"Canada's clean air act will allow us to move industry from voluntary compliance to strict regulation. It will replace the current ad hoc patchwork system with clear, consistent and comprehensive national standards," Harper told reporters.

"And it will institute a holistic approach that doesn't treat the related issues of pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions in isolation," he said, flanked by Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.

But the regulatory framework "will take time to put in place," as it requires further consultations with industry stakeholders, and results would likely only be felt "over the long term," he added.

While offering few details, Harper also said harnessing new environmental technologies would play a big role in reducing bad emissions.

"While we will be spending money in this area, where we really want to make progress is by making sure that there's regulation that encourages industry over time to make the technological changes necessary to reduce emissions," he said.

Environmental groups criticized Harper's Conservative government for failing to take action so far on the issue so far, accusing him of stalling.

"It's clear that this government is committed to postponing action on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol," said John Bennett, president of the Climate Action Network.

Stephen Hazell of the Sierra Club of Canada said a new law was "unnecessary" and "a recipe for delay" because Canada's existing clean air act could more quickly and easily be amended to stem emissions.

Otherwise, proposed legislation would take five to seven years to become law, he said.

In a letter, 50 environmental groups asked Harper to embrace the Kyoto Protocol, despite his dislike for the international accord; to build on Canada's existing air quality law; to force industries responsible for half of Canada's emissions to curb their output; and to implement firm targets.

In his speech, he did not address any of these concerns, said environmental activists.

But, Harper's overture to apply "intensity-based targets" that would reduce emissions incrementally as industrial output increases instead of firm targets for total reduced emissions drew the strongest criticisms.

"This guarantees that emissions will continue to rise ... We need hard targets," said Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation.

All rights reserved. © 2005 Agence France-Presse. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of Agence France-Presse.