, yes, it is true that we had the privilege of serving as government for over a dozen years. During that time, I was not here but we can take some pride in announcing that we did bring in the Species at Risk Act. We did bring in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We did create the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. We actually did give the powers to regulate greenhouse gases. We did ratify Kyoto after it became law internationally, in 2004. We did bring in the greenest budget in Canadian history, according to Elizabeth May, in 2005. We did have the largest expenditure program in that budget. We had signed deals with every sector of all the final and large emitters polluting and putting greenhouse gases in. The plan was ready to execute, and then along came the Reform-Conservatives. That is the truth.

Now, with respect to Bill C-311, I do reject the member's characterization of this being a delay tactic, this notion that we are delaying something. It was not two weeks ago that his colleague, the critic in the NDP, was in agreement that this extension for 30 days in committee was extremely important in order to hear other expert witnesses. We are hearing them now. We heard yesterday from the ambassador from the EU, the high commissioner from the U.K. This was important insight as to where the world is going and where Canada is situated in a global context.

What we are really seeing is the NDP using, frankly, propaganda tactics to try to score points. At the end of the day, when we examine Bill C-311, it is a call for a plan, but it is not a plan. There is no notion of a plan in it. It omits so much in a credible plan, including international offsets, international credits, a schedule for carbon pricing.

Anyone can call for a plan. I am glad the member has joined us here in calling for a plan from the government. There is no delay tactic here. There is an opportunity for us to hear from some of the best minds in Canada and elsewhere as to how to move forward in a responsible way.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found the speech by the hon. member for Ottawa South to be quite eloquent. He is quite eloquent sometimes. However, sometimes his actions are not consistent with his pretty words. I am a little disappointed at the hypocrisy that I find implicit in contrasting what he said today and has said on other occasions with the actions that the Liberals have taken in general, and that he has taken in particular.

Over 13 years the Liberals did sign Kyoto but also they made no plan, they had no success in curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, they grew by about 30% during their reign. The hon. member, as a member of the environment committee and as the environment critic for his party recommended to his party that it delay the vote on Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen. The Liberal Party could have chosen to have helped that bill to pass so we would be sending clear direction and clear messages to Copenhagen.

Why did the member vote to delay Bill C-311 until after Copenhagen and why are his actions inconsistent with his pretty words?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We are continuing the debate. That is the purpose of this debate today on the motion. However, it gives me the opportunity to speak to the third part of the motion, which is very important. I learned yesterday that of all the G8 and G20 countries at present, we are the only one going to Copenhagen with an official delegation that will apparently be taking part in the negotiations, but we have no representation from CIDA or our department of international cooperation.

We know that supporting developing countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change is critical for the future. It is critical not only during the negotiations, but for the decades and centuries to come. It is true that the motion contains some very positive elements. I agree that it is important to send a message, a signal, but at the same time, we must not forget that the Bloc Québécois motion, like the NDP's Bill C-311, is in no way a plan to combat climate change.

Opposition Motion—Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of my friend and colleague across the way, as well as the Liberal member's comments, and much of what was said was not accurate.

I want the member to comment on what we have all heard from every witness at the committee that has been studying Bill C-311. Every witness said that there should be a continental approach. The government's plan has been to have a continental approach.

Yesterday, we heard from witnesses from the EU and the U.K. who shared how Europe has a collective target. Twenty-seven different countries are within the EU target and they are doing it collectively. Some are higher and some are lower in their commitment but they have a collective. There was a real logic. I asked the witnesses why they would not do it separately and whether there was not a logic to do it collectively and they agreed that it should be done collectively.

This is what Canada is doing now through the clean energy dialogue with President Obama and the U.S. administration. A strong leadership from Canada is providing for a collective North American strategy. Together, we are harmonizing our approach to tackle the issue of climate change.

Why is the member opposed? Why does he continually vote against and speak against having a North American collective harmonized target for fighting climate change?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that, since 1997, Canada's approach to climate change has been based on a voluntary approach, on agreements with Canadian companies and industrial sectors to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Now we have to face the fact that Canada's approach, the federal approach to fighting climate change, has produced no desirable results since 1997. Now we have a government that not only has no plan, but denies the existence of climate change.

Since 1997, that party, which was in opposition and then came to power, has believed that climate change is the result of a natural phenomenon. This despite all of the scientific studies and all of the IPCC reports indicating that 95% of the changes observed are related to human activity. So it is not surprising that we now find ourselves without a climate change plan.

However, in the course of the committee's study of the NDP's Bill C-311, we heard from scientists and environmentalists. They all told us that we have to prevent global temperatures from rising any higher than 2^oC above average temperatures in the pre-industrial era, which is what this motion proposes.

Today, I would like the member who asked the question to recognize that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and that we need strong consensus among opposition parties to make up for the lack of leadership the government will show in Copenhagen.

I would therefore urge my colleague to read the motion carefully and to get on board with the Bloc Québécois so that our voice in Copenhagen will be strong enough to make the international community understand that this government and its positions do not represent the wishes of the majority of the people of Quebec and Canada, a majority represented by opposition parties.

I urge my colleague to support this motion, which I believe is in line with the wishes of most Quebeckers and Canadians.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for the motion tabled today in the House and take this opportunity to ask him a few short questions about the status quo in Canada today.

For a few weeks now, or even months, we have been examining Bill C-311 in the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. The purpose of the bill is to address the need to have a real plan of action when it comes to climate change.

Perhaps my colleague could help Canadians and Quebeckers understand the question that has been asked of every expert witness who has appeared before the committee in the past few months. How is it that four years after the Prime Minister and the Conservatives came into office there is still no plan? Yesterday, we asked the Ambassador of the European Union that same question. The Europeans tabled a plan nearly 1,000 pages long, which is available on the Internet. Canada has no plan for climate change.

How is it possible that after four years, two or three weeks before the Copenhagen process is to be ratified and finalized, Canada has ended up in this situation?

The Environment

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Copenhagen as one of twenty ministers who was invited by the chair of the Copenhagen process to try to lend form and substance to what is going on at Copenhagen. We are a constructive player. We will try to get to an international agreement.

I am not going to stand in this chamber and take lectures from the Liberals on Kyoto and on Copenhagen and climate change, because they did nothing. They signed the Kyoto protocol which was ill suited to this country, to our geography and our climate. It would undermine our industrial bases. They are in favour of a carbon tax. No one knows where they stand on Bill C-311. They vote for it; they disavow it. They call it a tiddlywinks bill, and they still vote for it.