We find ourselves at the issue of what it would mean for Canada to meet the Kyoto target. Earlier, during the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Jayson Myers stated the two opinions on how legislators can meet the Kyoto target: either reduce the economic output by 30%--roughly $300 billion in lost productivity--or purchase an equivalent amount of reduction internationally, at a cost of $5 billion a year for the period 2008 to 2012.
I quote Mr. Myers: “You would have to have widespread replacement of energy sources, widespread improvement in vehicles currently on the road, and widespread replacement of industrial machinery. It's not going to happen in five years.”
Our strong opposition to rests on its link to the short-term reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol based on the negative impact this would have on the Canadian economy and on the environmental process. 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. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that have failed--by the Liberals--in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and that their objectives are achieved.
Mr. Chair, for those reasons, I will not be supporting this. I think the appropriate way to handle this would be to delete this entire clause, but I don't believe we can do that, so I will be voting against clause 3.
I do have a question for Mr. Rodriguez, through the chair. His new leader, Mr. Dion, has said that Canada is unable to meet its Kyoto targets. In fact, he said, “I will be part of Kyoto, but I will say to the world I don't think I will make it. Everyone is saying target, target.”
From this quote, my guess is that has put you offside with your party leader. What is the Liberal position on meeting the original Kyoto target under the new leadership of Mr. Dion?
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. And she urged the government to come up with a credible, realistic, and clear plan with short- and long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As my colleague Mark Warawa said earlier, we have done just that. Canada's new government has a plan. Our plan will achieve concrete results through mandatory enforceable regulation with short-term, medium-term, and long-term targets. The short-term targets for 2010 to 2015 will be announced in the spring of 2007. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that failed in the past, and we will ensure that regulations are enforced and their objectives achieved.
Mr. Chair, we need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That's why our government wants to adopt a target-setting approach for greenhouse gas emissions based on emissions intensity improvements, a plan that will yield a better outcome for the Canadian environment than under the plan previously proposed on July 16, 2005. Under the notice of intent, the government stated that in the mid-term 2020 to 2025 targets, there will be absolute reductions that will support the establishment of a fixed cap on emissions.
That's why, Mr. Chair, I'll be voting against clause 5.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try asking the question through you to Mr. Rodriguez again.
We are on clause 5. The title of clause 5 is “Climate Change Plan”, and there are a number of parts to clause 5. They have laid out their plan, and my question is again about this plan. What is the intent?
Now, we heard very clearly from him and the people...Mr. Ignatieff was quoted, who he was supporting. He very clearly said that they support a carbon tax, higher taxes for Canadians. It's a very clear, direct question. Is part of his climate change plan, part of Bill , to increase the taxes of Canadians?
, he didn't answer that question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godfrey answered for him and, in a vague way, shared with this committee.... It sounded as though, yes, it is part of their plan. He's trying to justify increased taxes for Canadians for a carbon tax or an environmental tax or whatever they want to call it. And I just want to make it very clear to Canadians that this is part of the Bill plan: to increase taxes substantially for Canadians.
Now, would he be willing to do a yes or no, or is he going to ask Mr. Godfrey to answer for him again?
:
I note that the relevant phrase says the Governor in Council “may”, which means the Governor in Council isn't obliged to. It isn't a “should” or a “shall” or any of that stuff. So that's one issue.
I don't think there's probably a difficulty with the second part, which is (b) by adding after line 14:
Despite paragraph...each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
I have three concerns. One is whether in fact there is the suggestion that the federal government could impose an overall greenhouse gas emissions target on a province. That's one issue: do we have the power to do that? I'd be interested, actually, in hearing from a legal point of view whether we have a challenge here.
Secondly, I'm a bit concerned about what it might mean to our international trade obligations, and I'm thinking under NAFTA. It's one thing to take a sectoral approach and say that all cement plants across Canada are subject to the same emissions cap, for example. It would be quite different, it seems to me, under NAFTA to say that cement plants in Quebec are subject to a lesser greenhouse gas emissions cap than ones in Ontario and Prince Edward Island. So my second point is on international trade.
My third point, which is less a legal question, is whether this in some way undermines the possibility of having a national market for emissions trading when you have the same industry in different provinces with different standards.
Those are three questions I raise. My fourth question is, if there's any ambiguity, particularly on trade or the federal power, is there any danger, given that we put the word “could” in, that this whole bill could go down because we're offside on either the federal power issue or the trade issue?
That's really a technical question, and I'm wondering whether our legal counsel can give us some response to this.
:
Fear not the environmental community, Mr. Warawa. They're good people.
The question I have, at NAFTA.... I'm not sure we're going to get advice on NAFTA, unless Mr. Godfrey or others have particular legal counsel on it right now.
In terms of that first consideration and concern, I think there's some validity to it. In reading the amendment as it is, I think maybe there's other wording or another place to achieve what Mr. Bigras is intending.
It seems to me that in limiting the amount of greenhouse gases released by each province, and by applying it to each province, it sounds, with that wording, that the jurisdiction then falls to the federal government, in either some negotiation or conversation or potentially. Maybe the ability of the federal government to suggest to each province that this is your limit and you will go by that limit is a wording question. As written, that would be challenging, politically. That's the question we have in front of us.
With respect to the constitutionality, Mr. Bigras has some advice suggesting that it is constitutional. We've received some advice otherwise. This is the problem with lawyers in constitutional matters: you run down a rabbit hole pretty quickly.
I am concerned. I'm not sure I've seen enough clarity that if this were invoked I could return to British Columbia and say, no problem, the feds won't come and tell you what your limits should be. I'm trying to understand if that's not the case.
I'd be open for more arguments.
:
Mr. Chairman, I would be very pleased to compare my legal opinion with another opinion. But I have no choice but to conclude that the one I have is the only one available, and it comes from Parliament.
I just want to point out that this legal opinion is based on a judgment involving Hydro-Québec in a criminal law matter. Our legal opinion as a whole is based on a ruling by the Supreme Court in the late 1990s.
My third point has to do with defining a specific area of application — in this case, a province. There is a need to ensure a certain equity in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions. There has been a 7 per cent reduction across industry sectors in Quebec since 1990, which cannot be said for industry sectors in the rest of Canada. 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. That is where we would have to focus our efforts in Quebec. Under this amendment, the provinces would be responsible for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent within their borders, but they would be free to determine how to meet that target and to implement whatever regulations they deem to be appropriate.
I was listening to Mr. Vallacott's comments earlier. I realize that we need to have a national plan and national targets, but this amendment will not do away with or replace what is already in the bill: it only adds an option, and I want to stress that point. In no way is it our intention to impose or implement this approach all across Canada. Our intention is clearly not to follow the European model, which is a territorial, province-by-province approach, but rather, to allow the provinces to pass their own regulations, to make an international commitment under the Kyoto Protocol, and to put strict standards into practice.
:
I'm looking over this particular clause about regulations. The first line states that the government “may” make regulations. That's problematic for me and my colleagues. They “may” make regulations related to measures, to standards, to enforcement. On the use of the word “may”, obviously a good grammarian would know it suggests that the government may or may not, or may use other policy instruments to achieve these aforementioned measures and standards and enforcements.
Our government has put out a plan that would in fact make it mandatory, required, to strengthen the ability to reduce air emissions nationwide, to reduce air pollutants and greenhouse gases. The intent of this particular clause is to give the government the authority to implement regulations and other measures to control greenhouse gas emissions by building on the extensive authorities that already exist in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.
The new government legislation on clean air would in fact provide a much stronger basis than what we have before us here today when it says “may”. Among other things, for example, the government legislation, contra what we have here, would require ministers of the environment and health to establish national air quality objectives, to monitor them, and to report on their attainment. It would authorize the development of regulations to reduce outdoor and indoor air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. It would authorize the development of emissions trading schemes, which have proven very effective in the United States of America and also in Europe. And it would give the government extensive information-gathering and reporting powers expressly tailored to greenhouse gases and air pollutants. I would think my NDP colleague Mr. Cullen would probably be agreeable to the fact that we need to make it more forceful, by way of not just simply a “may”.
Our government's proposed legislation as well, contra this particular piece here, would enable the federal government to enter into equivalency agreements that recognize provincial or territorial licensing or permitting regimes as equivalent, so long as those regimes are as stringent in terms of environment and health protection as national regulations are. That's our government's approach, which is something members from the Bloc Québécois should support, as it would enable the Province of Quebec to regulate its own polluters. But for that, the Quebec government would need to put in place legislation and appropriate regulations. I would be hopeful that Mr. Bigras and Mr. Lussier would support that at the time, because it's much stronger and it respects provincial jurisdiction as well.
The government plan, also contra this bill, would enhance the Energy Efficiency Act. It would give the federal government the authority to provide stronger energy efficiency standards for a wide range of consumer and commercial products, such as household appliances and electrical goods. That actually would directly impact on the health and the environment of all Canadians, which is something I believe and others around this room would agree that Canadians do want to see. We're waiting to see that implemented.
Finally, contra this particular proposed legislation, the government's proposed legislation, , would amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act to modernize government's ability. doesn't do that. Bill C-30 would allow the government authority to regulate new motor vehicle fuel consumption. It is important to set that fuel consumption standard to help to ensure greenhouse gases from the vehicles that we buy.
The time for alternatives really has passed. The previous administration tried some voluntary approaches, and that's what we have here again in the word “may”. Unfortunately, they failed. We need a much stronger mandate than that, and the government plans to have regulations that do in fact put the onus, the liability, on the regulated community. To make those emission reductions that contribute to clean air, the air quality objectives must be set by ministers under the act, in a mandate fashion. In addition, under the notice of intent, the government is committing to set greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for the short and mid-term, 2020 to 2025, and also for the long term, up until 2050.
Mr. Chair, in view of the obvious weakness in comparison to , we cannot support clause 6 of Bill C-288 because it misses the mark clearly. It is clearly an inferior piece of proposed legislation when compared to , the Conservative government's bill. We would very much prefer to have this entire clause 6 deleted from the bill, in view of its obviously lesser ability to do the kinds of things that need to be done for the protection of the environment and the health of all Canadians. We would definitely see that in the government's Bill C-30, as opposed to what we have before us now.
In respect to what we have before us in clause 7—there are three subclauses there— we do as members of the government side want regulations for greenhouse gases and also air pollutant emissions from all industrial sectors as soon as possible. It was referred to by my members previously, Mr. Cullen notably, a few minutes ago.
That being said, however, the reality is that it will not be possible in practical terms to develop requirements for both GHG and air pollutants for all industrial sectors—it would not appear to be possible—by 2008. Prescribing this as a deadline in the legislation would most certainly open up the Crown and all stakeholders to some very serious difficulties. That timeline severely limits the time for the Minister of the Environment or any other regulating minister to consider public comments and revise draft regulations accordingly. You'd get a rush to judgment, a rush in such a way that you'd probably have a disastrous Kyoto, because you'd get there really quick, and without the proper study, analysis, and systematic approach.
The way of doing things suggested in clause 7 is really not reasonable. I think we know what the proper timeframes to collect and consult and so on in this country require.
And I think it shows a disregard for a meaningful public consultation. Mr. Rodriguez appears not to have the degree of respect for public consultation that there should be when you're dealing with something this important, because we do need to get there.
It also seems to show no real knowledge of the federal regulatory process. I don't know who his advisers or speech writers were, if Mr. Rodriguez has that speech writer yet.
The timing difficulties related to making regulations are also complicated by subclause 5(5), by which the climate change plan tabled by the minister is referred to a committee of each house of Parliament for review. The practical consequence of that subclause 7(1) is that the committee review of the climate change plan would not change the regulation-making proposals, as the timelines to make the regulations are so very short.
For that reason, we have obvious difficulty with this particular clause, because I think we'd all agree that we need to get at those issues—the air quality issues, including smog.
In fact, Mr. Dion, the new Liberal leader, has actually acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol does not deal with all air quality issues, including smog. That's something that clearly needs to be dealt with, and our plan would do it. In fact, Mr. Dion, interestingly--and this is right in the ball park here--has said that the U.S. has better smog regulations than Canada has.
So we would not be able to support this clause 7, and we would like it deleted from the bill. Our proposal in Bill actually deals with the reduction of smog, improving the quality of the air we breathe. In fact, the Canadian Lung Association has supported our efforts in that regard. Again, as Mr. Godfrey has tipped us off here, it's clearly the very piece of legislation to be passing for the health of the Canadian public.
:
Mr. Chair, it's important to realize that we on the government side support the recommendations of the commissioner concerning accountability and transparency. As my colleague Mr. Godfrey has said, that is our hallmark, and I appreciate he recognizes that.
The aspects of Bill , though, such as accountability and transparency that would accompany the filing of regular climate change plans before Parliament, are positive proposals we support, including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and the process of developing climate change targets and timelines. In fact, the national round table is engaged in this activity currently in support of the government plan.
Therefore, the idea of using the national round table to provide advice to the minister for accountability and transparency is already in place in the government's proposed plan. The government has an integrated plan to deal with both greenhouse gases and air pollution. On air pollutants, the government plan is to establish national objectives for ambient air, particulate matter, and ozone for the periods of 2025 and 2050.
The government's plan is also to establish national emission reduction targets that reach to 2050 for total emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, gaseous ammonia, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and for the following sectors: the oil and gas sector; the electricity sector; base metals; iron and steel; aluminum; cement; chemicals; forest products; transportation; consumer products; and commercial, institutional, residential, and agricultural sectors.
On greenhouse gases, the government's plan will—
:
Mr. Chairman, in recent weeks, we have heard at least 30 witnesses. Almost as a general rule, the Parliamentary Secretary asked them whether Kyoto targets were achievable or not. I asked them whether we had the technology needed to meet those targets and in what timeframes. We brought experts in the field in from all across Canada. They all told us that it would take four years to make any kind of change.
The results of what the Liberals did is that we now find ourselves at +35 per cent. Our Liberal friends have therefore introduced Bill C-288 to try and detract attention from the bill tabled by my government, the Clean Air Act. Either they want my government's bill to be put on a shelf somewhere or they just are interested in politicking. That's the term we use in Quebec to describe someone who puts his own personal interests ahead of the interests that are supposed to be paramount. Unless we brought all those people here for nothing, we should be able to recognize the fact that the Kyoto targets set by the Liberal government were not only unrealistic and poorly evaluated, but they were also developed on the fly.
In fact, without any embarrassment whatsoever, Liberal members admitted that they had drafted their Kyoto targets on the back of a napkin. But we're talking here about the economy of the whole country. Rather than thinking about getting re-elected and trying to achieve goals that are purely personal, we should be thinking of the interests of all Canadians. Those interests have to come before our personal interests, because we have obligations towards our parents, our grandparents, our children and our grandchildren.
What we are doing here through Bill C-288 is totally unacceptable, not only in my own opinion, but in the opinion of the experts who testified before us. We brought witnesses in from all across the country, which costs thousands of dollars, and the Liberals didn't listen to a single word they said and didn't act on any of their conclusions.
I am a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman.
As we now approach the preamble, I sincerely wish I could commend the honourable member for his concerns about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but doesn't take us in that direction. That being said, the essence of his private member's bill is seriously flawed. We heard that from all the witnesses, except one.
I'd like to take the opportunity to speak on three specific points of the preamble that illustrate the concerns the government has on Bill C-288.
First, the focus of Bill C-288, which is the achievement of Canada's short-term Kyoto target, needs to be examined. Our government has initiated a discussion about what it would mean for Canada to achieve its first commitment period of the Kyoto target. This target can only be achieved within the short period of time remaining by spending over $20 billion of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.
As we heard from a diverse group of witnesses at this committee, it may not even be feasible to buy all the needed credits to reach the short-term target set by the Liberals under the Kyoto Protocol and copied again into Bill C-288.
In the opinion of the government, it would be more appropriate to focus on the economic transformation needed to transform our economy in a way that would lead to more significant and sustained reductions in emissions by investing in improving Canadian energy and urban infrastructure. That's what we need to do.
As Bill C-288 states, Canada's target under Kyoto was 6% below 1990 emission levels. When we took office in early 2006, not that many months ago, domestic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 were nearly 35% above the Kyoto target for Canada set by the Liberals, according to the latest available figure provided by the officials of Environment Canada.
Our government was forthright that the 2008 to 2012 Kyoto short-term targets cannot be met without spending over $20 billion of Canadian tax dollars to purchase international credits.
One of the witnesses, Jayson Myers, chief economist for the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, calculated that the technological process in reducing emission intensity would have to accelerate by 700% during the next five years to meet Canada's Kyoto target by 2012. Mr. Myers based his estimate on the international price of $20 per tonne, an assumption that he noted may even be low. The actual cost of meeting our short-term target under the Kyoto Protocol would cost considerably more than the $20 billion.
We also heard from Professor Mark Jaccard, head of the Energy and Materials Research Group in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. In a recent C.D. Howe report, he wrote that the previous climate change plan, project green, the Liberal answer to meeting the Kyoto short-term target, would have cost Canadians $12 billion by 2012, with much of that money being spent outside Canada. Professor Jaccard concluded that if Canada were to implement and continue with the previous Liberal plan, Canada would spend at least $80 billion over the next 35 years without reducing greenhouse gas emissions from current levels.
Obviously, Bill C-288 is not a good plan.
This is the crux of the issue. Do we spend billions of Canadian tax dollars internationally to buy international credits, or do we spend Canadian taxpayers' money on improving Canadian energy and Canadian urban infrastructure to reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions right here in Canada?
Canada's new government is taking a new approach by integrating action on air pollution and climate change to protect the health of Canadians and the global environment. Emissions of smog and acid rain pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions come from many of the same industrial and transportation sources. To be more effective, action needs to be integrated. Regulations that address climate change in isolation could effectively force industries to invest in technologies and processes that address greenhouse gases, while locking in capital stock that continues to emit air pollutants that endanger the health of Canadians--not the best government environmental and economic policy, obviously, Mr. Chairman. This is what Bill C-288 suggests that we do.
For that reason, Canada's new government will establish short-, medium-, and long-term reduction targets for both air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. 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. Regulations establishing mandatory standards will replace the voluntary approaches that failed in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and their objectives are achieved.
An integrated and coordinated approach for air pollutants and greenhouse gases makes sense because most sources of air pollutants are also the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. By taking action on both, our government will maximize the benefits to Canadians and allow industry to find ways to reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases in a way that helps industry maintain its economic competitiveness.
To recap, our opposition to Bill C-288 is related to its unrealistic short-term focus and the massive, ineffective costs that will come with that focus. In our view, it's important to approach the issue in a way that will ensure reductions in the short term, but that will also set the foundation for continued and more significant reductions over the long term.
It's even more important that these funds be spent here at home. Our second fundamental concern with Bill C-288 is that countries with targets now under the Kyoto Protocol account for less than 30% of global emissions—72% of global emissions are not included under the Kyoto Protocol. That's 72%.
For future international cooperation on climate change to be effective, all emitting countries need to do their part to reduce emissions. The emissions target of the Kyoto Protocol, as noted above, cover only 23 countries, plus the 15 members of the European Union taken together. By 2010, developing countries are expected to contribute 45% of global greenhouse emissions, and China and India, together, will experience greater growth in emissions than all OECD countries combined. China alone, in 1996, accounted for over 13% of carbon emissions, second to the United States, and on plausible projections for the two economies, China is expected to reach U.S. emissions levels by 2013. That's not that far away. Effective action cannot be taken by a relatively small group of countries alone.
Finally, the lack of a comprehensive coverage creates only potential problems within the Kyoto Protocol. Economic activities might relocate from countries with greenhouse gas emission ceilings to countries without those ceilings. Through such leakage, even the impact of greenhouse gas concentrations of effective action by the Annex B countries would be reduced. Apart from weakening the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, such leakage would also involve costly adjustments by workers, firms, and towns that were brought about not by changes in economic efficiency but by a regulatory system with incomplete coverage.
Proponents of the Kyoto Protocol would not deny the fundamental point that key developing countries must eventually participate. They would argue, however, that someone must start the process, and it is natural that the world's richest and most heavily emitting countries do so.
Kyoto is only a first step toward solving the problem of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. We must anticipate what the next step must be. We need to anticipate that. For those covered in Annex B, the natural next step is to lower the emission ceilings now set for 2012, to achieve, for example, 80% of 1990 emissions by 2022. If the Kyoto targets are reached, developing countries, as a group, will have CO2 emissions equal to those of the Annex B countries by 2013--and growing.
How are these companies to be brought into the Kyoto framework, as they must be, if further impact on a global climate change is to be mitigated? That is why Canada is a major player in the United Nations-led climate change negotiations for longer-term reductions well after the end of the first Kyoto Protocol reporting period of 2012. We've also been clear that Canada will work with other countries to help advance the long-term approach to tackling climate change. Our government's actions at home will be the basis for future international cooperative efforts to address climate change.
Mr. Chair, as I've said before, we've heard from the witnesses that Bill C-288 is not the bill that will adequately address the issue of climate change. We've heard time and time again that it's the government's plan with Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act. Mr. Chair, we need to listen to what the witnesses said. We dare not forge ahead with a bill that has as its sole purpose trying to sabotage what the government is trying to do to clean up the air.
Mr. Chair, we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bill C-288 will not do that. The experts have told us it won't work. Bill C-288 will not work, yet we see the Liberals forging ahead and planning on the fly.
Mr. Chair, I think I've made it very clear--I think each of us has--and I think the witnesses have made it very clear that we dare not forge ahead with Bill C-288. I'd ask the members of the Liberal Party, the members of the Bloc Party, and the NDP, please, do not play games. Work together with the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Stop the games, and let's vote against Bill C-288.
Thank you.
I appreciate this opportunity to clarify some of the comments that were made, particularly those regarding the minister going to Nairobi. I thank the members from the Bloc, the Liberals, and the NDP for accepting her invitation to go to Nairobi with her. I'm glad you found it informative.
The minister has said all along that we are committed to the Kyoto Protocol. As has been said, she was honest and shared with the Kyoto countries that we will not meet the targets. When she was in Kenya she did provide some clarification, that because of the inaction of the previous Liberal government, we find ourselves in the situation of being 35% above those targets. Of course, some didn't like her sharing the facts on why we are 35% above those targets, that it was the inaction of the previous Liberal government.
Mr. Chair, we are very committed to Kyoto and we always have been. The Kenyan government asked the minister to stay, so she stayed another couple of days and with our government signed a memorandum of understanding to help them with conservation projects in Kenya. That's how well respected she is. She also had a number of other countries share with her how happy they are with her commitment to Kyoto. They also shared the difficulties that they're experiencing as well in meeting the targets.
We've heard from witnesses that Canada now cannot meet the targets. That's what the experts have said. So the minister has been honest.
But we remain committed. We are one of 165 countries that have signed to continue our commitment to Kyoto, to be part of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. We are actually one of the few countries that are right up to date with reports and funding to the Kyoto Protocol.
A progress report--it should have been released by the previous Liberal government in January 2006--shows that the projections were 47% above the Kyoto Protocol target. Of course, some would suggest that the previous Liberal government wouldn't want to release that bad news just before an election. But we did; we've met all of our Kyoto obligations, which the previous government did not, in reporting and funding, and we will do the very best we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We've been honest: because of the inaction of the previous government, we are finding ourselves in the situation as a country that we are far above Kyoto targets. We cannot meet those targets. We've been honest with Canadians about that.
We will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We do not support Bill , because it will not reduce greenhouse emissions. It will not take us in a way that will reduce pollutants, and Canadians do want us to clean up the environment. After 13 years of inaction, I think Canadians, and particularly the Conservatives, have lost trust in the Liberal plan.
People might ask, Mr. Chair, how many years of inaction and failure it will take for people to realize that the Liberal plan doesn't work. I'm quite surprised that the Bloc and the NDP would be supporting a plan from the Liberal Party, which has proven that it was not able to do anything within 13 years of government. So I'm surprised at that.
Moving to the preamble, the part I do have difficulty with is the bullet that says the legislation is intended to meet Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Mr. Chair, all the witnesses, except for one, agreed this is a bad bill, it's not achievable. Therefore we will not be supporting it. The rest of the preamble we agree with, but being honest....
As I said, the witnesses support that this is not achievable. Bill is not a good bill, so we won't be supporting it.