Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 021 (Official Version)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-China Legislative Association respecting its visit to China from March 22 to April 1, 2006.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the delegation of the OSCE Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation in the international election observation mission of the March 26, 2006 parliamentary elections in Ukraine.

* * *

(1005)

Committees of the House

Scrutiny of Regulations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.

* * *

Excise Tax Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (feminine hygiene products).

She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reintroduce this bill, which seeks to eliminate the goods and services tax on feminine hygiene products.

The GST on tampons and sanitary napkins amounts, in my view, to a gender based taxation, and the taxing of essential and necessary products used exclusively by women is unfair and discriminatory. It unfairly disadvantages women financially solely because of their reproductive role.

The bill would benefit all Canadian women at some point in their lives and would be of particular value to lower income women.

I urge all members to support this initiative. I am confident that members of the Conservative government will do so, based on their announcement of support last October when they pledged to deal with the tampon tax.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

Excise Tax Act

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (literacy materials).

She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to again introduce this bill, which seeks to eliminate the goods and services tax on materials used in literacy development.

In our knowledge based economy, the bar is being constantly raised higher on the basic skills needed to access decent jobs, to function in daily tasks and to participate in social and political life. Despite our technical sophistication, nearly 50% of Canadians still have difficulty working with words and numbers.

This bill complements existing literacy measures and reduces the financial barriers keeping individuals from pursuing greater literacy.

I hope all members will give the bill their serious consideration.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

* * *

[Translation]

Business of the House

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, May 16, 2006.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Drummond have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Pauline Picard:

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this House, the period of time corresponding to the time taken for Royal Assent today shall be added to the time provided for government business, and the ordinary time of daily adjournment shall be delayed accordingly.

[Table of Contents]

The Speaker:

Does the hon. member for Drummond have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Speaker: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

(1010)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

The Speaker: Does the hon. member for Mississauga South have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

* * *

Petitions

Citizenship and Immigration

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the House on behalf of number of constituents in Edmonton. The petitioners call upon Parliament to welcome the “stranger in need” and significantly increase the number of refugees that Canada accepts annually and to take a number of measures to welcome and integrate newcomers into Canadian society.

* * *

Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present yet another petition signed by hundreds of Canadians regarding the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome and the need for alcohol warning labels on all beer, wine and liquor bottles. This matter was dealt with by Parliament a number of years ago. A motion that I presented received unanimous consent, yet the previous government and this government have continued to refuse to address this simple matter of requiring warning labels on all alcohol beverage containers saying that there should be some notice to women that drinking during pregnancy can cause birth defects.

These petitioners want this government to finally act on the wishes of Parliament.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to revert to motions for the proposal to move a report from a standing committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to motions?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

* * *

Committees of the House

Scrutiny of Regulations

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

* * *

[Translation]

Questions on the Order Paper

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Jason Kenney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

The Speaker: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Business of Supply]

* * *

[Translation]

Business of Supply

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ)

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol, in an equitable manner while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces; and (b) publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that includes a system of emission objectives for large emitters along with an exchange of emission rights accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to begin the Bloc Québécois' opposition day on the subject of the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to take a few moments of the House's time to read the wording of the motion:

It is important to point out that fighting climate change is more pressing now than ever before. When I was elected in 1997, I remember listening to some members of this House—especially the opposition members who now make up the government—debate the phenomenon of climate change. In 1997-98, some of us in this House believed that it was simply a natural phenomenon, and that human actions had little or no impact on the beginning of this phenomenon several hundred years ago.

But the real situation is quite different. Since 1750, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO₂, have risen by over 31%. The snow and ice cover has been reduced by 10%. Since 1950, the surface area of sea ice has diminished by 10% to 15%. Over the 20th century, the average sea level rose by 10 to 20 cm. Extreme events have increased in number, and the warming has speeded up.

In 1988, some scientists organized to form the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That same year, those scientists sent out alarming signals which were the subject of a UN report in 2001 which gave an increasingly clear demonstration that the phenomenon of climate change is very definitely linked to the way that we humans behave. Incidentally, a report by this panel is going to be released in a few weeks. That report will show that climate change is associated with natural phenomena barely five percent of the time. In other words, the very great majority of climate change is associated with human phenomena.

Climate change will of course have major environmental consequences, but also substantial economic and social consequences.

For Quebec, of course, those consequences will be real. One need only think of global warming and the impacts it could have or is now having on the forestry industry in certain parts of Canada. Consider the increase in the number of forest fires and forest zone diseases.

One need only think of the impacts climate change will have on the level and flow of our St. Lawrence River, which are expected to decline by 10% to 20%. That will have repercussions on the shipping industry in Quebec and Canada.

People’s health is going to be affected by this.

(1015)

So the economic effects, like the social consequences, will be substantial.

This was the context in which the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997. That is an important date. I was in Kyoto in 1997, when the countries signed that important agreement. It provides for a commitment by them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions: for Canada, to 6% below the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012; for Europe, to 8% below 1988, for the same years.

One could see at the time of the signing of Kyoto in 1997 that Canada was poorly prepared to attain the targets it had set itself. Whereas 15 sovereign European nations first of all agreed as partners on reduction targets that would take account of principles of fairness and of capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Canada came to Kyoto without the benefit of any agreement with its partners. Then, in 1998, the Bloc Québécois formed a coalition, initially a Quebec and then a Canadian coalition, composed of civil society partners, especially young people—I am thinking of organizations such as ENvironnement JEUnesse—who put that coalition in place, demanding that the federal government ratify the Kyoto protocol as soon as possible.

It is thanks in part to the actions of the Bloc Québécois that we have been able, since December 2002, after a vote in this House, to proudly say that we contributed to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We could be proud of the Bloc’s work with other partners in Quebec’s and Canada’s civil society.

This protocol came into effect on February 16, 2005, thanks to Russia’s support. Today, however, when we take a look at history and all the work that has been done, we get the impression that we are back to square one. When we hear the statements made by the Prime Minister, his Minister of the Environment, his Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we get the impression that we have returned to 1997, to the time when the government had to be forced to ratify the Kyoto protocol and implement it.

Today, as in the weeks following the election, the Prime Minister has clearly indicated to the population of Quebec and Canada that he was hoping for a new climate change protocol. A new protocol, when there already is one called the Kyoto protocol. This protocol which members on this side of the House want to see respected. This is the primary meaning of this proposal and today's motion.

We expect the government to be true to its word and to undertake to respect and meet the reduction objectives laid down in the Kyoto protocol.

This government must say so in this House today. It must say so internationally in the coming weeks. This commitment must be reflected in a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which we hope to see tabled by October 15, 2006.

This way we can truly keep our commitments and act in such a way that the international community can look at Canada and see that our country intends to respect its commitments. The reality, however, is quite different. The Prime Minister and his Minister of the Environment have committed to presenting a new climate change plan, but it would not necessarily integrate the greenhouse gas reduction objectives.

(1020)

This a major setback both internationally and domesticly. We have to do something to force this government to respect this commitment.

We hope and wish that, by October 15, 2006, the government will table a plan integrating the greenhouse gas reduction objectives. Furthermore, this should integrate principles of equity, that is, equity towards the industrial sectors which have made efforts in the past, which have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, equity towards the provinces that dared, from the early 1990s, to put action plans in place to fight climate change, and equity towards those who are prepared to contribute to the international effort.

We are hoping to see an equitable plan; we are also hoping to see an effective plan. The federal government has invested more than $3.7 billion since 1977 in combating climate change, and yet greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24% since 1990. This means that in order to comply with the Kyoto protocol, Canada will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. First, we had a government that presented a plan but at the same time backed off from its reduction objective. Now, we have a government that refuses to apply the Kyoto protocol and that believes that by backing off from it we will be able to meet our international objectives. This is nonsense.

Ottawa has methods available to it for combating climate change effectively that are within its jurisdiction. For example, Ottawa can impose stricter, more severe standards for the manufacture of off-road or other vehicles. That is one of the methods available to the federal government for improving the situation and making an effective contribution to combating climate change.

The government also has methods and tools in the tax system to encourage businesses and individuals who want to make a contribution to combating climate change, whether by eliminating the GST on vehicles that consume less gas, for example, or removing the tax benefits the oil industry is given in Canada. What could be more shameful than saying that we want to combat climate change and at the same time giving tax benefits to companies whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen significantly?

So the principles of fairness, effectiveness and respect for provincial areas of jurisdiction must be observed. Ottawa is sticking its nose into the business of the provinces, and of Quebec, where our performance is quite acceptable, both per capita and in absolute numbers.

We must have an effective and equitable plan. We must also have a plan that ensures that we apply the polluter-pays principle, and not the polluter-paid principle. That is also one of the purposes of the motion introduced today, which forces the government to implement rigorous, clear objectives for large industrial emitters.

(1025)

By 2010, large industrial emitters will account for 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We have to attack this problem at its roots. If we want to meet our greenhouse gas emissions commitments, we have to be sure that we are taking effective, rigorous and strict measures to deal with large industrial emitters.

The previous government chose to take the voluntary approach, and we have to admit in this House that it was not successful. The voluntary approach did not produce any improvement in our greenhouse gas emissions record.

When the Minister of the Environment attends the Bonn conference in a few days, we have to ensure that what we consider to be the large industrial emitters, and I stress that I am talking about the “real” large industrial emitters, will be required to contributed to the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It must be done, and I stress: the “real” large industrial emitters. To date, the federal government’s approach has been to penalize industries, particularly in Quebec. We have the example of our manufacturing industry, which has succeeded in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 7%. We have the pulp and paper industry, which succeeded in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

To date, Ottawa has applied a principle putting industrial sectors, such as the manufacturing sector, despite its reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, on the same footing as the oil and gas sector.

It must be understood that imposing the same reductions—say 15%—on the industrial and the oil and gas sectors and on the manufacturing sector, which underlies the Quebec economy, has the effect of increasing the marginal effort required by our industrial sectors in Quebec and thus increasing our marginal costs. An additional one tonne reduction costs more and is harder to achieve for the manufacturing sector in Quebec than for the oil and gas sector, where emissions have skyrocketed.

We want to see these principles of equity expressed in the regulations we want for the large industrial emitters, since between 1970 and 1999, subsidies and direct aid to the oil and gas industry increased by $66 billion compared to the meagre $329 million that went to the fossil fuel industry.

In 2003, we adopted Bill C-48 in this House, which gave $55 million in tax benefits to the oil and gas industry in 2003-04, $100 million in tax benefits in 2004-05 and $260 million in tax benefits in 2007-08.

(1030)

In the minute I have remaining, I want to say that we hope Canada will honour the Kyoto protocol, that it will affirm it here in this House, that it will reaffirm it internationally on May 15 at the start of the Bonn conference. Canada must undertake to introduce a plan to fight climate change by October 15. The plan must be fair and equitable and respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. We want especially to have the federal government sit down with the Government of Quebec to sign a bilateral agreement, which will be incorporated into the plan the government will introduce by October 15.

That is what our party wants. We are looking today for the support of all political parties, especially the one in government.

(1035)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Without a doubt, he is very sincere about his environmental goal. The same is true of all members of this House when it comes to their commitment to the environment.

[English]

However, I have a problem with some of the math for Kyoto. If we take Canada's targets, which was a political agreement, if we assume that we can become fully compliant, and if we were to look at the percentage of the impact that would have on the computer based predictions of global warming and run that against the total world contribution, we would find that if we do meet our Kyoto commitments we would change the temperature of the earth by two one-thousandths of one degree in the next 100 years.

Life is about risk and reward. That is not a large reward for the risk that we are posing to Canadian industry and the economy. It does not mean we should do nothing. We should. We should do whatever we can to be part of that process.

I would suggest to my hon. colleague that we could do more by not crippling Canadian industry or running the risk of that and by not shipping billions of dollars in the simple transfer of wealth to other countries that will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases.

Would my hon. colleague consider the value of spending more of our money developing and exporting our world leading technology to help those countries with their technology to make cleaner gas industries that will help the situation a lot more in the long run?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said exactly the same thing as George W. Bush's American government.

The Americans say that the Kyoto approach should not be followed and they advocate a new approach called the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate. This new approach contains no time frames and no objectives, in terms of the technology.

Why is it not possible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reach our Kyoto target today? Take Europe, for example, which managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4% between 1990 and 2003. Why? Because, beginning in 1997, Europe decided to really commit itself to the fight against climate change. First, agreements were reached with its partners, sovereign countries, and then action plans were implemented. If it was possible in Europe, why could it not be done here in Canada?

If we give ourselves the means, we can successfully reach our objective. The hon. member would prefer to take the Asia-Pacific partnership route. We hope that this government will not promote it in Bonn in a few days. We see were this government is headed: in Bonn, our Minister of the Environment will promote the Asia-Pacific partnership—as the hon. member just indicated—rather than promoting Kyoto. The environment minister's responsibility in Bonn is to promote Kyoto, not destroy it.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the mover's sentiments. The government is obviously not committed to Kyoto either in appearance or in fact.

One of the illusions in the budget that was tabled in the House was the monthly transit pass tax credit. The member will probably know that about 95% of those moneys will go to existing transit riders and the initiative suggests that this will increase ridership by 5% to 7%. However, all of those who are involved in those files will know that there is not that kind of capacity in the existing system which means that there will have to be very significant investment in transit right across the country.

Having said that, if all these are subsidized public transit systems in any event, that likely means the cost of transit will go up to eat up any of the value of the credit. The bottom line is that none of this has anything to do with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions because most, if not all, of the benefit will go to existing transit riders.

Would the member like to comment on the government's illusion with regard to its efforts regarding greenhouse gas reductions?

(1040)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras:

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why our motion calls for an effective plan. The only measure in the budget—the transit pass tax credit—will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any significant way. Once again, this is a very expensive measure. According to Department of Finance estimates, the cost per tonne of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be roughly $2,000.

I have the feeling that the initial measures in the plan and the steps taken by the new government to fight climate change are very much along the same lines as the previous government's strategy, which consisted in investing more than $3.7 billion in combatting climate change while allowing greenhouse gas emissions to increase.

We need effective measures that will get the most out of every dollar spent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I will try to ask my question in French, even though it contains a lot of technical terms and this is very difficult for me.

I realized that the current situation in Canada is a disaster in terms of respecting the Kyoto protocol. The Liberals were in power for 13 years, and we are seeing the numbers now. It is a disaster. Now we have a government that wants to go to Europe to hold discussions with our friend that does not believe in the Kyoto protocol.

My question is this: I know that the member strongly believes in the Kyoto protocol and in preventing climate change. At the same time, he supported a budget that is a disaster when it comes to respect for the environment. Many people in Quebec and the rest of Canada saw that the budget eliminated some environmental programs and will eliminate others. We have lost another year.

In return for its support for such a budget, did the Bloc negotiate with the Conservatives and extract a promise that they would improve the part of the budget that pertains to the Kyoto protocol and the environment?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras:

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to clearly state that we are not in favour of this government eliminating or cancelling programs to fight climate change. Every day, we learn that some other such program has been cancelled. What we are saying is that we wish to have an immediate moratorium on the cancellation of programs to fight climate change, while we wait to see the real direction that this new government intends to take on the issue, and before it goes ahead with cuts. My colleague knows full well that, at the last parliamentary committee, I requested that the deputy minister and member of Treasury Board appear in order to explain what evaluation had been conducted last fall of the programs to fight climate change. That would provide the best possible idea of the measures to be taken.

With regard to the budget, I invite my colleague to read page 12 of the budget speech, where the government has undertaken to set aside $2 billion dollars for a future climate change program. That certainly worries us because we do not know how Ottawa will spend that money under the program.

I believe that we must ensure that this government does not make wholesale cuts to climate change programs, since organizations are currently losing funding and we do not really know where the government is going in terms of a climate change plan. What we want today is a commitment that the government will present a plan to fight climate change that will incorporate the Kyoto protocol objectives. I am convinced that the member will support our efforts today.

(1045)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn (Minister of Natural Resources, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and am pleased to give my first speech sitting on this side of the House. It is quite exciting to have the honour not only to represent the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands but also to serve in the cabinet of the government, something for which I am grateful.

I am pleased to talk about the Bloc motion and the importance of the issue that it has brought before the House. I want to talk about where we are going, the importance of the environment to this country and energy efficiency. The Government of Canada is committed to bringing forward solutions to these problems in the coming months and years ahead. That is exactly why, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, $2 billion was committed in the government's first budget to these issues. I want to ensure everybody is aware of that. We want to ensure that taxpayers get the very best value for the $2 billion.

The motion on the floor by my hon. friend from the Bloc calls for us to specifically achieve the Kyoto targets. The problem is that these targets, as everybody is becoming increasingly aware, are unwieldy. After 13 years of government action we must be realistic. That is what we are saying. Everybody here wants to turn the curve down, so we can have a far better record.

However the truth is, and I believe even my friend from Bloc who I have great respect for and have known for many years would agree, that greenhouse gases under the previous government have gone up each and every single year that the Liberals were in office. Nobody will dispute that. They signed on to a climate change program and set a target of minus 6%, but today Canada is 35% above the Liberal set targets. That is the Liberal record, make no mistake about it.

We want to do something about that. We want to see meaningful progress in this area. Has it been a priority of this government in its first 100 days in office? Absolutely, yes. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment had discussions on how we can achieve it. We must work together. We must be like gears that are going to mesh if we are going to achieve results and that is what we are committed to doing.

It is not surprising, given the ad hoc approach by the previous government, that some of these programs have been in the headlines. One has to ask what the purpose was of the previous government's programs that it introduced. What was its intention? Let us call a spade a spade. The truth is that lot of those programs were designed to garner headlines. Let us be honest about that.

I go back to what was said by the hon. member. If some of the programs were doing everything they were supposed to, would greenhouse gases be at 35% above the targets? Is that where we would be today?

I can tell the House that in my department there were 115 or 116 programs when the Conservatives took office and 97 of them are intact and working. Yes, there were some programs that we looked at and felt were not in the taxpayers' interests. I will get into those a little more specifically. Were they achieving their goals? No.

Former Liberal aid Tom Axworthy himself said that a press release is not a policy. I would respectfully submit that is what taxpayers saw a lot of in the previous Liberal government. It is no secret that it was preoccupied with creating billion dollar programs, be it the gun registry or HRDC. We saw it over and over again. I would submit that it did not have respect for taxpayers' dollars. Taxpayers have spoken very clearly on this. We have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and they get value for their money. That is exactly what we are going to do.

(1050)

Some people out there are trying to defend some of these programs and I admit there were parts of them that were probably on the positive side of the scale. I fully acknowledge that, but it is a little late. After 13 years in office, on their death bed, in their last year in office the Liberals said, “Well, we better get serious about this. Maybe this is a mainstream issue”. I accept that the environment is a mainstream issue. It is for me. It is for my colleagues and we are going to do something about it. We are focused on bringing results.

The previous government, in the last four or five years, spent $4 billion on some of its so-called programs. I ask my hon. friend, where are the results? It is not a record of which I would be proud. These are numbers that are indisputable. We will not hear the members opposite stand and discount that the GHGs are 35% above their own targets today. These are numbers set by professionals in the industry, people in departments, not by the people in the Conservative Party. These are absolute raw facts and we absolutely have to do better.

The other part that I struggle with, and I know my hon. colleague will be speaking later, is the spending of billions and billions of dollars to buy credits offshore. In many cases these countries that wanted to buy these credits did not have to do anything because places like Russia, that may have had a collapse in its economy, actually have excess to sell. It is important to note that not one iota of difference was made in the environment. Not one ounce of greenhouse gases would be reduced. We would give billions and billions of dollars to foreign countries. Is that what the taxpayers want us to do? I do not think so.

That is why we are working on biofuels. I know there are discussions right on the front end, a commitment by this Prime Minister that we can make a difference in this area. We want to see results. That is exactly why the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environment are saying, “Let us make sure this works. Make sure we get it right”.

We have meetings coming up with the industries, stakeholders and provincial representatives. We want to hear from everybody and we want to move on it. We want to get our fundamentals right and we want to make a difference.

Moving forward, what is the vision? Where are we going? We are not going to shy away from the problem, but we are not going to play politics with it either. We are not going to worry about headlines. We are not going to play politics with environmental program spending. We want to spend tax dollars on programs that are going to increase energy efficiency.

I acknowledge that there are some people upset about EnerGuide, and yes, we will follow through on those commitments, but let us be honest. Let us be absolutely and painfully clear. This is a program where 50¢ of every dollar went to inspections, administration and overhead. Not a penny of that 50¢ did anything to clean up the environment. I do not think that is very efficient for an energy-efficient program.

Are there parts of that program that we could use? I am a builder. I am a journeyman carpenter. I just built a new home. I put in an energy-efficient heating system. I put in a heat exchanger because there is good value. I understand there are people doing that with some of this money. We will look at things like that where we can see a difference, but we have a fiduciary obligation, as I said earlier, to ensure that taxpayers are getting value and that we maximize the benefits.

The Prime Minister takes this very seriously. He has instructed every single person in his cabinet on how seriously he takes this. That is why we have to make these decisions and that is exactly what we are doing.

(1055)

I talked about the record. Let us talk about the 2005 record. Do members know where Canada ranked out of the industrialized nations in environmental integrity? Canada was 28 out of 30. These are absolute facts.

The Liberal environmental critic ran for one party and now for another party. I am not sure where he is going. His record is the same on the environment. He is for Kyoto. He is against Kyoto. He voted against Kyoto. Now he is its champion. I remind all Canadians to look at the numbers and to look at the facts. They cannot be fooled. The record is very clear.

How can the government do better? How can we make a difference? Let us talk about the Asia-Pacific partnership. There are six countries there: the United States, Japan, Korea, India, China and Australia. Those six countries represent 50% of greenhouse gases globally. Where can the government get the greatest investment? Is it by sending billions of dollars off to places such as Russia where it will not make any difference? Or do we invest that money in technology? Should Canada develop things such as clean coal technology? Industry is on the cusp of developing technologies to provide very clean and efficient energy. Then, does Canada give that technology to places such as China and India, which would have an enormous impact on global greenhouse gases?

I submit that is a far better investment in dollars. We can become the leader in innovation and technology right here in Canada. That is what Canada needs to do.

I have said earlier that the government is committed to renewable fuels. One of the first things we will see pertains to biofuels. The government wants to set targets and then enforce those targets. The government will ensure that those targets are met. The government is working with the people in the industry and they tell us they can meet the targets. The government will work with the industries and it will happen. We will deliver.

The government will promote the technology side. Canada has the ability and the technologies developing that can capture from some of the large final emitters 100% of CO₂ gases and then pump the gas back down into the ground where it came from. At the present time there is a project where they take back the CO₂ gas that is trucked from the United States to a test facility in Saskatchewan and it is pumped back into the ground. This is working.

I have had discussions with industry. I am pushing industry and saying that we want to invest in this, but it must also. The government is pushing the industry hard, but industry must put a lot more money into the research and technology. If Canada is to win at this game, it will require the federal government, the provincial governments, and the industry to come together. It will require the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to get together and say, “How can we work together? How can we make this happen?”

This is not about us. It is not about them. It is about what is good for Canada. More importantly, if Canada succeeds it can share that with our global partners. I think everyone will win.

Canada wants to ensure that it cleans up the environment. Canada wants to clean up the air and the water. In this budget, on the environment, the government committed $500 million to clean up the nuclear waste liability at Chalk River. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. Did the previous government have the commitment to make that investment? No. Was it in the first budget of the new Conservative government? Absolutely. Why? It was there because it is the right thing to do and it had to be done.

The government must also change how Canadians think. I firmly believe that. The government needs to have an ongoing discussion on what is the best way to change how Canadians think. There is no question that Canadians are moving in the direction of a cleaner environment. SUV sales are falling and hybrid sales are increasing significantly. Hybrid sales rose 68% this month over the previous month. SUV sales have fallen dramatically over the past year. Why? It is because Canadians also want to do their part.

(1100)

Do they have to be paid with their own money? I do not think so. Do we want to work with them? Do we want to encourage them to do that? Absolutely. Canadians cannot be fooled. They also want to ensure that we will succeed.

The tax deduction on transit passes announced in the budget is an enormous step forward in this regard. We should not minimize it. We are encouraging people to move forward, to get out of their cars in some of the most polluted air basins.

What about the previous government's record? We have seen the increase in smog days. We have heard about them in Toronto, Vancouver and some of the most polluted air basins. A huge part of that pollution comes from automobiles. Can we get people out of their cars? Are we moving in that direction? Absolutely.

We want to achieve results. I look forward to working with my hon. friend and with members of all parties. I know my hon. friend from the Bloc is very genuine. He wants to see us move forward.

It should be no surprise to my hon. friend who put the motion forward that every single program the Liberals created is not working. The Liberals are aware that they were the masters of creating billion dollar programs, whether they funnelled money into their own party as we have seen in the past or whether they put a billion dollars into the gun registry. We saw lots of that. We have seen the Auditor General's reports.

Mr. Speaker, you were probably in this chamber before I was born.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Gary Lunn: Well, maybe not that long, Mr. Speaker. I mean this with the highest respect, Mr. Speaker, but as the dean of this chamber, there are not many people who have that honour, and you have been here a long time.

Members need to work together. If we are going to win on this file, we have to remove the partisan hats. We have to work together. We have to find solutions. We are committed to doing that. Yes, where there are inefficiencies, where there are programs that are not working, although there might have been a great sales job done on them, we are not going to be afraid to make tough decisions.

I will be frank. Officials have said to me that this is a pretty popular program. But 50¢ on the dollar is not doing anything for the environment. Is that efficient? I do not think so.

I have highlighted a few examples. We are coming forward with deliverables. Canadians will see that in the weeks and months ahead as we move forward. We are meeting with stakeholders daily. The Minister of the Environment and I talk on a daily basis on how important it is to integrate. Her officials from the Department of the Environment and staff from the Department of Natural Resources have travelled across the country already in our first three months in office to talk to the stakeholders, to find areas in which we can improve, to do the blue sky thinking, to brainstorm and think outside of the box. How can we deliver programs, how can we create programs that are actually going to make a difference to the bottom line?

My hon. friend has brought the motion forward with the greatest intent, which is genuine but I ask him to look at the record of the old Liberal government on this file.It is abysmal to say the least, without question. We have inherited an absolute mess.

I heard the Liberals grandstand in the House yesterday about the Minister of the Environment and the challenges in front of her. There is probably not a minister who has a more difficult task in trying to untangle the mess that she inherited. Those are the facts. Members across the aisle are scoffing at me.

Greenhouse gases are 35% above the Liberals' own targets, the ones they set. They have gone up each and every single year since they took office. They did not even begin to think about getting serious until the last year they were in office, and I would suggest they were not serious then because they knew they were on their way out and they thought, holy jumping, they had better do something.

(1105)

That is the truth. Those are the facts and they cannot dispute them.

Let me conclude by saying that we are going to follow a new path that is effective, transparent and achievable. My hon. colleague will be speaking later. On this side of the House we look forward to working with every single MP. The door is open. We want to hear the ideas of members. We want to work with members. If we succeed on this file, Canada succeeds and we can help the world succeed.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments to make before I ask my question.

First, it is a shame to see the Minister of Natural Resources rise as the government's lead spokesperson in this debate instead of the Minister of the Environment. That is significant. This says a lot about how this government feels about managing the future plan to fight climate change.

Second, by trying to kill efforts made since 1997 to fight climate change, the minister must realize that he will be partly to blame for Canada's poor record at Bonn. It is a bit sad to see the minister use the failed Liberal approach as an excuse to abandon the Kyoto protocol.

When he talks about the supposed failure of the EnerGuide program he is proving that this government does not have a clue about how to fight climate change. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source.

The denunciation and abolition of the EnerGuide program show that to him energy efficiency must not be taken into consideration in a future plan to fight climate change.

We on this side of the House feel that reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source and energy efficiency have to be two important chapters in a future plan to fight climate change. Claiming that EnerGuide did not clean up the environment proves he knows nothing about the principles of energy efficiency.

I have another concern—and I can hear the minister sharing his comments. I am disappointed that he is speaking today as the promoter of the Asia-Pacific partnership when he should be promoting the Kyoto protocol. This does not bode well for the future.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn:

Mr. Speaker, the member said it was unfortunate the Minister of the Environment was not the first speaker. The Minister of the Environment is sitting right beside me and was in the House for the very first speech. This demonstrates her support for the integrated approach. We are working together, and I will be here when she speaks. It is about working together, not about who goes first or who goes second. We have to get over that.

If we are going to succeed, we absolutely need to be a unified team and move forward. That is what is happening on this side. I invite the hon. member to participate in that team, to bring forward solutions.

As for the results of the previous government and presenting the disastrous news, I agree, it is disastrous news that we inherited from the previous Liberal government. We are working to change that. I look forward to the hon. member's support in doing that.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his first speech. I hope he will not have an opportunity to do too many as a minister, but we will see how that goes.

I want to talk about Kyoto and my position on Kyoto. The fact is I have always believed in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is I was opposed to ratification before the government implemented or had a plan. That is why once the Liberal government implemented a plan, a plan that made sense in budget 2004, a budget that was in fact referred to by the Sierra Club as the greenest budget in the history of Canada, I supported that plan, and I am now opposed to a government that is systematically tearing apart that plan.

It is important to realize that while the Conservatives are critical of the Liberal record on climate change, there was a 13 year period of growth during which the economy grew by 43%. Exports of energy to the United States grew by 52%. It is extremely difficult to have economic growth particularly driven by fossil fuel energy without having a commensurate increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

I find it ironic that the Conservatives who take credit for the economic success of these times actually blame the Liberals for putting the natural gas and oil under the ground when it comes to the environment. The fact is that budget 2004 and our environmental plan had the capacity to work, and in fact were working.

The minister mentioned that the Minister of the Environment has the most difficult task in the Conservative government. I would agree with that. It must be tremendously difficult to be the Minister of the Environment in a government that does not care about the environment.

As to his comments on why he spoke first, it would seem that for the government, ministers of the environment are better seen and not heard. I would argue that the environment should be taking a front seat in this debate, not natural resources.

Beyond that, if the minister is so interested in the efficacy of environmental programs, why did he cut the EnerGuide program which was 100 times more efficient based on Environment Canada's own facts? Environment Canada said that the EnerGuide program was 100 times more efficient than the transit pass program. Why would he cut that program?

(1110)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn:

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I go back a long way. I agree with him that the old Liberal Party did not have a plan. That hon. member voted against Kyoto, as did I, because there was no plan.

We are working on bringing forward solutions that will clean the air, that will clean up the environment, that will have a meaningful impact and where the taxpayers will get the greatest value for those investments. That is exactly what we are focused on.

For the Liberals to say, and the environment critic just said it, that they developed a plan in 2004, what were they doing for the 10 years before that? Is that not a little late? The Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol in 1995, if I am correct.

An hon. member: It was 1997.

Hon. Gary Lunn: It was 1997. I know some discussions were going on before that, so I knew it was in that timeframe.

Nevertheless, what were the Liberals doing? It is not okay to wait until they are on their deathbed, until they are on their way out of office before doing something.

The government is doing something now. It is doing something today and people will see deliverable results. I look for every member to come forward with solutions and to work with this government so that all of Canada will be better off and all of Canada will win.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, the minister was right on one thing. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and the environmental mess left behind was even greater than when they started. There is no question about that.

I would like to give a bit of a history lesson here. When those members were in opposition for all those years, how many proactive questions did they ask on the environment? They probably asked less questions than the number of fingers on one hand.

That party said, “global warming is a myth”. It said that it was not true. For years the Conservatives did not support supply management for farmers. Now they say they support it. Now they say global warming is a problem.

If my colleague truly believes in cooperation among parliamentarians, does he not believe that Canada cannot address environmental issues independently of itself, that it needs to work in a global atmosphere with all countries in the world, not just China and the U.S.? Kyoto is not perfect. We in the NDP and others would like to see even stronger elements within Kyoto to make real targets and to meet them. When 100 countries can agree on at least something, that in itself is a good basis for a start. Would he not at least agree with that?

One of the first acts of the minister was to say, very clearly, that the Conservatives had a plan when they were in opposition. However, the budget comes out and they allocate all this money for the environment without a plan. How can they say that when they were in opposition, they had a plan, then budget funds without plan? The member says they are working on it, but that is not good enough.

(1115)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Gary Lunn:

Mr. Speaker, after our 13th year in government, I am sure that party will be very proud of our results, unlike the previous government.

I want to talk about cooperation. The Minister of the Environment is genuinely committed to this issue. The member and I were both elected in 1997. We sat on the fisheries committee together. The two of us worked together on many files for the betterment of the fishery. We wrote reports together. We had meetings in the evening. This is not about New Democrats, or Conservatives or Liberals. The chair of the committee, the Hon. George Baker, worked with us as well. That was a most cohesive committee.

That is my track record on being sincere, genuine and looking for solutions. I am sure if the hon. member had a chance to respond, he would confirm that. That is my commitment to him today. I ask him to bring forward the ideas of the NDP because we do want to hear them.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yukon.

It is notable that the five priorities of the government do not include the environment, which is clearly a top priority for Canadians. The government is driven by ideologies. It is driven by a neo-Conservative ideological perspective not only against Kyoto, but against the science behind Kyoto.

The Prime Minister said this about greenhouse gas emissions, “It is a scientific hypothesis and a controversial one. This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa”. The Prime Minister does not even believe in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. It is very difficult for a minster of the environment to serve with a government whose leader does not even believe in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions.

It is important to note that the government is off base on a number of priorities.

When Canada needs early learning and child care centres, the government wants to build prisons. When global competition is becoming fiercer every day, the Conservative government's tax cuts are focused on buying votes, not on building prosperity. When global warming is not just a threat but a reality, the Conservative government is the only government in the world to cut environmental investment.

As a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, Canada pledged to work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberal government understood the critical importance of a healthy environment and a healthy economy. This is a priority for Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It is a priority for Canadians living in coastal communities, as I do, whose very land mass and economic activity and lives are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It is a priority for Canadians living in the north whose livelihoods are dependent on Arctic ecosystems which are being dramatically altered by a shorter freeze of the arctic waters. It is a priority for Canadians living in our prairie provinces whose agriculture yields have been adversely affected by catastrophic droughts, floods and volatile temperature changes.

(1120)

[Translation]

Canadians in all parts of our beautiful country have become far too familiar with smog alerts, due not only to poor air quality in urban centres, but also to the effects of greenhouse gases which trap heat and toxins in the atmosphere.

In Montreal as in many cities, on smoggy days, our most vulnerable citizens, namely seniors and children, are forced to stay indoors.

[English]

Despite the obvious realities, the government's approach to climate change is about as enlightened as those who still believe that the earth is flat. Environmental experts everywhere support urgent action on global climate change. The government refuses to listen.

The Liberal government had put in place programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in industrial, residential and transport settings, important programs that had enlisted the energy, talent and passion of Canadians in the private sector in meeting this challenge head on. The new government is now systematically killing these programs.

The Sierra Club has said this about the Conservative government's recent actions on climate change:

Whereas the rest of the world is striving to reduce emissions and assisting those who are most vulnerable to high energy prices, this government seems set to do the opposite.

The David Suzuki Foundation said:

It’s hypocritical to chair a process that you don’t want to be part of...We’re asking [the Minister of the Environment] to step down because the international climate change process needs—and deserves—someone who will champion the Kyoto Protocol.

Clearly the environment is not one of the Conservatives' top five priorities. It is probably not in its top 100 priorities. However, it is a priority for Canadians. The health, economic and social well-being of Canadians are at stake and they have entrusted us to protect and promote their interests.

[Translation]

This government maintains that there is no point continuing, since Canada will not be meeting its Kyoto targets. It fails to mention, however, that over the past 13 years, our energy exports increased by 52% while the economy grew by 43%, largely in the energy sector, which is the main cause of the increase in our emissions.

It is possible to have economic growth while at the same time having responsible environmental policies. This entails providing incentives for investment and for consumers as well.

[English]

Governments everywhere in the world are doing that. They are investing in the environment. They are putting in place incentives for consumers and for businesses to do that. That is what the Liberal government did. That is why the 2004 budget was referred to by the Sierra Club as one of the greenest budgets in the history of Canada.

What has the Conservative government done? It has said goodbye to the one tonne challenge, a program that encouraged Canadians to change their lifestyles to respect the environment. It is goodbye to the EnerGuide retrofit program, designed to help low income Canadians to save money on energy and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a program that was documented by Environment Canada officials as being one hundred times more efficient than the government's bus transit pass program.

That is why the international environmental community is asking for the Minister of the Environment to resign her presidency of the UN climate change conference in Bonn. It is the international environmental community that is now ready to say goodbye to that minister.

John Bennett, chair of the Climate Action Network has this to say about the Conservative Party, “This party that's in power now campaigned about the dishonesty of other parties and on this issue of Kyoto, they couldn't be more dishonest than they're behaving right now....An honourable minister doesn't continue to participate in something they disagree with”.

Why does the government not apply some determination to meeting the challenge of climate change and engaging Canadians in that? Climate change is a long term commitment and it does not end with the first reporting period of Kyoto in 2012. In fact, it is just the beginning.

(1125)

[Translation]

Environmental policies have to be used to create favourable conditions and promote economic growth.

[English]

The growth of clean energy technology in Canada not only improves the environmental performance of Canadian companies, but it has attracted investment in cleaner and more energy efficient technologies, which have strengthened the competitiveness of Canadian firms.

Equally important is the environmental leadership of Canadian companies in the global marketplace. Canadian companies have identified the nexus between the environmental stewardship and competitive performance, developing export markets for clean technologies and processes in countries like China, India and Brazil. It is important to recognize that we gain Kyoto credits when we help countries like China, India and Brazil get the clean energy technologies they need.

I can only lament the myopic lens which impairs the government's ability to see the enormous opportunity for Canadian technologies in these developing markets.

Project Green, announced by the Liberal government in April 2005, was a bold and deliberate approach to ecological fiscal reform as a fundamental means of achieving our Kyoto commitments. Our plan included important measures, measures that had been successfully demonstrated in other progressive jurisdictions. We cannot expect a plan on something as long term as reducing greenhouse gas emissions to have an overnight effect. It takes time. The fact is the plan was there, it was working and it would have worked, but the Conservatives are killing that plan based on a narrow ideological perspective and a lack of believe in the basic science behind greenhouse gas emissions.

We put in place incentives for emissions reductions for large final emitters. We put in place a greenhouse gas technology investment fund, which was designed to fund development of technologies for companies that were unable to meet negotiated targets. The climate fund was established to purchase GHG credits from firms which environmental stewardship resulted in their achieving the GHG credits. We engaged the private sector actively in what is an international imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our government made a priority of working with Canadians and engaging consumers, the private sector and other levels of government in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was a priority for us because it is a priority for Canadians.

It is not a priority for the Conservative government. I would urge the government to reverse the cuts of environmental program spending, programs that were working and could have worked and had the capacity to not only build a more vigorous 21st century economy, but also a cleaner, greener planet.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague and naturally assume that he supports the first part of the Bloc motion in particular. This motion wants the government to take the necessary measures to comply with the Kyoto protocol. He also seems to think that it is imperative for the government to table a new plan by October 15, 2006.

I know that my hon. colleague is a candidate in the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Does he intend to be similarly open to the second part of the Bloc motion, which is to say that the government’s plan should include a bilateral agreement with Quebec, which could be based on a territorial approach?

Is he prepared to indicate from his seat that this plan that the government will introduce should include the bilateral agreement based on a territorial approach and recognize—I emphasize this point—the efforts Quebec has made since 1990 to fight greenhouse gas emissions? Actually, Quebec has one of the best records in Canada when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Is he open to signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec that takes its efforts into account?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague’s question.

First, national approaches are needed to deal with environmental questions. To do this, we will also have to work together with all the provincial governments.

I too have a question. If the Bloc member is against the Conservative government’s decision to eliminate the programs to reduce greenhouse gases, why did the Bloc support the Conservative budget, which does exactly that?

I have a hard time understanding why the Bloc supports this Conservative budget, which cuts back and eliminates many environmental programs. Why does he support a Conservative government, which is the only government in the world that is reducing environmental programs?

I have absolutely no doubt that the member is very sincere about his environmental concerns, but I have a hard time understanding his actions and his support for the Conservatives and their budget.

(1130)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, what a historic debate this is as we watch the Liberal Party make its attempts at spinning what was an environmental disaster over the last 13 years. The numbers do not lie; they counter the spin, the announcements and all the confetti. Compared to many of our competitors, who actually did something after the 1997 signing of Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, emissions went through the roof under the Liberals' watch.

I know the hon. member clearly believes in the issues of environmentalism and has had a conversion around the whole concept of Kyoto, first disagreeing with it and now agreeing, but I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about how the productivity of the economy had gone up so much and how, as a consequence, clearly emissions must have soared as well. Do he and his party connect economic prosperity with environmental degradation?

If not, why did the former minister of the environment stand in this place and say that the only reason greenhouse gas emissions had gone up was that our economy had succeeded? Is that a fundamental belief within the Liberal Party of Canada or is it just the mild cynicism that has been shown by the various members when debating this issue?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Scott Brison:

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about it, if in fact there were a direct relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, then an NDP government would not have to worry about environmental degradation because there sure as heck would not be any economic growth.

The fact is that when there is a 43% growth in the economy resulting directly from a disproportionate growth in energy exports, and in fact a 52% increase in energy exports to the U.S., those are from the worst emitters. It does impose an extra burden on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and it did.

During a transitional economy, it is important now that we invest in the kinds of innovative technologies that enable economic growth to coexist with environmental stewardship. In fact, it can. Companies and governments can--

[Table of Contents]

The Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I see the member getting wound up for a speech and I cannot tell him that his time has expired if he never looks at the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret, and all scientists agree, that under the Liberal government Canada has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases. During those years, as we know, Canada also had, under many parameters, the best economy in the world. Of course, this paid great dividends to Canadians. It allowed us huge increases for students, for the biggest environmental budget in Canadian history and for seniors, health care, equalization and transfer payments, foreign aid, research and development, and the disabled.

Of course, when the economy is so good, it also leads to huge increases in greenhouses gases--and there is also the oil sands development--although I do not know what the figure is, perhaps 150% to 200%. Having the most successful and expanding economy, which led to those increases in greenhouse gases, also gave us the largest challenge of any nation in the world in trying to reach our Kyoto targets. That is why the Liberal government developed a very aggressive plan.

For today's speech, I will break that plan down into a series of plans. In spite of this increase of 150% or 200% or whatever it is in greenhouse gases because of the economy doing so well, we have still kept it down to roughly 135% so far, but the major and very complex programs that took so long to carefully put in place and negotiate are on the verge of reducing greenhouse gases substantially more toward our targets.

I will outline these plans quickly so I can get them all into my speech. Basically they are two-pronged. First, we have been dramatically cutting emissions in reducing the use of energy. There are numbers of programs for that. Second, the other is to support renewable technology, new technologies that do not emit any or as much greenhouse gases.

Plan one was a $1 billion green fund, which would support green projects to reduce greenhouse gases. It is also a catalyst for new technologies. What do the Conservatives have in this area? Nothing. There is no plan.

Plan two provided up to $2 billion for partnerships. This would lever even more than the $4 billion in total because it would get provinces, territories and all of Canada involved. We need to lever this funding and have everyone involved when it is such a critical challenge for Canadians. What have the Conservatives announced in this area? Nothing.

Plan three provided $200 million for quadrupling the wind power incentive in Canada. That is enough for one million homes. What have the Conservatives announced in that area? Nothing. There is no plan.

Plan four provided $97 million for renewable power production. Some examples are support for small hydro, biomass and landfill gases. What have the Conservatives announced in that area? There are no plans. There is nothing.

Plan five was incentives for biomass. In that area, there were a number of incentives. As members know, we have supported a number of new ethanol plants. Not only do they cut greenhouse gases, but they also offer big support for farmers. This gives them another area in which to sell their products. Once again, we have heard no details of any plan in that area.

Plan six was the quadrupling of the EnerGuide. Another $225 million was provided to improve the energy efficiency of houses. It allowed all Canadians to participate. Government itself cannot deal with this huge challenge. Why would it have been recommended that the program be quadrupled if the program was not working? There were 500,000 homes in Canada in the program. Some parliamentarians actually spoke about not hearing of Canadians cutting greenhouse gases, but 500,000 Canadians are aware of it. In fact, I think the Conservative government has actually cut some or all of that program. Of course there were expenses in that program for house inspectors, but that is what part of the program is designed for.

Plan seven provided $200 million for a sustainable energy, science and technology strategy. When R and D is slashed for things such as this in this country, like last budget did, it is obviously going to be very critical for the future of our children. New technologies for transportation are the key to cutting greenhouse gases and we were moving in that direction.

(1135)

Plan eight, the green municipal fund, is a great success story, as everyone knows. For over a decade, the leader of the NDP was very complimentary in praising this program. The former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was of course a real champion in funding this program for municipalities across the country. In the tight times, when there were large deficits and we had to cut expenditures, I remember how excited I was all those years ago because he increased that funding when he was finance minister. Over the years, over a billion dollars has been invested in green infrastructure projects in municipalities, with this made in Canada plan cutting tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Plan nine funds were for brownfields. It is very important to municipalities to clean them up.

Plan 10, made in Canada, was to cut greenhouse gases with clean power generation. This has been inspired through tax cuts. I am sure the Conservative government would at least agree with tax cuts. We put the capital cost allowance for these green power generations up from 30% to 50%.

Plan 11 is clean coal. Once we scrub out the NO_x and the SO_x, carbon dioxide can be one of the cleanest fuels in the world. As members know, we are leading in new technologies in that area. It is very exciting.

In plan 12, biomass, if we manage forests and farms and once again in a special way make them more efficient, we can cut greenhouse gases. Canada has some of the leading scientists in this, and not having a plan for this would be a insult to the public service of Canada. Some of them are in our departments, in NRCan and the environment department, and they are leading the world in the reduction of greenhouse gases by these methods. I have been to their conferences and have spoken there, and I have seen their scientific papers and the tremendous work they are doing.

Plan 13, made in Canada, is carbon sequestration. Once again this is another area in which Canada leads the world and where we are reducing huge amounts of greenhouse gases. There is enough potential there, by some estimates, to take all of Canada's greenhouse gases.

For plan 14, the last speaker mentioned this technology, which is that we are helping China with technologies. I cannot imagine that any parliamentarian thinks that all the greenhouse gases harming us come from Canada.

Plan 15, made in Canada, is landfill waste, for which Alberta has some great projects.

Plan 16 is the east-west grid. When we can share electricity that does not produce greenhouse gases, it is obviously a benefit.

Plan 17 is the EnerGuide for low income people. What more noble initiative can there be for the Government of Canada?

For all these plans, of course, we have heard nothing new announced by the Conservative government.

Plan 18, made in Canada, is about the mandatory plan for large final emitters, which is huge, with 700 companies and the potential for three megatonnes or even more in cutting greenhouse gases. This is legislated. I could tell members much more about this, but I do not have enough time left.

Plan 19, made in Canada, is that once again we are leading the world, this time with an auto emissions reduction plan, which means another potential five megatonnes. It is argued by many that through fuel savings and hybrid power trains these would be the best auto emissions in the world. It is even better because it is voluntary, not mandatory, which means we get much more buy-in and much more effectiveness.

Plan 20 is the one tonne challenge which, as everyone knows, has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes.

Plan 21 is for BIOCAP. I have not heard anything about the government supporting this.

Plan 22, made in Canada, has to do with solar power.

There we have it, 22 made in Canada plans that have reduced thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases in Canada. What did we hear when the government took power? We heard that something like 15 programs have been cut right off the bat. They were just allowed to expire. The government did not even have to cut them.

This great opportunity for Canada has been lost. We were on the cusp of these new technologies with all these programs. We could have sold them to the world. Now we are going to be forced to buy them from other countries. Canada is going to have to pay other countries for these technologies that we were developing and that have now been cut.

(1140)

I would like members to think of a scenario. Imagine a hospital in Calgary during a snowstorm and all the patients have been put out on the street because someone has said, “We are going to do it better. We are going to have a better hospital. We are going to have a better plan, but for now there is no plan. We are going to cut the money in half. There will be a better plan, but until we do that, sit on the street”.

We should not eliminate a whole host of somewhat effective plans, some more effective than others, and then have nothing to replace them with when Canada is in such a crisis. The Conservative government certainly must be held to account for that.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken often with the member on this file. His region of the world in the far north is one of those regions most affected by government inaction when it comes to climate change. It affects those folks who depend on subsistence lifestyles. The very nature and makeup of our north has fundamentally shifted.

The debate is essentially over with respect to the impacts of climate change. In the Auditor General's report on his previous government's action with respect to climate change, $3.7 billion had been announced, yet when the auditors took a look at the books after that money was meant to have been spent, a little under $1.1 billion, less than a third of the money promised, had actually been rolled out and spent.

There are communities across the region that I represent in the northwest of British Columbia that have projects on the table, designed with architects to reduce their emissions. Many of the programs the member mentioned had restrictions in them that were impossible to meet and none of the programs were funded. I know he has municipalities that face the same challenge.

Again, the question goes to his party's argument that we exported a lot of gas to the United States, we subsidized the oil and gas sector in the amount of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion a year to create those incentives so that they could do those exports and raise our greenhouse gas, and therefore, it was impossible for us to make any of these reductions. All the while from 1997 to 2005 there was no plan in place at all.

The auditor herself said the government was gone before the confetti hit the floor. Could the member address some of those concerns?

(1145)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted my colleague brought up some points that I did not have time to get across in my speech. Of course, I have to remind him that my riding just north of his is much more beautiful. We always have that argument.

The member is absolutely right that it is far more critical in the Yukon and the territories where there is the greatest amount of global warming than anywhere else in the world. It is tied with Siberia. He is right. Our economy is being affected drastically.

Species are being affected. I could make a whole speech about it. The effects are already there. If anyone thinks it is not happening, it is already too late. That is why it is so devastating that the government has cut the adaptation part. We need adaptation as much as cutting because it is already there and we have to deal with crises.

I was delighted the member mentioned that of our $4 billion plan we had already implemented $1.7 billion in expenditures. I will be delighted to see how long it takes the present government to come up with that many expenditures to cut greenhouse gases. As I mentioned, there are 22 very significant programs. Canada is being praised by other countries and leading scientists around the world for some of those programs.

There are 500,000 Canadians involved. It certainly is a great spread. Some people may have been rejected, some of the programs may have been fully subscribed; I cannot get into the details, but certainly there are some success stories. It would be better to replace programs with something than to do nothing.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Malo (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, 90% of Quebeckers support the Kyoto protocol, and this support is very present in my riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes. Wherever I go, I always find individuals and groups who share with me their concerns about the degradation of our planet. They ask me to keep putting pressure on the government so it stops dithering when it comes to protecting our environment.

Young people are also concerned about this major issue, and rightly so. On April 29 of this year, at the Varennes youth festival, Mr. Gaétan Savoie, chairman of the event, recognized the exceptional work of Antoine Fillion, a 12-year-old environmentalist who collected signatures from 250 of his classmates, calling for concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and who continues his daily battle to save our environment.

I would like to have my colleague's advice on what I should tell Antoine and his friends and all those who ask me what long-term solutions have been put forward by the Conservative government to fight climate change. For the time being, all we know is that it is eliminating programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve energy efficiency, and it is turning its back on Kyoto with nothing but empty words. However, it is too late for empty words alone, and this is very troubling.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. It is devastating that the government has cut these programs. Quebeckers, especially the young people in Quebec, are so supportive of improving the environment and cutting greenhouse gases.

I hate to pick on a new member, but it is astonishing that the Bloc Québécois voted last June against $900 million in new programs for transit to cut greenhouse gas emissions to improve the environment. How could the Bloc Québécois go against Quebeckers' feelings on this? This gives me a chance to talk about the millions we also put into transit.

If Quebeckers are so supportive of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, how could the Bloc vote for a budget that totally emasculates $4 billion in greenhouse gas reduction programs?

(1150)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

What a remarkable turn of events. Come election time or in watching the House proceedings, Canadians often find themselves trying to distinguish between the various parties and their positions on key issues. Sometimes voters will lament that there is very little distinction these days, that political parties merely clamour for attention, that they are all in the middle and there is no difference between them.

Today we have the opportunity to speak about climate change, and I am very glad the member from the Bloc was able to bring the issue forward. I know the government of the day would not like to speak about it and the official opposition would prefer not to do so based upon its record. The government has various other reasons, but mostly because it does not have a plan.

We have the chance for the entire opposition day to discuss what most in the industry and most within environmental groups cite as the single greatest challenge and threat faced by us, our communities and our economy. We must speak primarily of the international commitments that Canada has made.

The government has talked vaguely but somewhat pointedly about the need to continue on and honour the commitments made by previous governments. The government has obviously thrown that away with respect to Kyoto and also now with respect to Kelowna, which is sad. Over many decades and sometimes not deservedly, Canada has earned itself a reputation as a country that engages the international community in a positive way, whether it was through former prime minister Pearson's work in the UN or eventually through such treaties as Kyoto.

The Liberal Party of Canada as early as 1993 made commitments, Liberal promises, if you will, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but once in power, the Liberals quickly went about doing the absolute opposite. For many who do not watch the Liberal Party closely, it might come as a surprise that someone could campaign year in and year out in election after election to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then do the opposite. Anyone who works in the child care industry will know that is just endemic of a party only looking to seek power. Emissions rose 25 % to 30%.

It is important to recognize that investment is the critical issue when it comes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is like someone starting to save for retirement at age 60. I know the Speaker is a much wiser man than that and would never recommend that to any of his constituents or friends. It is an extremely expensive way to go about making the investment that is needed for those retirement years.

Successive Liberal governments have not made the investments to improve the productivity and efficiency of the Canadian economy and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that it promised to do. There was a deathbed conversion as the Liberals were starting to sink in the polls and a plan finally came forward.

I can remember day after day the then minister of the environment saying that they had a plan, that it was coming, to just hang on and have a little patience. It took years, from the signing of it in 1997 to 2005, and what did we end up with? A discussion paper about climate change. There were no targets, no timelines and no strategy whatsoever. It was a vague and wandering report on the need to do something eventually and then the burden of making most of the reductions was put on the consumers rather than the large final emitters who made enough of a stink in the lobbies of this place to push them back. It was voluntary, nothing restrictive.

When the federal government along with Ontario was handing over some $400 million to General Motors, we said that the investment should be contingent on the automaker actually making more efficient cars. Here was an opportunity for public investment for the public good. The deal was signed, but there was nothing in it.

There was another moment when the previous government was faced with the opportunity to simply follow in the wake of California, New York and other progressive states in the United States to demand mandatory fuel efficiency and emissions requirements in cars. Instead, we got something voluntary, toothless and ineffective, a continuation of that pattern.

(1155)

The Conservatives are very interesting. It appears they have finally come to what most of the world has known for many years, that climate change caused by humans is in fact happening and it is in fact a threat to both our society and economy. For more than a year the Conservatives have stood in this place saying that they have a plan and not to worry. The reason the Conservatives would not release it, as the NDP did for discussion and debate in this place, as we were meant to do, is because, and I quote: “the other parties would steal our good ideas”. How noble.

The Conservatives have now arrived in government. Here is the great moment and the most effective tool that any government has is the release of the budget. It is the direction of the use of the tax system to direct Canada's economy, the use of the $180 billion plus every year that is collected on behalf of Canadians. It is the time for the government to do well for Canadians.

It is a perfect opportunity to enact this plan that is somewhere out there, but never been seen or heard from other than in this place. However, there is nothing. There is less than nothing. It is a stepping backwards in time, as if climate change was not a growing problem for Canadians, as if it was not a pressing problem for the entire world. Canadians have received nothing.

For a government that likes to speak of its business interests I say this to the government. Last year, when the committee studied Kyoto and the impacts of climate change on our economy, business group after business group came before the committee and said that making the efficiency requirements across the board will make Canada a more productive and competitive economy, particularly when looking to our partner south of the border. We look at Washington and President Bush in power, who has more interest in Texas than in trees, and there were so few moves on climate change.

There are groups such as the Mining Association of Canada, one of the large final emitters that the previous government would do nothing with and the present government will do less with, which came to us and said, “lo and behold, we thought Canada was serious when it signed on to this agreement in 1997. We thought the government was serious, so we went about making some of those reductions that we thought would eventually be enacted in law and nothing happened”. Well and good, it took the entire burden on and, lo and behold, it became more productive, more efficient and more profitable.

Certainly, to invest in our economy, to make it a more intelligent, efficient and greener economy, and to create the jobs that the NDP talked about in its plan released more than a year ago seemed to be the wise environmental and economic choice. Now we have members in the House suggesting that to make environmental decisions is to threaten and hurt our economy.

What do we have? We have a Conservative Party that says it is always wrong to associate money without actually having a spending plan in place. The government's answer in the budget to climate change and the growing and pressing need from Canadians is to assign $2 billion with no plan in place. This is bad fiscal management. It allows the industry and Canadians no certainty as to what they can invest in.

There is no greater example for now. We know there are other cuts coming and the government has to make a number of them for all their little populous tax plans. The EnerGuide program has been cut. We have provinces and homeowners wondering what the plans will be. What should homeowners do about the retrofit that they wanted to do to lower the cost and the burden for their household with the dramatically increasing cost of energy? What should they do? Should they press ahead? Homeowners say that they cannot afford it. There are seniors on fixed incomes and they simply cannot afford it. The government was playing a small role. The NDP suggested that the government play a larger role. Instead, the government ripped the whole program out and left people high and dry.

The NDP is calling upon the government, and within the context of this debate we hope to be joined by all members in the House, that this small incentive that had been put in place to encourage wind power in this country which has been receiving some strong accolades from both Ontario and Quebec and other places needs to be set. Wind power was not mentioned in the budget and it needs to be there.

The NDP fully costed its plan. We looked through all the costs, the facts and figures. The party brought in economists and spent the money and time to ensure that it added up. The government was unwilling to do so. We wanted sound investments with good return on the public dollar.

I have great sympathy and empathy for the current environment minister because she now has to go to Bonn, Germany and meet with our international partners, and defend the one government in the world that is making reductions when it comes to environmental spending.

(1200)

She has to defend this approach, somehow chairing the process that is meant to accelerate and push. We know Kyoto and climate change plans are not enough right now. We have a government in power in Canada, however temporarily, that does not fundamentally believe in making those investments. It has said as much by not producing a plan when it promised it for more than a year by misleading Canadians, and presenting a budget that from all walks of the environmental circle was an absolute disaster.

The NDP will continue to push for progressive and intelligent use of our tax dollars, and the fiscal framework that we have to finally achieve the economy that so many Canadians are demanding: a greener and more sustainable one.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague and congratulate him on his speech regarding the Bloc Québécois' motion.

My colleague has made a very good point about a fundamental aspect of this issue. While the Minister of the Environment prepares to go to Bonn, our own Minister of Natural Resources, just a few minutes ago, trumpeted the Asia-Pacific Partnership's role in fighting climate change.

First, I would like my colleague to tell the House what this really says about the government's true intentions with respect to supporting the Kyoto protocol.

Second, I would like him to comment on this morning's speech by the Minister of Natural Resources, who told us that it made sense to abolish the EnerGuide program because it was not efficient. However, fighting climate change is important. Climate change 101 teaches us that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their source, but that we also have to focus on energy efficiency.

I would like to hear his comments on these two subjects.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I will reply in English because I have several points to make on this subject.

[English]

It is incredible that a program as efficient as EnerGuide would be cut. We have report after report from internal government audits that this program was efficient and intelligent government spending. It was helping, in particular, those Canadians who could least afford to make the changes in their homes that would help reduce their monthly costs. It was helping Canadians on fixed incomes, Canadians with low incomes or on social assistance, who simply did not have $10,000 or $20,000 or $5,000, regardless, lying around in order to make those improvements.

This government willy-nilly went and cut the program and then later, retroactively, tried to justify it, even though we have testimonials from Canadians, from the provinces and from the Treasury Board itself which has gone through analyses of the efficacy of this program.

Yet, this is no surprise. The Minister of Natural Resources, who has become a deathbed converter to the environment file, immediately after his election and appointment to cabinet on the west coast of British Columbia said that one of the most important things to do was to start drilling for oil and gas off the west coast of British Columbia. What a stunning environmental method and technique to improving our greenhouse gas emissions. Let us go start drilling somewhere where people actually do not want the drilling to take place.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member describe one of our programs as efficient, intelligent government spending and give a lot of credit to another one of our programs.

The member did mention large final emitters. I did want to mention it because I did not have time in my speech to compliment the tremendous amount of work done by the officials at Industry Canada, NRCan and Environment Canada on mandatory laws that would affect over 700 companies and would have produced maybe over 30 megatonnes of cuts. It was a tremendous amount of tedious work that took years, thousands and thousands of hours, because each industry is different and there are different process emissions.

It took a tremendous amount of work to come up with these plans. There are no simple solutions. One has to be very careful in those negotiations. I compliment the industry associations across Canada and the government employees. I certainly hope the NDP will support that initiative that was working toward so many cuts.

The throne speech actually mentioned that the Conservatives were going to cut greenhouse gases. Normally I believe they are usually pretty up front in what they believe in. In the last Parliament they railed that this was not an issue, that greenhouse gases were just natural climate change. Why does the member think they actually put that in the throne speech?

(1205)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

To be frank, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clue. When we look at the enactment of that throne speech, which is manifested through the budget and then consequentially through bills that the government will introduce, there is no timeline whatsoever that the government has talked about when it comes to the climate change file, and in terms of releasing a plan.

At some point Canadians will realize that the reasonable requests from New Democrats, when it comes to climate change, are to simply put forward a plan that we can talk about, debate, discuss and make better, so that we can actually do something about it. Canadians are scratching their heads, and our European counterparts increasingly so, because there is a river of opportunity going by in terms of intelligent and wise investments, especially on the energy file. Governments after governments in this country have said they would like to do something about it, but when it comes time to put the proof in the pudding, they absolutely do nothing.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the NDP and I strongly support the motion by the Bloc Québécois calling on the government to take action to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction objectives as they are set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Personally, I think that there should be more immediate and far-reaching action than the motion suggests.

Everyone knew from the outset that the Kyoto protocol was only a first step, and a somewhat timid one at that, and that we would have to double our efforts to slow climate change and its harmful effects.

In my province, British Columbia, the effects are already being felt. Temperatures on the coast have risen a degree. The warmer and drier air in the Fraser Valley is causing more respiratory disease and problems associated with air pollution are already serious in that region.

Scientists are also predicting greater risks of flood, drought, forest fires and storms, and all the devastating effects we are familiar with. The costs associated with the ravages caused by the mountain pine beetle are in excess of $2 billion a year.

It is estimated that half of the glaciers will disappear by the end of this century. That means less water for agriculture, for energy generation and for communities.

It is not reasonable for the government to cancel the only plan we have that offers a glimmer of hope for the future without proposing an alternative. That is like driving with a puncture and having no spare tire. We have no shortage of concrete, innovative ideas or of blueprints for action. What we have is a shortage of is leadership from this government and the previous government, and that is why we are so far behind.

I found what the Minister of the Environment said yesterday in the House disturbing, disquieting and shocking. We were hearing an echo from the White House, it seems to me. After explaining that greenhouse gas emissions had risen by 35% in Canada, she said, and I quote:

[English]

To put that into perspective, that would mean that today we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets in Canada.

She further said, “that would be equal to four times the amount of greenhouse gases for every individual Canadian household that we would have to shut down”. I am very worried about the minister's sense of perspective.

Looking at our climate change allies, the U.K. for example has already surpassed its Kyoto target of 12.5% reduction and is on track to reduce by 23% to 25% by 2010, all the while maintaining a 1.7% growth rate in GDP in 2005. Germany has reduced its emissions by 18.5%. I have not travelled to Europe lately, but I believe people's homes there still function properly. They still drive cars and ride trains. Heathrow Airport in Britain has not shut down and they have not switched to horse-drawn carriages on the autobahn. Therefore, I believe the minister is exaggerating her point considerably.

The minister raises the spectre of developing nations, like India and China. Their rising emissions are very troubling indeed. However, when we point our finger at someone else, we still have three fingers pointing back at us. One Canadian still emits the same greenhouse gas emissions as ten Indians, and the current emissions overload is a result of our own excessive emissions over the past century, not India's or China's.

What the minister should be doing instead of using India and China as an excuse for inaction, is investing in making Canada a world leader in green energy at home and for export.

[Translation]

Nonetheless, I agree with the minister that the Liberals talked a lot about the Kyoto protocol, but they did not do much. During the election campaign, one of the candidates even offered me the excuse that the increases could be attributed to economic growth. That is like saying that if we are to be productive, we cannot be efficient, or we must be inefficient, according to the Liberals.

But now we have the Conservatives saying virtually the same thing. They are giving up without even trying.

(1210)

[English]

The Minister of the Environment sounds more like the minister of oil and gas. Why does her government continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry at a time of record profit? The minister suggests the sky will fall, that Canadians will have to live in mud huts. The problem is, the government sees conservation as the antithesis to economic growth.

Rather than talk about taking every plane, train and automobile off the streets in Canada, why does her government not stop wasting taxpayer dollars on the oil and gas sector and start regulating large emitters and shift those subsidies to conservation measures, green energy investments and transition strategies for communities and workers? Why does the government not follow the advice of its own experts on understanding climate change, who stated last year, “Action must be taken now to limit atmospheric change...Action is essential and by no means premature. Indeed, it may already be overdue”.

[Translation]

The minister sees only obstacles when what we have to do is look beyond the obstacles. This is obviously not a crisis that we can solve in six months. We cannot do everything at once, but we have to have a vision, a long-term strategy, to make the transition to a sustainable economy. Canada has everything we need in terms of technology and resources to be a world leader and to maintain our competitive position.

[English]

I will go back to the minister's own department which argues:

Major reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide are also achievable and need to be pursued simultaneously through the improvement of energy efficiency and through the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.

It is not necessary to go back to zero. There are recommendations from a significant number of credible groups, as well as the NDP's plan which was fully costed, that propose a national energy efficiency strategy, starting with homes, energy efficient buildings and retrofit programs, establishing a made in Canada green car industry and investing in green energy and sustainable municipal infrastructure for a start.

We need a greater urgency than the government is demonstrating. We can achieve our objectives, but it will need political will, something that seems to be absent at this moment.

I heartily recommend, on behalf of our children, that the government review its plans and act in a more urgent manner to this problem. There is no problem that will have a greater impact on our children, on the next generation, than climate change.

(1215)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member.

I applied for and participated in the EnerGuide retrofit program. If one is going to get government subsidy for making one's home more efficient, there has to be an audit. Therefore, the program required an audit by a firm that was authorized by the Government of Canada.

The audit cost $300, but the government was going to subsidize the cost of that audit $150. As a consequence of this audit, which laid out the areas in which I could improve the energy efficiency of my home, it indicated windows, insulation and some caulking were needed. I spent the money on the windows. I also installed the additional insulation and did the other work myself. My energy bill will go down by 30%, and I have already seen the impacts of that.

The government has now cancelled that program because the $150 subsidy for the energy audit is paid directly to the energy audit firm as opposed to being paid to me so I can pay them for it. If that is the logic of why the Conservatives cancelled the program, that 50% of the funding is going to these engineering companies to do the audit, then it appears to me that the so-called transit pass tax credit plan also must be cancelled immediately because 95% of the moneys going into that program are going to existing transit pass users. There is absolutely no measurable impact on climate change.

Would the member agree?

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his work on his own home.

In my city of Victoria a community energy plan is being implemented that will allow the city to meet the targets that have been set according to this protocol. I regret the cancellation of this program. When we begin to sensitize people and mobilize the population, this kind of program is needed. I thought it was a useful program. I and many other people took advantage of it and made some significant changes to our homes. We need this kind of program.

The Liberals had this one good program, but at the same time they failed to regulate large emitters, which are a major source of the increase in our emissions. The program would have made a dent in the increase. In addition, the Liberals refused to implement more than a voluntary agreement on car efficiency, another area that would have been very useful in reducing—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her very eloquent speech.

The Conservative government's position is similar to that of the American government, that of President Bush. This was made very clear in the speech given by the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to ask the hon. member if this position is not actually a submission to the oil lobby.

As the hon. member must know, we export 60% of our oil to the United States. Last year, the export of energy products--largely oil and gas--increased by 27.2%. Oil companies are therefore collecting enormous profits at present.

Lastly, is this government not simply a conduit between the major oil companies and the Americans' gigantic appetite for oil? We know that they consume one-quarter of all oil production every day.

(1220)

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie:

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that what we heard yesterday and apparently this morning--from what I have read--were in fact echos from the White House.

It is really time to stop scaring Canadians by saying that any changes, any new programs, will lead to catastrophic results. This is not at all true. This has been proven in many countries, as my colleague before me just emphasized. Numerous examples clearly demonstrate that it is possible to continue to make progress in this area while maintaining a competitive position in the world.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to congratulate the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on a speech that was not only informative but also very passionate regarding a global issue that we just cannot ignore, as does the Conservative government.

I also want to congratulate my colleague on all the work he has done these last few years as environment critic for the Bloc Québécois. It is largely thanks to him that Canada signed the Kyoto protocol through legislation passed by this House in December 2002.

Lastly, I also want to congratulate him for putting forward this motion which, from what I see, has the support of the other opposition parties. It will show the Conservative government that it stands alone on this issue not only in the House, but also in the eyes of Canadians and Quebeckers.

I will read the motion again because it is extremely clear and complete in itself, then I will have the opportunity to elaborate on its various aspects.

As I was saying at the beginning, the motion before us today deals with a very important issue, that of greenhouse gases and global warming. Several other members mentioned it in their remarks. It is a fact that has now been scientifically proven. If we do not deal with it, not only will the consequences on the environment and even on the future of mankind be extremely serious, but they could even be catastrophic.

Therefore we cannot close our eyes, as the government is doing, and take an approach that recognizes that there are in fact greenhouse gases and we will try to keep their future increase down as much as possible. No, what we have to do is really stop the growth of these greenhouse gases. To do that, what we need is a watershed. And as we speak, that watershed is not to be found in the books of the Conservative government or the Minister of the Environment, much less in those of the Minister of Natural Resources, according to the speech I heard from him earlier.

It is unfortunate, but every minute that we do not make a firm and resolute decision to apply the Kyoto protocol makes the problem that much more difficult to overcome. That reminds me of a parallel I want to make.

In the softwood lumber dispute, as our companies went on paying illegal duties to the American authorities, the problem born of the dispute itself became ever greater, for the $5 billion that was at stake became something to be recovered, for the American companies.

It is somewhat the same thing with greenhouse gases. As long as we take no action and do not put a plan in place, those who are against the Kyoto protocol will argue that it is too much to swallow, that we cannot honour our Kyoto commitments.

The Liberals, for example, kept to the voluntary approach. They in effect abdicated their responsibilities. The result has been a 23% increase in greenhouse gases, instead of a 6% reduction from the 1990 emissions level, as prescribed in the Kyoto protocol. Of course, those who are opposed to the Kyoto protocol will tell us that the targets are even higher now, because it is not just the 6% below 1990, now it is 6% plus 23%, for a total target reduction of 29%.

The more we drag our feet, the more we will be told that the Kyoto objectives are unattainable and unrealistic. Therefore I believe it is necessary to alert public opinion. There is an urgent and immediate need for an effective and equitable plan, as demanded in the motion.

(1225)

Otherwise, not only will the opponents of Kyoto try to find arguments in their own turpitude, but the achievement of the Kyoto targets will also do much more harm to the Canadian and Quebec economy.

We have already fallen too far behind. The government must not wait: it must put in place an action plan for achieving the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. In the motion, we have set October 15 as the deadline for tabling that action plan. The minister has been telling us for weeks that she has a plan, people are working on a plan, it is being prepared. So I think she will have no difficulty complying with the motion when it is adopted. On October 15, then, we will begin working with objectives, with means of action and with a schedule for complying with the Kyoto protocol.

Hon. members know that this protocol is the fruit of a global effort by the international community. Canada ratified it in December 2002 by a vote in this House. In that context, the Conservative government cannot shirk its responsibilities. It must respect Canada's signature on a treaty that resulted in the Kyoto protocol. If not, Canada's credibility, as well as this government's, will be on the line. In fact, it is already quite poor, according to the papers. We will end up in a situation where it will not be very easy to explain this position to our parliamentary colleagues from the other signatories of the protocol.

This motion sends a clear message on the eve of the Bonn Convention on Climate Change. Canada must make a commitment to respect its signature. It must state it loud and clear. When the motion is passed, it will be clear that Canadian and Quebec parliamentarians deem respecting Canada's signature as imperative. If the government does not want to take its responsibilities, it will pay the price during the next election campaign, which will not be long from now, as hon. members know.

As I mentioned at the start, not only was the Kyoto protocol the fruit of the international community's labour, it received support from a vast majority of the Canadian public. In Quebec, 90% think we should comply with the Kyoto protocol objectives. I want to remind hon. members that these objectives are merely the first step towards a true resolution of the greenhouse gas problem.

The principles proposed in this motion are quite simple. They include respecting international commitments—which I already talked about—and fairness. The efforts made by the provinces have not been equal. Quebec in the early 1970s chose clean and renewable energy—hydroelectricity—which has contributed to preventing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada from being worse than it already is. As I was saying earlier, the increase since 1990 was 23%.

Energy options have to be taken into account. We will recall—and I hope to have enough time to come back to this—that the federal government chose oil. If memory serves, over the past 30 years, more than $66 billion was provided, in one form or the other, to directly or indirectly subsidize the oil industry, while only a few hundred millions were invested in clean, renewable energy sources. We have to go back on that choice, both resolutely and actively, by turning to clean energy for instance.

To conclude, any effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto objectives that is put in place should include stringent motor vehicle manufacturing standards to improve the energy efficiency of motor vehicles. Tax measures and rebates are also necessary as incentives for buying such vehicles. For instance, we suggested that there simply be no GST on environmentally-friendly vehicles.

In addition, financial assistance should be provided for the development of renewable energy such as wind power. Hydro-Quebec has announced its intention to make significant progress in that direction. We believe that the federal government has a responsibility because, so far, Quebeckers have paid alone for their energy option, while all Canadians benefited from it.

I would have liked to talk about the very favourable tax system for oil companies.

(1230)

In closing, we must continue subsidizing those organizations which help us toward our Kyoto objectives, and not back out, as this government did, of this unavoidable global fight.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments.

[Translation]

I have two questions for him.

[English]

First, does the member agree with community based programming? The government cut about 15 programs, just let them expire. It was devastating to some people in my riding. I met with some of them last night at the Embassy of Norway. They are working with Norway on greenhouse gases. They had great initiatives because they know the local area in the Yukon. They were working on those things and it is devastating that these knowledge programs have been cut.

My second question relates to joining the electrical grid. The provinces are often responsible for the utilities. In our partnership program with the provinces and territories we were going to enhance joining electricity, which is so important to Quebec, so that if the provinces wanted some help they might be able to sell this electricity, a very clean energy source, farther than they are able to on their own.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. In regard to his second question, the motion talks about a territorial approach. This is extremely important for us. As I said, Quebec and the Quebec manufacturing industry have already made choices in the direction of the commitments made under the Kyoto protocol. My colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, I think, that the initial efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are the easiest. As we try to reduce them further, it becomes increasingly difficult. Our manufacturing industry in Quebec is in that phase now.

The objectives must be established, therefore, on the basis of both the province and the sector. For technical reasons, some sectors unfortunately emit greenhouse gases. Take the example of cement works. In this case, overall, both the territory and the sectors will have to contribute to meeting the Kyoto objectives, with assistance from the federal government.

Insofar as the first question is concerned, as I said, we absolutely must keep programs to provide financial assistance to groups that have expertise out in the field so that we can all promote the Kyoto protocol in what we do every day.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, did the member support our plans to legislate large final emitters? As I explained in detail earlier, government employees in many federal departments had worked for years with industry associations. I complimented the industry associations and the government employees for coming up with plans to cut over 30 megatonnes. We were in the process of putting that into legislation.

My second comment is in regard to the voluntary agreement with the auto workers. The auto industry in Canada has followed all the other voluntary agreements with the Government of Canada. As members know, if people do things voluntarily, there is even more of a buy-in than when they are mandatory. We were being congratulated on this world-leading agreement in cutting vehicle emissions, which are a big part of greenhouse gases.

Is the member supportive of the auto industry cutting emissions and mandatory legislation for large final emitters, both of which we were working on?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pierre Paquette:

Mr. Speaker, following up on what the hon. member said, I think that the federal government must really assume its responsibilities, especially in the automobile manufacturing sector.

I was speaking about the oil lobby a little while ago, but this lobby and the North American automobile manufacturers’ lobby are very close. Some things seem unachievable to us. But as my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was saying, in Europe these things have been done, not just in regard to vehicle manufacturing but in everyday life.

I will provide an example, although unfortunately it does not have anything to do with greenhouse gases. In Canada and the United States, the little pieces used to align wheels are made of lead. We know that lead is extremely harmful from an ecological standpoint. In Europe, beginning this year, lead will no longer be allowed. Our Canadian and Quebec manufacturers who export to Europe are going to adapt to this new reality. In North America, though, they will continue using lead to make these little pieces used for aligning wheels, as if it were impossible to find some other alloy.

It is the same thing in regard to energy. Substitutes do exist. There are technical solutions. What is missing is the political will. I think that by passing this motion, all the members of Parliament here will be sending a clear message to the Conservative government that we want compliance with the Kyoto protocol agreements that Canada signed and a real action plan by October 15.

(1235)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, obviously I take very great pleasure today in speaking about this very important issue for the future of our society, namely the Kyoto protocol.

Allow me to very sincerely congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleagues who have spoken today in this debate, that is, the member for Joliette and more particularly the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for all his work on matters concerning the environment.

Again we have evidence that the Bloc Québécois is the party that best defends the interests of Quebeckers.

The motion that we have put forward today calls on the Conservative government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objectives for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto protocol, and that it publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan, accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, this motion is actually a warning to the minority Conservative government about its intentions concerning the Kyoto protocol.

There is in fact cause for concern about the true intentions of this government concerning the Kyoto protocol. Like many groups associated with the world of the environment, we have all noticed that this government’s approach is incompatible with the commitments made by Canada concerning the Kyoto protocol.

Our concerns are also confirmed by some new information. This information tells us of major cutbacks in various programs that were actually aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, and show that no alternative option has been proposed, nor does any negotiation seem to be taking place with Quebec to reach an agreement.

Furthermore, in the riding I have the honour to represent, a municipality presented, in collaboration with the Régie de gestion des matières résiduelles de la Mauricie, a project to recover biogas to heat greenhouses. In addition to helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this project could create some 100 jobs in this region. Treasury Board agreed to fund the project and Environment Canada approved it. All that is missing is the agreement of the Minister of the Environment, which is now harder to get in view of her position on the Kyoto protocol.

This example shows that not only is the government not respecting the commitments contained in the protocol, but also that it is not respecting certain programs established by the former government. This government tells us that it is going to take care of the greenhouse gas problem, but it does not present us with anything concrete, while the problem is getting worse, and drastic and appropriate decisions are now becoming urgent.

It is important to remind this House that the Kyoto protocol is a greenhouse gas reduction agreement accepted by the countries, including Canada, that gathered in Kyoto, in Japan, in 1997. Under this agreement, the signatory countries must attain a greenhouse gas emission rate for the period 2008-12 of 6% less than that of 1990. Canada, however, is emitting 24% more greenhouse gases than in 1990 and they are still on the rise.

To achieve the reduction target from 1990 levels, Canada will therefore now have to reduce annual emissions by 32%. That is why the motion before us today is so important, to ensure that the federal government confirms its intention of honouring the protocol, that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, and that it publish the necessary and equitable measures that it intends to take so that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction in compliance with the commitments it made when it ratified the Kyoto protocol.

That protocol, which has been in effect for over a year, was supported by 163 states that are responsible for 62% of greenhouse gas emissions.

When I say “equitable”, I do not mean equitable only to Quebec, which has already reduced the greenhouse gases produced within Quebec. As a result of all the efforts it has made since 1990, Quebec’s contribution to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is minimal. Emissions there have risen by 8.6%, as compared to 34% in Alberta and 45% in Saskatchewan for the same period. In 2003, Quebec’s greenhouse gas emissions record was the best in Canada, consisting of 12 tonnes per capita.

(1240)

That is well below the Canadian average, which is 23 tonnes per capita. Without Quebec, the Canadian annual average would be 27 tonnes per capita.

Quebec’s performance cannot be explained simply by the fact that it chooses to use hydroelectricity. From 1990 to 2003, the pulp and paper industry and sawmills, for example, succeeded in reducing their emissions by 33%, while the aluminum industry, which operates primarily in Quebec, reduced its emissions by 15%.

For the same period, emissions in the thermal power industry rose 41%, and emissions in the oil and gas industry climbed by nearly 50%.

In 2003 alone, 35% of total emissions were attributable to the oil and gas industries and thermal power industry alone.

It is the collective choices made by Quebeckers, their industries and the National Assembly that have made it possible for Quebec to achieve such encouraging results.

Given that Quebec, and more specifically industries in Quebec, have been able to reduce their emissions, the upcoming federal plan must not penalize them. To be equitable, the federal plan must take into account the efforts made by industries in Quebec and must also call on the large gas emitters—and especially the oil companies—to make a contribution proportional to their emissions.

This is why the Bloc is calling for the federal plan to include a system of emission objectives for large emitters. This plan should provide for the exchange of emission rights, given that these industries, especially the oil companies, will be responsible for nearly 50% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

The Bloc is making another suggestion concerning the rich oil companies: in order to treat all taxpayers more fairly and equitably, the new Conservative government must no longer act like the Liberals; it has to put an end to subsidies and tax giveaways to oil companies whose profits that could be described as excessive.

It is important to add that, while calling on the government to commit to honouring Canada's Kyoto commitment and to publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan, we are also favouring a territorial approach, as part of a bilateral agreement with Quebec, as requested by the Government of Quebec incidentally. We believe that this approach is the fairest and most equitable to Quebec, as well as the most effective, because the Quebec government would then be able to use better tools to achieve the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol more quickly.

I will conclude by saying that, as the Bonn conference on climate change nears, it is important that the federal government reiterates its commitment to Kyoto objectives. Addressing climate change is far too important to the future of our planet not to follow through. We will be facing catastrophic consequences if we do not take strong, immediate action. The lack of political will and the attitude of this government, which throws into question its international obligations and the Kyoto protocol, is unacceptable.

Yesterday, a Greenpeace representative suggested that, by stating that it will not honour Kyoto, the Conservative government was actually taking an approach similar to that of the Bush administration. There is cause for concern when the Minister of the Environment describes the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol as unachievable and unrealistic. That is what prompted us to put forward this motion, which is important to Quebec, Canada, all children and people all over the world.

(1245)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc for putting the word “territory” in the motion. Quite often people forget the territories. I am delighted to see that in the motion.

We had a small disagreement with the Bloc. We agree on a lot of things. I think we are in agreement on climate change and on various programs. One disagreement we had was on the starting point.

There were some suggestions, earlier at least, maybe the Bloc has changed its opinion, that different provinces or different countries should actually start with a credit, which means they would have to reduce less than others. It would be inconceivable to administer. How could the province of Quebec tell each city that because some of them were farther ahead than others, they did not have to cut as much, or different factories?

Our particular plan, which we outlined in great detail, had everyone starting with so much emissions to cut, although various industries were negotiated separately. I wonder if the Bloc still has a position on that particular point.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Statistics show that Quebec produces 12.2 tonnes of greenhouse gas per capita. According to the latest statistics, Alberta produced 70.9 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita in 2003. These statistics are accurate and are the result of research.

Why should Quebec pay for the greenhouse gases produced by Alberta's oil industry? The Bloc believes that, with a territorial approach, Quebec, which has shown its ability to reduce greenhouse gases through the development of hydroelectricity, would be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Quebec should not have to pay for—

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I must give the floor to the hon. member for Yukon.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell:

Mr. Speaker, the translation is not working and I wonder if, once it is fixed, the member could repeat his answer to my question.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Can we verify that the translation services are actually working right now?

[Translation]

Do Francophone members hear the translation?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Is the English translation now available? It seems that it is.

Could the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé repeat his answer to the hon. member for Yukon?

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André:

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I will summarize it.

A territorial approach would respect Quebec's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Through hydroelectricity, we have shown that Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced, unlike other provinces that are more focussed on the oil industry and that produce more greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bloc believes that the “polluter pay” principle should be applied. These industries should pay more. And a province like Quebec, which has made considerable efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, should not have to pay the same amount to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where emissions are much higher.

(1250)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his excellent speech.

However, I would have liked to know more and I am wondering about something. My colleague certainly has a copy of Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory with him, which gives the number of tonnes per capita, since he indicated in his speech that Quebec produces only 12.2 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita.

If he has that document, I would like him to give us the number of tonnes produced by the other provinces and by Canada.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Guy André:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I do have certain statistics here. I mentioned earlier that Alberta produces 70.9 tonnes of greenhouse gases. In Saskatchewan, it is 65.6 tonnes. These high numbers stem from the heavy presence of the oil industry in those two provinces.

The document shows 15.3 tonnes for B.C., 16.8 tonnes for Ontario, 18.8 tonnes for Manitoba, 21 tonnes for Newfoundland, 21.1 tonnes for P.E.I. and 22.6 tonnes for Nova Scotia.

As I indicated earlier, it is 26.8 tonnes for Canada, without Quebec.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of the Environment, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I am proud to rise in the House today to speak on such an important issue as the Canadian environment. I am proud to be a member of a government that is facing our challenges on the environment head on by finding solutions that deliver tangible results and put Canadians first.

Earlier today the Government of Canada submitted two sets of documents to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. The first set is Canada's 2004 greenhouse gas inventory. The second set includes two submissions that are part of Canada's new input into the global dialogue on future international cooperation on climate change.

[Translation]

What does the 2004 Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory say? It says that Canadian emissions were up by almost 35% above the Kyoto target negotiated by the Liberals. That is equivalent to the emissions from all our transport vehicles, that is, all cars, trucks, airplanes and trains in Canada.

[English]

What does our 2004 greenhouse gas inventory say? It says that Canadian emissions were up by almost 35% above the Kyoto target negotiated by the Liberals.

The numbers speak for themselves. We have inherited a situation that makes the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated unachievable. Why is it unachievable? Let me spell it out.

In 2004 our emissions were 195 megatonnes above the Liberal Kyoto target. How much is 195 megatonnes? It is the equivalent of more than all of our transportation emissions, the emissions from every car, truck, plane and train in Canada.

We would have to pull every truck and car off the street, shut down every train and ground every plane to reach the Kyoto target that the Liberals negotiated for Canada. Or we could shut off all the lights in Canada tomorrow, but that still would not be enough. To reach the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated, we would have to shut off all the lights and shut down the entire agriculture industry tomorrow. Or instead, we could shut down every individual Canadian household, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times over, in order to meet the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated for Canada.

Or we could do what the Liberals thought was the answer when faced with the realization that the targets they negotiated meant shutting down Canada's economy. We could spend billions of dollars overseas buying international credits. The Liberals had set aside up to $600 per Canadian household to be sent overseas in order to help reach the Kyoto target they negotiated for Canada.

Let us be clear. Many Canadians predicted at the time that the targets the Liberals negotiated were unrealistic and voiced concerns that a proper implementation plan had not been reached. But politics got ahead of good policy and the Liberals negotiated a target without a plan to meet it.

So we cannot meet the targets that the Liberals negotiated, but that does not mean that we give up the fight. We are committed to real progress on cleaning up Canada's environment and on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we are committed to face the challenge before us in an open and transparent way and develop realistic and reachable goals to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.

We are turning a new leaf on the environment with a commitment to Canadians that all the money for the environment will be spent on the Canadian environment. We will not send taxpayers' money overseas to buy credits. These are billions of dollars that can be invested in Canada to help reduce pollution right here at home, to build greener infrastructure, to develop new technologies and to make Canada more efficient and economically competitive.

The principle that guides us is that in our initiatives Canadians will always come first. To that effect, our government is focused on made in Canada solutions that are inclusive and results oriented. We will respect the particular needs and circumstances of each of our country's provinces and territories, but we will always insist that our initiatives have direct benefits to Canadians and the Canadian environment. We want to see tangible benefits where it matters most to us, which is in Canadian communities.

Our first focus is on domestic action to ensure that Canadians can enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land, clean and secure energy and healthy communities.

We have already begun, with an investment in made in Canada solutions that deliver real environmental and health benefits to Canadians, by investing in new, greener, cleaner transportation and incentives to get Canadians out of their cars and into public transit. This is important because transportation is one of the highest contributors to pollution and greenhouse gases. In fact, in Quebec, transportation is the highest cause of greenhouse gases.

Very shortly we will be sitting down with the provinces and territories to launch our way forward to a national renewable fuel strategy that will see real, tangible benefits to the environment and economic benefits to the agriculture sector.

We are launching a long overdue review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada's most important piece of environmental legislation. The Liberals put off the review, but we committed in our Speech from the Throne that it will receive the comprehensive review it deserves for the sake of the Canadian environment.

We have begun a review of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has not had a serious review since 1987.

Soon, the health minister and I will lay out a vision and direction on the important need to deal with transboundary air pollution and will work with the health authorities across Canada and the provinces to develop the Canadian clean air act. Today Canada falls behind the U.S.A. in every industry sector on pollution control. We do not just want to catch up, we want to compete and we want to lead.

(1255)

The impacts of pollution on health are well known. They are deadly, and the cost to our health care system is in the billions. Last year Ontario had 53 smog advisory days and Quebec had 34. For the first time ever in Canadian history, we saw 10 winter smog advisory days. On those days, Canadian children with asthma and elderly people with respiratory diseases cannot leave their homes. Our government knows and feels that this is unacceptable.

The answer, though, is not to blame the U.S.A. and other countries for the pollution that crosses our borders. We have to set an example and clean up our own backyard first.

We are beginning discussions with the provinces on a national water strategy to share information about water quality and water quantity, to ensure Canadians have access to safe and clean drinking water, and to identify the quantity and resource related issues that are emerging throughout Canada today.

We will be working toward a system for large emitters to deal with greenhouse gases and ensure that we take the right steps to facilitate Canada's ability to contribute in what I think is our strongest capacity to this international challenge--through the development and deployment of clean technology.

These are just a few of the things that we are working on. All of them are made in Canada solutions with real benefits and tangible results for Canadians and the Canadian environment.

We will ensure that our domestic policy aligns with our international policy. This will also ensure that Canada will continue to exercise a leadership role within international consultation and cooperation by advancing realistic and inclusive international options within the United Nations, and we will explore other mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways that accurately reflect our national circumstances and effectively protect our country's interests.

(1300)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I see that several hon. members want to ask questions.

[English]

If we can keep both the questions and the comments to a minute, we can accommodate more speakers.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it was recently announced that the government was supporting the initiative to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. As I pointed out in a recent statement in the House, I indicated that at a recent meeting of the parliamentarians associated with the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum it was unanimously agreed that climate change could be best addressed through support of the international treaty, Kyoto.

Would the minister please outline what she thinks is the definitive difference in terms of the objectives of being part of the Asia-Pacific partnership and how the government's strategy is in effect, through that organization, going to address climate change?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose:

Mr. Speaker, many of our international counterparts are looking at multi-track ways to address pollution, energy security and greenhouse gas reductions. The Kyoto protocol is one track. The Asia-Pacific partnership is another. The G-8 plus 5 is another. As we know, a lot of our international counterparts are engaged in regional partnerships and continental partnerships. It is an approach that Canada is looking at.

We do not want to put all our eggs in one basket. Right now, a number of different initiatives in the international dialogue facilitate an opportunity for Canada not only to help reduce global emissions but also to take advantage of the ability for our industry to deploy to and develop clean technology for a lot of the countries that necessitate it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the minister's statements about combatting climate change are as empty as the Conservative Party's recent election platform.

I would like to know this: given that Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, does the minister not think that she and Canada have an obligation to introduce a plan that incorporates that protocol's targets in this House by October 15, 2006? I would also like to know what she will answer next week in Bonn when countries ask the president of the conference why Canada has decided to reject the Kyoto protocol targets.

What will the president of the conference, who today is the Minister of the Environment, answer?

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose:

Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing with my international counterparts in Bonn next week the same challenges that I have discussed with them ever since I was appointed Minister of the Environment and president of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They are well aware of the challenges that Canada is facing with an unrealistic target that was negotiated by the Liberals in a very political manner. They understand our desire to cooperate with our international partners to find better, more realistic and more tangible ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Many of our international counterparts are facing the same challenges.

I look forward to the discussions in Bonn. In fact, I have had discussions in Edmonton with my international counterparts. I invited the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change group to an adaptation conference that I hosted just a week and a half ago in my hometown of Edmonton, to talk about adaptation measures that we need to face. I will be discussing the same things in Bonn that I have been discussing with them for the last three months.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Denise Savoie (Victoria, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the hon. minister is whether she can confirm today that she actually believes the science provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of approximately 1,600 scientists from around the world? Would she actually confirm that she believes this today?

(1305)

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Rona Ambrose:

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on this issue is long gone. It has passed. I find that a strange question to be asking when Canada is engaged in a number of different international organizations, which the government is participating in, to talk about the issue of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So I would say yes, absolutely. I find it a very strange question. We are working very closely with our international counterparts to find ways for Canada to contribute.

Frankly, as Canada makes up 2% of the global emissions, I believe the best way for Canada to participate in the global environment is by developing and then deploying clean technologies to those countries that actually are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, that is, the United States, China and India. One of the things we want to do is make sure that we participate in ways and in partnerships so that we can do this. We can develop clean technology and deploy it to the countries that need it.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak on an extremely important subject, namely climate change. I am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

In speaking of climate change, one of the elements we have to consider is the transportation sector and the contribution made by public transit to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector offers great potential for improving air quality and reducing the effects of climate change in Canada.

However public transit is not the only solution. We must help Canadians who do not have access to public transit, or those still unable to use it, to reduce their dependence on traditional fossil fuels. We must also look at how the freight transportation sector can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[English]

This government realizes that climate change is an important issue for the country.

Just last year, as the minister indicated before and it is worth repeating, there were 53 smog days in Ontario, 24 in Quebec and three in Atlantic Canada. For the first time ever, 10 winter smog advisories in Quebec and five in Ontario were issued. This is simply not acceptable.

I can assure members that this government is committed to ensuring that public transit is an attractive option for Canadians. Good public transit systems make a real contribution to urban planning and to the successful functioning of our communities. Good public transit systems make it easier for people to get to work and to the other activities that are key for their quality of life.

I say this as both Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and also as past president of la Société de transport de l'Outaouais. I was also fortunate to be president of the Quebec Association of Urban Transit . As such, I have hands-on experience in this issue dealing with urban transit. I recognize the need for investing heavily in public transit and providing people with alternatives that encourage them to leave their cars at home. We must take and are taking action.

Budget 2006 proposes a tax credit for transit passes and a $1.3 billion investment in a public transit capital infrastructure trust. As well, the budget maintains the gas tax funding commitment under the new deal for cities and communities. In 2009-10, this initiative will provide the equivalent of up to 5¢ per litre of gasoline excise tax, or $2 billion, for municipalities. I would point out that some of our biggest cities, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, have already indicated that they will use all of their gas tax funds to support public transit.

While these actions are significant, they are not all that we are doing. Allow me to expand on the government's commitment to public transit.

I am proud to tell members that the budget that was just adopted proposes a 15.5% tax credit for the users of public transit, which takes effect in just over one month. This is real and immediate action.

(1310)

[Translation]

That means that a person who buys an $80 pass each month will save $150 a year. That is money in the pockets of Canadians who do their part by leaving their car at home. This is important now, and will be even more important for the future. We have to create a culture of public transit in Canada.

And as the government, we will not stop there. One of the biggest obstacles to increasing the clientele of public transit is its relative cost and its practicality. So we have to upgrade and increase the public transit infrastructure.

The government is determined to provide stable, reliable funding to the provinces, territories, cities and communities so that they can meet their infrastructure needs. This investment in public transit infrastructure will make it possible to reduce highway congestion and the associated harmful emissions.

[English]

In budget 2006 we are providing $900 million in a public transit capital trust. This trust will help provinces provide funding for capital investment in public transit infrastructure, including rapid transit, transit buses, intelligent transportation systems and other investments, including high occupancy vehicles and bicycle lanes.

A further $400 million in funding for public transit has been provided through agreements with provinces and territories. Nine of those agreements have been finalized and those jurisdictions already have the funds.

The Canada strategic infrastructure fund has been renewed in the budget with an additional $2 billion. This fund is already supporting public transit initiatives, such as the Toronto Transit Commission, the Canada Line in Vancouver and the light rail transit right here in Ottawa. These measures represent real and tangible investment in public transit.

[Translation]

Since coming to power, the government has done more than any other government to encourage the use of public transit.

But not all Canadians have access to public transit. What is more, some people have to use a vehicle to get to work. Therefore we have to consider the matter of the fuels we use for our cars, trucks and other motor vehicles.

Renewable energy sources offer great potential for innovation, job creation and regional diversification. We are setting ourselves the objective of 5% renewable content in Canadian engine fuels by 2010. We intend to move ahead with this commitment, collaborating fully with the provinces and territories. Here is why.

Increasing the renewable energy content of fuels can help us achieve numerous objectives. From the standpoint of environmental conservation, 5% renewable content in engine fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel can also contribute to improving air quality.

[English]

Economic development is important in everything we do, and there are big upsides in moving on this front. This brings a whole new business opportunity to our farmers and to the forestry industry, and strengthens the local economic bases of our rural communities. If we are smart about how we move this forward, we can help advance next generation technology development and lay a significant stepping stone to future biorefineries and related renewable industrial and consumer based products.

As well, on May 5 I announced more than half a million dollars for projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the freight transportation sector. This funding is provided under the Transport Canada freight sustainability demonstration program.

[Translation]

In French, this is the PDTU.

[English]

Transport Canada is also supporting the introduction and use of safe, environmentally friendly vehicles through its advanced technology vehicle programs.

This government fully recognizes the critical role the transportation sector plays in our economy as an open and trading based nation. This sector needs to be a focus of our attention and to make progress on both the economic and environmental fronts.

We have taken action. We are going to continue taking action.

(1315)

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

There are still a lot of members who want to take part in this debate.

[English]

If we could keep the questions and comments and the responses to a minute, we could accommodate more speakers.

The hon. member for Mississauga--Erindale.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga—Erindale, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister but first, I would like to make a comment on what I see in the environmental plan of the government.

It gives me great concern to see the government take the initiative of downloading its responsibility for the environment on to businesses and organizations instead of taking a leading role in prevention and putting together a plan. Not only is the government risking our fiscal and financial longevity, but it is also risking the future of our environment in this country.

While I do hear what the government and the hon. minister are saying, my question is, does the government have any targeted plans? Do the Conservatives actually have a plan and targeted goals that they expect to achieve within their mandate?

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. colleague a very direct example of the plan.

When we spoke about a tax credit that is going to be coming into play very shortly, as the former president of Société de transport de l'Outaouais on the other side of the river, for the people who live in Buckingham and who have decided to take the bus on a daily basis, their inter-regional pass costs $102.50 per month. That represents that 15% tax credit, plus another 10% that the transit corporation itself will add on to that in order to keep its clientele. That is a 25% reduction, $253 on a yearly basis, which is equivalent to a little more than two months of free bus passes.

That is a very tangible example of what we are doing in terms of diminishing greenhouse gases.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a direct question to all government members and all members of this Parliament: what personal effort have they made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

I can give you my own report card, and I hope that the report card of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will be similar to mine.

The day after our vote on the signing of the Kyoto protocol, in 2002, I bought a hybrid vehicle. I also convinced our environment critic, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, to do the same, which he did a few months later. I also convinced the member for Brome—Missisquoi to get a hybrid vehicle. That is the effort I made.

After that, I convinced the city of Saint-Eustache to get hybrid vehicles, and the city of Deux-Montagnes, and the city of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, and the city of Boisbriand.

What has the minister done?

His recommendations on transport are strictly financial and will not contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is—

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Sorry to the member, but we must allow more time for other members.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My colleague is asking me what we have done. I can tell him about my personal experience as a citizen who is concerned about the environment.

I was talking earlier about my experience at the Société de transport de l'Outaouais. Each day, 365 days a year, residents of the Outaouais region use the bridges to go to work in Ottawa. By implementing reserved traffic lanes, we have eliminated the equivalent of over 20,000 cars a year.

These are concrete measures. Unfortunately, the previous government did not support concrete measures. I see the member nodding in agreement. However, if our credits and incentives succeed in convincing people to use public transit to go to work, I think it will be good for everybody.

I congratulate the member on the work he has done. I believe it is important and we must continue.

(1320)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I would remind the Minister of Transport to address his comments through the Chair.

One more brief question, the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Table of Contents]

Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, Toronto had 63 smog days last year. Under the former Liberal government greenhouse gas emissions went up by 24% to 25%.

Canada is the only country where we do not fund the operating budget of public transit systems. That is not acceptable. The roads are in poor shape. I am a cyclist. I ride my bike every day, but in Ottawa it is very difficult because the roads are in very poor shape.

I was reminded that the tax credit was started in 1999. Nelson Riis, a former NDP member of Parliament, pushed for it. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is saying that we need the tax credit but the tax credit does not produce. We can buy the buses but there is not enough money to operate them.

My question for the minister is would we be able to get a 5¢ gas tax credit now for public transit so that--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Sorry, but we have to keep moving on.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Lawrence Cannon:

Mr. Speaker, I know the work that has been done by our hon. colleague and her husband, and all the work that was done when he was president of the federation. I was also there as one of the cheerleaders as a town councillor to push for this, so it is not just one member of the House who pushed for it. It is many people in a lot of communities in a lot of town halls and in places across this country who want to support initiatives that give results.

Initiatives that give results are the ones that we spoke about before, initiatives for instance, whereby the government of Ontario, the municipal-regional organization in Toronto, all support public transit. We should be continuing, collectively speaking, to push for initiatives such as those so that we can not only better the health of Canadians but increase their quality of life. Those are the things that count.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to explain before my colleagues, the hon. members of the House of Commons, some of the reasons why I support the motion introduced by my colleague in the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, demanding compliance with the objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions established under the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to say, first of all, that my personal health status has a lot to do with the extreme importance I attach to this issue. Like thousands of our compatriots and millions of people around the world, I have asthma.

Members may have already heard me coughing here in the House, and although these untimely noises are beyond my control, I would like to offer my apologies to this kind assembly.

I do not want to base my presentation solely on my personal situation, which is not of much concern, ultimately, in comparison with the health problems that some of our fellow citizens face.

I should just say that I forgot to mention I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

It seems to me though, and people will certainly agree, that not enough attention is paid in the current debate to the effects that greenhouse gases have on our health and how urgent it is, therefore, to take action.

Sometimes I wonder what air those who put so much energy into polluting the atmosphere breathe or what world oil producers and other large generators of greenhouse gases live in. Do they not see the effects of all this pollution on their children, on themselves, and on the entire planet? Do they want a tomorrow for future generations?

We should all be implementing, and should have for a long time now, lasting solutions to a problem for which we are entirely responsible as human beings.

On the international level, we should be following the example of the European Union, which reduced greenhouse gas emissions by minus 1.4% in 2003, while Canada increased its emissions by 24.2%.

We could even draw inspiration from Quebec, which had the best record in Canada for greenhouse gas emissions in 2003 at 12 tonnes per person. That is clearly below the Canadian average of 23 tonnes per person.

Rather than building on all these positive models that are based on fundamental principles such as those presented by the Bloc Québécois—namely, honouring international commitments, fairness, and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions—the Minister of the Environment is considering joining the United States in the Asia-Pacific partnership.

On April 25, after a meeting with her American counterparts, the Minister of the Environment announced that her government would be taking a page from American successes in the areas of the environment and curbing air pollution.

Contrary to the claims of the Conservatives these days, the American approach to fighting climate change is not a model to be adopted. In fact, whereas greenhouse gas emissions totalled 23.4 tonnes per Canadian in 2003, they amounted to 23.7 tonnes per American.

What is it that the Conservatives really want to do? Reduce or increase greenhouse gas emissions? The question bears asking.

The Conservative government has indicated that it does not intend to attempt to honour the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, as it deems this to be an unrealistic and unachievable target. The tragedy is that the Conservative government has shown no intention of meeting the Kyoto target.

Not meeting the Kyoto target is tantamount to abandoning Kyoto.

The Conservatives must realize that their position has serious consequences for Canada's credibility on the international stage.

(1325)

They have to realize that their position could call the whole issue of the viability and relevance of the negotiations and the signing of multilateral agreements into question.

The Conservatives have to realize that they must not limit themselves to spending taxpayers' money on building prisons. They must invest in measures that will ensure our safety, our health and our prosperity for years to come.

Climate and extreme weather conditions, while they cannot be changed, are the result to a large extent of human action. We must react now and stop putting the lives of future generations in peril.

Returning to health matters, I appeal to the conscience of the Conservatives in the hope they will follow the example of the European Union, according to which:

Air quality is one of the prime environmental concerns of European citizens and, accordingly, of the European legislature, in so far as it affects not only the environment but also public health. The latest research has shown that air quality is one of the main causes of the increase in respiratory disorders.

For this reason and for all the others cited here today, the Conservatives must honour the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, as the Bloc Québécois is demanding in the name of the 90% of Quebeckers who have given it their support.

(1330)

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, members talked about buying hybrid vehicles but studies have shown that the environmental impact is perhaps not as important as expected.

Apart from environmentally friendly cars, we can still spend considerable amounts of money. I would like to ask my colleague opposite what the Bloc Québécois is suggesting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is talk about investing money, but where does the Bloc think we should put this money?

I would really appreciate a suggestion that would not be limited to hybrid vehicles.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot:

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to tell the member that we could start by talking about where this money must not be invested. I talked about jails. I can also talk about huge subsidies given to the extremely polluting oil industry.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her speech on the opposition motion on the Kyoto protocol.

I really liked the health aspects that she talked about in her speech. Indeed, often in this House both Conservatives and Liberals tell us about the economic costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol.

However, does she not think also that we should have a cost-benefit analysis of this implementation?

Indeed, investing in the Kyoto protocol is trying to improve people's health, trying to improve our environment, something which produces social benefits.

Does my colleague think that this analysis must go beyond the economic aspects? Can we also consider the beneficial effect implementing the Kyoto protocol has on the health of Quebeckers and Canadians?

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that remark.

Obviously this concept is implicit in the question, which I dealt with from another point of view. When we talk about health, in the long term we are avoiding much higher costs, and also avoiding a great deal of suffering for the population, which is entitled to breathe clean and healthy air.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my colleague’s speech and the comments which followed.

She has indeed shared with us a problem that arises from the deterioration of the quality of our environment in Canada and Quebec. She feels the effects personally, particularly asthma. It has also been mentioned today in the House how much smog aggravates this situation.

However, in her statement, there were some errors with regard to the Kyoto protocol and our government’s commitment.

Of course, our government is in favour of pursuing efforts with a view to reducing the effects of climate change. I would like to remind my colleague that we are all hoping for the success and achievement of the Kyoto objectives. Even the most prominent environmental experts, however, acknowledge that achievement of these objectives is doubtful. Several analysts within the environmental community also doubt it.

I would invite my colleague to make sure that, before pushing the government to make commitments, some realistic commitments are being proposed.

She made another error in her speech, concerning the fact that the government is committed to the Kyoto protocol but it is also trying other approaches. Our government finds that the reduction of greenhouse gases is so important that not only must we pursue the Kyoto protocol, but also we must do so with the other countries who are not signatories.

Does my colleague also recognize that, in addition to pursuing our efforts with our partners concerning Kyoto, we must continue our efforts with the other, non-signatory countries? Indeed, the reduction of greenhouse gases is too important for it to be left in such a process—

(1335)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I am sorry to interrupt, but the member must be allowed time to answer the question.

The hon. member for Papineau.

[Table of Contents]

Mrs. Vivian Barbot:

Mr. Speaker, I reply to my colleague that obviously we must pursue efforts in all areas.

However, we note on the part of the Conservatives a glaring failure to act. In my opinion, the best way to pursue objectives is to begin immediately. What we are being presented with is really a wait-and-see approach. This is a situation in which we will never be able to make the decision required.

Whatever reduction we achieve with the proposals currently on the table will still be a step in the right direction as far as the future is concerned.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion by the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Papineau for splitting her time with me, so that I have a chance to speak.

The Bloc Québécois believes that combatting climate change will be one of the most important global issues in the decades to come.

For weeks, the Harper government has been trying to make the question of climate change and of saving the planet go away. Canada, after years of foot-dragging and a lack of political will, is already lagging behind, supposedly because the previous government fell down on the job, the targets would cost too much and the Kyoto protocol was not a made-in-Canada solution.

The present government is using all of this in its effort to have us believe that climate change is not important and that not all climate change is Canadian, when the old saying tells us to clean up our own backyard first before looking to see whether the neighbour’s yard needs cleaning.

The Kyoto protocol is the result of many years of work and cooperation in the international community. I myself was a Canadian delegate to the Rio Conference, for solar energy. That was when greenhouse gases first started to get talked about, under Mr. Mulroney, in fact.

The targets and objectives are in fact modest if we are going to effectively solve the climate problems created by man. The government must commit itself to honouring the Kyoto protocol.

How does the minister think that she is going to persuade people to reduce their GHG emissions if she gives the very clear impression that she does not know what she is going to do?

At present, 90% of Quebecers support the Kyoto protocol. People are finding it hard to believe that Kyoto is so bad that the targets have to be thrown out with the implementation plan, because the plan was not adequate for the task. That amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The fundamental principles on which the Bloc Québécois position on the question of climate change is based are that we honour international commitments, that we be fair, and that Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction be respected.

The Bloc Québécois is asking that the Harper government put forward a plan for implementing the Kyoto protocol that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions--

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

I apologize for interrupting, but this is the second time that the member has used the Prime Minister’s surname.

[English]

I would ask the member to refer to him by title or riding.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about a series of measures that would respect provincial jurisdictions.

I will respond to the member for Louis-Hébert who was asking earlier about some of the concrete measures that we would like to see. We want to see the elimination of tax breaks for oil companies. We want to see grants to organizations that contribute to the effort towards our Kyoto targets. We want stricter standards for all vehicles to make them more energy efficient. We want rebates for those who buy environmentally-friendly vehicles. We want financial support for the development of renewable sources of energy such as wind energy, which has made enormous progress over the last 15 years, but there is still a lot of work to be done in that area. We are at the point where researchers are looking to produce wind energy strictly electronically, without friction. It would be extraordinary, and we must support these kinds of initiatives.

With regard to solar energy, we know how to produce passive solar energy, but that technology has not been applied. Therefore we need to develop it further so it can be applied universally in Canada and in Quebec.

Photovoltaic systems which provide solar energy are about fifteen years behind compared to wind generators. So there is a lot of development work to be done in that area. We could even sell that product abroad.

Those are concrete measures that I am suggesting in response to the member for Louis-Hébert. I am thinking about geothermy in particular. Canada's underground energy potential is enormous. I was talking with the deputy minister and we were saying that our country is extraordinary for that. It is one of the countries most capable of harnessing geothermal energy and also of putting the cold back into the ground. Geothermy used to be very expensive and worked almost exclusively with prototypes. Its price has just dropped by 50%. We need to develop that potential. There is as much energy in geothermy as there is in all the other sources of energy currently used in Canada.

The Bloc Québécois is asking the Harper government to make public, by October 15—

(1340)

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

Order, please. The hon. member has again used the surname of the Prime Minister.

[English]

I would ask him to make a great effort to use the name of the riding or title of members of the House.

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

I take due note of it, Mr. Speaker.

This Kyoto protocol contains measures in fields of jurisdiction that are truly effective in combating climate change, such as: strict regulations on manufacturing standards for all vehicles, with stiff penalties in cases of non-compliance that will be enforceable in the short term; elimination of the GST on the purchase of new cars that consume less than 6 litres of gasoline every 100 km, and incentives for efficient trucks; research and development grants for organizations working to combat climate change, such as the Centre d'expérimentation des véhicules électriques du Québec in Saint-Jérôme; creation of a tax deduction for public transit passes; and mandatory energy-efficiency labelling on all new and used vehicles sold in Canada.

The target for Quebec industries has to take into account the efforts they have made in the past. To determine the targets assigned to each industrial sector, the federal government must use 1990 as the reference year. Quebec’s industries have already managed to reduce their emissions by almost 10% since 1990. The latest efforts being asked of them are the most difficult to realize and the most expensive. The next federal plan must not penalize Quebec’s industries, which have been responsible and forward-looking.

The federal government claims that to achieve the Kyoto objectives we would have to stifle the Canadian economy and send billions of dollars abroad. This is false. Just take the example of the companies that have made their investments in greenhouse gas reduction cost-effective precisely by becoming more energy efficient. I will only cite three types of plants that have adopted this principle to achieve greater cost-effectiveness: the flat glass plants throughout the world, concrete makers, and aluminum smelters.

We prefer the territorial approach, in the context of a bilateral agreement with Quebec, as Quebec has requested. This approach is the most equitable toward Quebec and will permit it to acquire a better instrument for quickly attaining the objectives of the Kyoto protocol.

On the eve of the Bonn conference on climate change, the Bloc Québécois feels that the federal government must encourage developed countries to renew their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases after 2012, and must persuade developing countries—and this responds to the question of the hon. member on the other side of the House—that presently benefit from a reduction leave to make quantified, binding commitments for the sequel to Kyoto 1.

Will the only task of the Minister of the Environment be to cut the ribbon at the Kyoto 2 conference in Bonn?

(1345)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec is in the fortunate position of having a generous supply of hydro power, which probably explains why Quebeckers are doing a better job. They are blessed with that asset whereas the rest of us are not so fortunate.

I would like to refer to the member's ancestral forefathers. I recently read articles that said France had met its Kyoto standards. One explanation for it reaching its standards is the fact that almost all of its electrical power comes from nuclear power. The second explanation is the fact that the price of petroleum in France is two or three times higher than it is in Canada. Therefore, it has modified behaviour as far as reliance on motor vehicles. These are probably the two driving forces in France that explain why it has met Kyoto standards.

This is a global problem, not just a Quebec problem. As far as the plan for Canada, would he be advancing dramatic increases in the price of petroleum and the use of nuclear power?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Quebec has made choices, that is plain. It is no accident that almost all our energy, a majority of our energy, and the heritage pool we have, come from hydro power. Those are choices that were made a long time ago. We also chose not to go with nuclear. France chose to do that, but Quebec did not. Quebec resisted, because of the nuclear waste, the lifespan of which we do not know.

The Bloc is proposing that the rest of Canada look to renewable energy. It has to be done. Renewable energy, particularly geothermal energy, is available everywhere in Canada. There may be less of it in Vancouver, but it is available in the rest of Canada. Cold climates and very hot climates provide extraordinary opportunities for geothermal energy.

Another possibility is to look to passive and active solar energy. There is also the possibility of using photovoltaic systems. There are many, many other types of energy that the rest of Canada can use to reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases, as Quebec has done.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, sometimes this debate seems academic. I hope people realize how serious this is.

I know the members for Yellowhead and Nunavut would agree with me that there are dramatic changes in the north. The ice roads are melting and species are becoming extinct. Polar bears, which people depend on for their livelihoods, are moving. The mountain pine beetle and Spruce beetle are coming to Yukon. People are losing their livelihoods, which enable them to feed their children. This is a very serious debate.

I was delighted the member mentioned renewable energies. The Liberals were supporting biodiesel, cellulose ethanol, grain ethanol, deepwater cooling, solar, water, wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, landfill, gas, hydro and biomass. Does he agree that it was good for the Liberal government to support those types of renewable energies and does his party support them?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make this a partisan issue. It is already painful enough to see the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party constantly arguing back and forth. Let us be progressive, and move forward, toward the future, toward renewable energy. That is the only real way to save the planet.

It is also important to keep the Kyoto protocol targets. If we abandon those targets, we will never be able to move on to a second Kyoto, which would be much more important than the first. The Kyoto protocol is the only way to save the North.

What would be dangerous is for the present government to keep the targets but decide to spread them over 25 years. That would amount to saying that we will not be aiming for those targets.

(1350)

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, those of us who are very committed to the Kyoto protocol and who wish we could have convinced the Conservatives to embrace the protocol lost our opportunity at the very moment the Bloc said it would support the Conservative budget. We lost our bargaining strength.

We could have convinced the Conservative Party to embrace and comply with Kyoto if we had the bargaining leverage. Why did the Bloc give in so easily? Why did it trade its bargaining chips and get nothing in return?

[Translation]

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet:

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member is in no position to be lecturing us. Last year, what the NDP got was money on paper. The NDP never had the money it traded for getting an agreement.

In my opinion, it is important that the $2 billion was kept in so that it can eventually be invested in renewable energy, if that is what the government wants to do, just as it is important to keep the $800 million for social housing in. Those are not words; that is real. That is why we voted for the budget.

We also really have to tackle the fiscal imbalance. For the first time in this House a government has admitted that it exists.

[English]

[Table of Contents]

Hon. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois, which I must say is one of the more convoluted and complicated motions that I have ever seen in the House. If we read through the entrails of it, it basically says that, yes, we need to meet the Kyoto targets, but do not look to Quebec if we are to do that.

While I would agree that we need to acknowledge and recognize early movers, and there are some in Quebec, we need to recognize that across Canada. We all have to take some collective responsibility for dealing with greenhouse gases. My colleague from Yukon has pointed out, as we all recognize, that after years of the Conservative Party saying that the science was not clear, hopefully everyone in this chamber now understands that climate change and greenhouse gases are a problem.

We had a bit of the buck passing yesterday when the Minister of the Environment suggested that to meet the Kyoto targets we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets of Canada. That is interesting.

We do know that the transportation sector contributes substantially to our greenhouse gas emissions. What was noticeably absent was the question of large emitters. Where was that in her remarks? Large emitters are oil and gas producers and large manufacturing plants. That is why we in Ontario, for example, must take some responsibility for the greenhouse gases that are produced by the manufacturing sector. Indeed, we must do that across Canada, but how can we leave out oil and gas producers?

Greenhouse gas emissions are something that we have to start taking some collective responsibility for. In 1997 the Canadian government signed the Kyoto protocol. The opposition has said it was for photo opportunities. That is a scandalous claim to make. We know that the Prime Minister at the time received some pressure and lobbying from environmental groups, quite rightly, that had a grave concern about greenhouse gases and their effect on climate change.

The Prime Minister knew that the Kyoto accord was in jeopardy unless Canada signed on to the accord. The Prime Minister signed on to the Kyoto accord. What are the advantages of such an accord? The accord sets certain parameters. It sets certain stretch objectives and it puts in a framework for consequences if the targets are not met. By doing that, the Prime Minister saved the Kyoto protocol.

It could be argued, as some of us did at the time, that the goals would be very difficult to achieve and that we had to have a concrete plan. I think the government at the time was right to sign on to the Kyoto protocol. It was not too long ago, in fact in 2005, when the previous environment minister for the government brought out Project Green, which laid out a plan to move forward on climate change and achieve our Kyoto objectives.

Is it true that meeting our Kyoto objectives will be a stretch target? Absolutely. If we sit around in this chamber and debate and pass the buck, and throw it to the next generations, then we will have failed in our responsibility as members of Parliament. The government will have failed if it does not deal with it. We must deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.

We have heard a lot about this made in Canada solution. We do not know what that is. In fairness, the government has been in power for a short period of time, but it implies that the ozone layer knows a country's borders and that there is a recognition of that. We all know, on the Liberal side, that if Canada is to reduce greenhouse gas production, all citizens will have to play a part. That is why the previous government brought in programs such as the one tonne challenge and EnerGuide for housing which the present government is now gutting.

This morning at committee we found out from the departmental people that what the Minister of Natural Resources was talking about in terms of a 50¢ return to the people that were achieving energy reductions, 50¢ for the department and 50¢ for citizens, was actually a bit of a stretch in terms of the facts of the case. The facts are that there is about a 12¢ administrative charge that the department has to bear, but the other part is to do the pre and the post-audit.

Was the Minister of Natural Resources about to argue that we would not have any audit of the energy efficiencies that were planned to be undertaken? Would the experts have to go in and say, “yes, there is this kind of energy efficiency required that will be achieved”? Of course not. There is the question, was this getting the bang for the buck? However, the 50¢ dollar argument just does not cut it and we will be pursuing that one more.

(1355)

There are many opportunities where the Conservative government talks about picking up the low lying fruit. We certainly have opportunities in the transportation sector. There is public transit. What our government decided to do was to invest in public transit infrastructure and in fact, if we talk to the public transit experts they say that is what is required.

The program that the government is proposing, a tax credit for public transit users, we all know in the House that it will only get about a 10% to 20% maximum lift in terms of new users of public transit. What it does is reward existing users. That is nice. It is nice to reward existing users, but is that the best use of taxpayers' dollars? We want to get more people on public transit.

There are a number of other opportunities in terms of biofuels, but in Canada unfortunately, we have a mixed grid with different provincial regulations and targets with respect to ethanol. We keep talking about corn, but we know that in the United States the Americans are talking about grass and corn stalks. We need to start to get a little more creative.

I would like to talk about the oil sands because I know that it is a politically sensitive area. We know on this side that the national energy program was not the way to proceed. If anyone on this side does not understand that now, we need to examine ourselves.

Certainly, I will not support moving away from world prices on oil and gas. If we were to put our head in the sand, no pun intended, about what the oil sands is doing in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions, then we would be missing the point. We know that areas like Fort McMurray are going nuts. There seems to be unbridled growth. We know that the oil sands production is going to double by 2012 and triple by 2020. There is about a 40% input of energy to get out a unit of energy from the oil sands. Its impact on the water resources is huge. To produce one barrel of oil from the oil sands it takes 2 to 4.5 barrels of water. The Athabasca River basin is under huge stress.

We need to deal with these issues quickly. Is clean coal an oxymoron? I do not think so. Some would argue that it is, but we need to deal with that. We need to deal with a host of other issues in a constructive and positive way. I am hoping that is what the government will do.

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the member intended it, but I think he should apologize for referring to the people of Fort McMurray as being nuts, if I heard the member correctly. That is a sentiment that exists with too many members making reference to Albertans and this just reinforces the stereotype that we have to get rid of in this country.

[Table of Contents]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer):

It sounded more like a matter of debate, but I will check the blues.

Statements by members.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by members]

* * *

(1400)

[English]

Oshawa

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, on January 23 the people of Oshawa reaffirmed their faith in me as their voice in Ottawa. I would like to sincerely thank the City of Oshawa. I will work hard for a strong and innovative auto industry and, at last, a clean harbour.

I invite all parliamentarians to Oshawa on June 4 for the Students Against Violence Everywhere, or SAVE, walk to stop the violence. This six kilometre walk supports efforts to stop youth crime.

The SAVE Foundation is a proactive community group dedicated to driving positive change and to promoting a safe and violent-free community through the funding of educational initiatives, community programs, services and activities with a focus on youth.

Let us, as parliamentarians, take a stand against all violence in our communities.

* * *

Ashley Brear

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Don Bell (North Vancouver, Lib.):

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow that I rise in this House today to convey my deepest condolences to the family of Ashley Brear, a young lady who, at the age of 22, passed away, surrounded by her friends and family, after a three-year inspirational battle with cancer.

Ashley was the recipient of the prestigious 2005 YWCA Young Women of Distinction Award for her outstanding leadership in fundraising for the battle against cancer. Her “Keep on Swimming” fundraiser raised over $40,000 and will continue. It was my honour to have attended a fundraising event for Ashley last summer.

Last Friday, I and hundreds of others attended a celebration of life ceremony for Ashley in Vancouver. She will be sorely missed in our community.

* * *

[Translation]

International Compost Awareness Week

[Table of Contents]

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ):

Mr. Speaker, since this is International Compost Awareness Week, I want to remind hon. members that composting is a transformation process suitable for all biodegradable residue, whether food, agricultural, industrial or sewage. All these products cannot be easily recycled any other way. These organic materials should not end up in landfill sites because they can cause pollution in the groundwater and also produce methane, which is difficult to control in small landfill sites.

Methane produced this way is 22 times more harmful to the ozone layer than CO₂. Therefore it is best to compost on a large scale in composters that fully control greenhouse gases.

In 2002, there were only 35 centralized organic waste composting facilities in Canada. These facilities treat only 10% of all these materials.

If we want to reduce our dependence on landfills, then we must support composting on a very broad scale.

* * *

[English]

Mirae Lee

[Table of Contents]