House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

I shall now propose Motions Nos. 5 and 6 in Group No. 2 to the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

moved:

That Bill C-43, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 67 with the following:

“domestic credits.”

That the Bill C-43, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 30 on page 69 with the following:

“18. The Agnecy may not acquire eligible Kyoto units.”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this area. I appreciate the ruling of the Speaker earlier today ruling theses motions in order. They are an important public policy issues. I am pleased that we have the opportunity to say a few words on the motion.

This is part of a whole area within the federal budget that relates to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The first question Canadians might have asked themselves on budget night was, “Why is this in the middle of the federal budget?” Generally, environmental legislation stands alone. It is introduced by the Minister of the Environment, it is debated and the House decides on it.

In my opinion, by sticking it in the budget, the government figured it might get the budget through anyway, so it might as well load it up. The government might as well have put a few amendments to the Criminal Code in the budget if it thought they might be unpopular. In any case, the government decided to go ahead with amendments in this area.

The motion that we have put forward deals with the whole question of carbon credits. The budget proposed something known as the Canadian emission reduction agency. This would be a new agency of the federal government.

It is a hot day in Ottawa. I bet that gives members a bit of a chill that a new government agency would be created. Is that not a wonderful idea and it comes with its own bureaucracy too. This is another great idea from the Liberals to deal with this. Who knows, maybe a few Liberal friends have a little time on their hands. Maybe they could help out and dole out the money. After all, it has a $1 billion budget. I bet it will be very popular.

There are some of us who think that this is exactly what we do not need. What this agency is charged with is buying, among other things, foreign carbon credits.

Incredibly, this is a plan to start purchasing outside the country the right for Canadian companies to pollute inside the country. We pay other people outside of Canada. Try to even explain this to people. Most people would find it incredulous. The obvious candidate for this is communist China. We already heard that it is the beneficiary of largesse from the Canadian government. Go figure, the more repressive the regime, the more favourable its treatment from the Canadian government.

In any case, if we buy foreign carbon credits, apparently China is on the must go to list. It does not make sense to spend Canadian money outside the country for the right for Canadian companies to pollute. We sure do not need one more bureaucracy set up by the government to dole out money. That is exactly what Canada does not want.

This is why the Conservative Party has been saying for some time to make a made in Canada environmental policy. My colleague, the member for Red Deer, has been on this case for quite some time. He has been getting excellent reviews across the country when he presents his made in Canada plan from our party and for our country. Our plan makes sense. Who should be subsidizing pollution over in China? Who should be sending Canadian dollars outside our country? It does not make any sense whatsoever.

We think any money for an agency such as this should be spent on green technology in Canada, helping out Canadian companies to reduce pollution, not to be subsidizing it and sending the money outside the country.

Our position on this is very straightforward. We want a made in Canada solution. We are absolutely committed to cleaning up the environment in our country. There are those who say take the word “Conservative”, conserve what we have by protecting Canada's natural resources and cleaning up the water, air and land. Our party stands for that and this is why we have to oppose things like this.

It should not be in the budget at all and putting it in the budget still does not make it a good idea. It is a bad idea and we have opposed this all the way along. We sure do not need one more Liberal organized bureaucracy in this town. We also sure do not need to give them any budget where they can start spending money.

We know how difficult it has been for the government to keep an eye on money that is supposed to be spent in Canada. We have had months of testimony on all the problems it has had keeping track of money. The Minister of Finance is not quite sure where all the advertising money went. He claims he was unaware of the program.

If the Liberals do not know where the money goes when it is spent in Canada, how will they figure out where it is spent when it is sent overseas? They will not know how or where that money ends up. This is a bad idea and I hope all members of the House accept and support us on these very reasonable amendments.

Those are my comments and I certainly look forward to the support of all members of the House.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Richmond Hill Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I guess we need to start with the premise that the member does not believe in climate change because if he did he would know that this is an international based system. It is part of what all the signatories to the Kyoto protocol have supported and it will support Canadian technology abroad.

If the member really believes in supporting green Canadian technology he would obviously support this. He would support reducing emissions in China, in India or anywhere else.

How can the member stand in his place and suggest that somehow this will only be for emissions in Canada, when climate change is a global issue not just a Canadian issue? Does he not understand the role that Canadian companies would play in this global effort to reduce emissions?

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is the exact reason that we are proposing these things. Subsidizing pollution outside or inside this country does not make any sense at all. I say to the hon. member that he should start to worry about pollution in Canada and spend the money here. These are hard-earned Canadian tax dollars and I do not want them sent overseas to subsidize somebody else's pollution. That is absolutely wrong and that is not what this party stands for.

We want a made in Canada solution. Canadian tax dollars should be spent on green technology in Canada. We must work with industry. We must work with all interested parties in cleaning up pollution in Canada. That is what we stand for.

The Liberals stand for something else. They want to send the money outside the country where they will never know what happens to it. We know they cannot keep track of where the money goes now in Canada. To start trusting them with a new government agency doling out the cash to buy carbon credits, does not make sense. When it does not make sense, the Conservative Party of Canada does not support it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, it is almost unbelievable that the Conservatives do not understand that air pollution crosses borders. It is as if there is a big wall that stops it from crossing borders. It is as if the global warming that is affecting our economy so dramatically does not cross borders and the emissions of China and the other countries are not harming the people in Canada in the north.

It has already been proven scientifically. Pollution is pollution is pollution and it goes around the world. Just because we stop a source that is inside or outside our border, it is still making better health for Canadians and helping Canadians.

It is also too bad that the Conservatives constantly attack our exporters. They are against the Export Development Corporation and now they are against us exporting these green technologies by doing these projects in other countries and showing that Canada can be a leader, as we are in other fields like telecommunications.

That is the benefit of the international regime and the trading of credits. We may not need it anyway. There may be enough domestic offsets that we will never get to the international trading of credits.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will never get it figured out. Part of the problem with the Liberals is that they can never put Canadian interests first and foremost in any policy. It never works out that way. Whenever they get involved with anything, we always see it is the national interest that suffers.

We have seen all kinds of evidence of it and I am suggesting that this is another example. How about all that nonsense and all that money they wasted on the ad scam program, supposedly for Canadian unity? Have we ever heard of anything so ridiculous? Those people have done more to hurt Canadian unity than anybody has in 50 years because they did not put Canada first. They were so busy lining their own pockets. Ad scam was about people helping themselves and not helping this great country of Canada.

I say to the Liberals that just for a change they should put Canada first. Let us clean up pollution here and build a wonderful society in Canada before they start worrying about everything and everybody else.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this period of questions and comments around the amendment presented by my Conservative colleague.

What brings me to my feet today is not so much this colleague's speech as the government's lack of understanding of the spirit of the motion presented by the Conservative Party.

What must be understood is that we are not opposed to Canada's participation in an international emissions trading system under the Kyoto protocol. What we do not want is to see public funds, the taxpayers' money, used to buy foreign credits. If companies want to do this, that is fine. In fact, many are already doing so.

I want to ask my colleague whether that is not in fact the spirit of the motion: not to exclude Canada from the trading mechanisms, but rather to have the capital invested here, instead of elsewhere, to achieve reductions of greenhouse gases at source?

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, of course Canada cooperates with all countries in all good ideas and good proposals. No one has a better record for standing up for what is right in this world than Canada. We cooperate with other countries and we welcome initiatives to reduce pollution all over the world.

The member makes a very good point. Who thinks it is a good idea to start shipping Canadian dollars overseas? We should use that money here in Canada to develop green technology in Canada and to work with Canadian companies. Let us clean up pollution right here in Canada. The member for Red Deer has been proposing that and I totally agree with him.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:45 p.m.

Richmond Hill Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, for a member who was part of a government that left us a $42.5 billion deficit, I do not think we need to take any lessons on how to invest and spend money.

Specifically, we are the government that has had eight balanced budgets or better and the only G-7 state paying off the national debt. Therefore, when it comes to money, I would suggest that is a topic the member may want to debate with me at another time.

On this particular issue, let us get it clear. Our first priority is to reduce emissions in Canada. However the member should know, if he has read the Kyoto protocol and understands it, that this is a global treaty. Canada fought hard to have a market based emissions trading system and in fact if the amendment were to go forth it would block Canada out of an international trading system. That makes absolutely no sense.

I agree with my colleague from Yukon. This is an issue that transcends borders. Although our primary concern is in Canada, the issue is that Canadian companies, which are leaders in the areas of clean air, clean water and of dealing with issues that affect all countries, will have the opportunity to work abroad. All our partners in the Kyoto protocol system are buying international credits. I therefore am not quite sure what the member does not understand.

Our priority is Canada. However, if in fact they cannot all be met within Canada, we will be able to deal with it in the trading system internationally. In terms of the actual emissions, they must be verifiable and they must be real. There is no hot air from Russia, no hot air from the Conservatives and no hot air from anyone. We are not buying hot air. They must be verifiable and they must conform to Kyoto. In other words, those have to be real reductions, which is what we have said all along.

I am not quite sure why these amendments were put forth because we are simply doing what all the other countries are doing in terms of the treaty. We are saying that it is a global problem and if it is a global problem we need to have the global instruments and, in this case, we obviously are prepared to act domestically. If there is a need internationally we will have that opportunity. We will not cut ourselves off while other countries will have that opportunity.

On the one hand the party opposite complains that it does not believe in Kyoto, that it does not even believe in climate change and that it does not believe there is a real problem and if there is it will not give us the tools to deal with the problem. It then will say that we could not solve the problem but it will because it did not give us all the options.

I do not think any good general goes into any battle and precludes certain options. We are very clear Kyoto compliant in terms of those emissions. This is something that Canadian companies support because companies in the green technology field, of which Canada is a leader, will have an opportunity. Why would we want to freeze out Canadian companies in the international system? Why would we not want to do that? Why would we not support that?

We are not spending money abroad. I really think the member has to rethink what it is he is asking because in this case it would not comply with the others. It does not assist Canadian companies and it certainly does not help on the issue of climate change globally.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is in relation to this particular file because I am a little bit curious. First, we have 22 forest fires that are burning in northern Alberta and my understanding is that the carbon dioxide from those fires will be greater than by all the vehicles in Canada in the next 10 years. It makes me curious as to why we are not controlling those forest fires in Alberta and the ones burning in the rest of Canada.

In the transfer of wealth that obviously the Liberal government is supporting to third world countries my question is twofold. First, why are we going to transfer this wealth to third world countries that obviously will be supporting their foreign workers and the factories owned by these foreign countries but which are not bound by the Kyoto responsibilities? They are not Kyoto signatories. I wonder why we would be sending money to them without any safety net.

As well, I am curious to know if the member agrees with the statement of the Sierra Club that the only reason we have to do the transfer of wealth, to send $5 billion in the next five years to third world countries, is that the Liberal government has done absolutely nothing since 1992 on the file. Does the member agree with Mr. Bennett, director of the Sierra Club, on that statement?

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not really clear. I am disappointed in this member because I have a lot of respect for him and I do not understand.

The member should know that the climate change plan released by the government on April 13 is the most aggressive plan in the G-7. We have a plan to deal with the issue of climate change but not climate change alone. We are not an island. We have to work with other countries.

The seven most polluted cities in the world are in China. Does the member somehow feel that those emissions are going to stay there and will not drift over here? I know that in the city of Toronto we are now getting particles from the Sahara desert.

This is not where walls are put up. Clearly, this is a problem. If we can assist and if Canadian companies have an opportunity to help reduce these emissions in China, India or anywhere else to help people breath better and to reduce emissions around the world, then I think that is a good idea.

I am not clear on what moneys the member is talking about. Clearly, Canadian technology is going to be used to further this. There is a real demand in the world for Canadian technology, whether it is in Japan, China, India or the Philippines. Whether it is dealing with polluted waters in Bangkok or air pollution issues in Seoul, Korea, the fact is that we have the technology.

It goes back to the premise that if we do not believe in climate change, we will think of all sorts of bogeymen to say why we should not do it. On the one hand, we have a very aggressive plan. The opposition does not want us to do some of the things that make that plan operable. It is good for Canadians and it is good for citizens of the world.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying some outrageous things today, through the parliamentary secretary. First of all, he says that supporting these amendments by the Conservative Party will exclude Canadian companies from the emission credit trading mechanism. That is totally wrong. The proof of this is that there are already Quebec and Canadian companies taking part in such trades. For instance Alcan, TransAlta and Pechiney are involved in a pilot project at the Chicago stock exchange.

These amendments are not intended to exclude Canadian companies, but rather to avoid the government's trying to get around respecting its greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments by purchasing pollution credits elsewhere using the taxpayers' money.

Will the government admit that voting in favour of this amendment by the Conservative Party does not mean that businesses will be excluded?

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. This amendment would block Canada out of this market based emissions trading system. That is one of the fundamental tenets of the protocol. It is one of the fundamental things that we have said. Other countries are doing the same thing.

If there are members of the House who hold a different view, and that seems to be the case, because they do not want Canada to fulfill its international obligations and they do not want Canada to be part of this, then they can vote for that amendment. We have said that we will do as much as we can in cooperation with industries in Canada to deal with our emissions problem.

However, if we need to be part of that international system, this amendment would block us. I would not want to be in that situation. I cannot foretell the future any more than that member can.

We clearly do not support this amendment because it is not good for Canada. It is not good for the environment and it would not respect, in my view, the international obligations that the House and the government have signed on to.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address Bill C-43 at report stage, and more specifically Motions Nos. 5 and 6 presented by the Conservative Party and currently before the House.

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Canadian government—and I emphasize that, the Canadian government—cannot buy foreign pollution credits with public funds, with the taxes paid by taxpayers. This is not to say that Canada must not take part in the system to exchange emission credits that is already provided for in the Kyoto protocol. Rather, it means that it is out of the question for the government to use public funds to buy these pollution credits.

Why is it important to include these amendments in Bill C-43? Because we must set limits on the actions of the agency that we are talking about today.

In recent years, the federal government first off failed to meet its international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While Canada was to cut these emissions by 6%, they have in fact increased by 20% since 1990. The government presented us with a plan in 2002 in which it provided that we would limit purchase of emission credits abroad to approximately 10 megatonnes. We could have accepted this objective and this burden.

However, we saw in the green plan the government presented in recent weeks that it had removed the limit on the credits it could purchase abroad. So, the government has increased Canada's likelihood of achieving its objectives not by reducing greenhouse gas emissions at source, but by looking for and buying emission credits abroad. That is where the problem lies.

If Canadian businesses want to purchase emission credits on the international market, so be it. I do not think it is up to the federal government to intervene in such a market mechanism. Businesses will be able to make use of a future emission credit exchange. It could be based in Chicago, as is the current pilot project, or in Montreal. It does not matter. Businesses have the time to do it.

What we do not want, once again, is for the government to go buying pollution credits, using public taxes to acquire them. The public wants greenhouse gas emissions reduced at source. They want the government to invest in sectors where we could achieve greenhouse gas reductions, whether it be in the industrial, transportation or rail sector.

That is why we must support this Conservative Party amendment. We have to support it because businesses have already taken part in this mechanism. I said it earlier. Alcan, TransAlta, Péchiney and other Canadian companies have taken advantage of this international trading mechanism that we are adopting. But, when the government says that if we agree to the Conservative Party's amendments, businesses will not be able to take part in a credit trading system, this is not true.

If this new agency acted as an international broker, it could work. However, we have no such guarantee. We want the other side of the House to guarantee that the government will not try to walk away from its commitments on domestic reductions on the Canadian market by purchasing foreign credits.

By creating this agency, we are opening this door. We simply want to close it again.

In fact, the government has told us that buying hot air or purchasing foreign pollution credits from countries that reduced their emissions as a result of an economic downturn was out of the question. We want this guarantee, which the agency does not give us.

We must support these recommendations, because they are what the government's commitment in recent years is all about. Canada has tried everything, in the wake of a policy that not only did not reach its objectives but led to a major increase in greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, an additional burden is being placed on industries that have made an effort in the past.

This plan, which has been tabled and which would allow Canada more than ever to purchase credits abroad, is unacceptable. With this plan, the government has allowed the purchase of emission credits abroad. Even worse, with Bill-43, it has established and accredited the mechanism for such purchases abroad.

If the government really believes, first, that any climate change plan should focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source and, second, that public investments should be made here, in Canada, while preventing as much as possible the flight of capital from Canada, it will support the amendments in Motions Nos. 5 and 6. This is really only to ensure that Canada will honour its commitments.

Canada is made up of more than just businesses. It is made up of the government, businesses and citizens. This amendment would prevent the Canadian government from shirking its responsibilities by buying emission credits abroad. Greenhouse gas emission reduction targets will nonetheless be imposed on industry.

By the way, these reduction targets are unfair to Quebec's businesses and to its industrial and manufacturing sectors, which are Quebec's economic base. Quebec wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 4% and by even more in some sectors. These will have reduction targets similar to those imposed on large industrial emitters, whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 30%. The marginal cost to these Quebec businesses, which have made efforts in the past, is likely to be much higher than that of other businesses in major industrial sectors which sat on their hands in the past.

What is needed is a fair and equitable system. We, on this side of the House, will never support any attempt to establish a mechanism that will encourage the flight of capital from Canada and we will never support a mechanism allowing the government to buy emission credits abroad. We believe that the money of Quebeckers and Canadians ought to be invested at home, so that greenhouse gas emissions can truly be reduced at the source.

Therefore, we have to support these motions in amendment, which will prevent the Canadian government from buying emission credits abroad to shirk its responsibilities and international commitments.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to respond to some of the comments that were made by the member and perhaps pick up on some of the debate that has been going on for the last little while.

I want to remind the House that this is not merely about hot air credits and to position it as such is really a falsehood. In fact, let us look back at the genesis of the Kyoto protocol. First, if we look at the reason why Canadian industries, as the member has rightly pointed out, have so readily embraced the notion of a domestic and international trading system, it is because they know what we know, which is that the international agreement and the Kyoto protocol call precisely for an emerging international trading regime. They wanted to get the jump on their competitors and, for that matter, ahead of the regulators who would be creating such a trading system.

The second reason that the protocol embraced an international trading regime is twofold: first, to facilitate capital flows into emerging economies in developing countries that are desperately in need of enhanced receipt of capital flows. We know that private capital flows have displaced public capital flows in terms of international aid by about 500-fold. This was considered to be a major mechanism through which we would be able to facilitate capital flows into those countries. Second, to facilitate the ultimate entry of those emerging economies and those developing countries into the Kyoto protocol in due course as signatories.

Canada is doing here exactly what the protocol set out for industrialized economies, which is to be a full participant by taking a leadership role by creating a domestic system and in so doing, getting the jump on the international system.

The question I want to put to the member is clear. If Canada was not to participate in the international trading system, what would we say to those players, those actors in Canada, and for that matter in the United States on a state by state level, who want to get more experience from trading and who ultimately want to help design the international trading regime? I think most Canadians actors would say that they want to harvest a market mechanism to achieve an environmental improvement. Clearly, the other side of the House does not.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has debated the subject of the agency and the creation of an emissions credit trade system. We support the creation of such a system. We have nothing against it. I would, however, have preferred to hear from the member some indication of whether he thinks Canada should use taxpayers' dollars to buy pollution credits. That is the issue being addressed in this debate on Motions Nos. M-5 and M-6, and I have not heard him say anything about them so far.

This being a government agency, the possibility of going elsewhere to buy emission credits is not excluded. Because of its very nature, it is governmental.

What are Motions Nos. M-5 and M-6 about? I am not privy to the innermost thoughts of the member. Does he truly not believe that what needs to be done is to restrict and prevent the government from buying foreign credits? This does not block Canadian businesses from doing so. In my colleague's first speech, he said and repeated, and rightly so, that business wants this system, this emission credit trade mechanism. That goes over well with us on this side, because we also support this trade mechanism.

But do these businesses really believe that public funds ought not to be going back to them in order to develop technology and to ensure that we achieve the greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than using the taxpayers' dollars to buy pollution credits? That is the real question.

I feel that the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party do not in any way discredit or eliminate the creation of a credit trade system. They do, however, prevent the government from going to other countries to buy emission credits, though businesses are not prevented from doing so.

I repeat for the umpteenth time that, if these industrial sectors were allowed to purchase these credits elsewhere, they would be able to meet the Kyoto objectives for their sector. This would be accounted for nationally as a reduction and a step in the right direction as far as Canada's international objectives are concerned.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments to Bill C-43 and to the bill in its broader context.

For the first time in many years the NDP had an active role in the development of the budget. We take great pride in the fact that we used our minority status in this Parliament to the advantage of the greater Canadian population by trying to steer this budget process toward a spending pattern that would use our tax dollars to benefit Canadians. That is the best way to sum it up.

We cannot really speak to the amendments to Bill C-43, the main Liberal budget, in isolation without speaking in extension to the changes that the NDP negotiated.

We saw Bill C-43 as not meeting the needs of Canadians. We saw it as another typical Liberal budget with great shortcomings. The Conservatives voted for the original Liberal budget as it stands, but are now moving amendments that seek to break out the environmental provisions that would seek to improve the environment.

I do not understand their thought process. I am not sure they understand fully the logic behind their approach to Bill C-43. They voted for it at one stage and then when the NDP managed to seek amendments in a completely separate bill, they cannot see fit to support either.

I find the position of the Conservative Party on environmental issues not unusual, but difficult to understand, especially the spending to help us come in line with the Kyoto accord. I have watched an agonizing process as the Conservatives, and previously the Alliance and before that the Reform Party, tried to get their minds around the issue of global warming. I should note that they started out in complete denial.

When I first came to this place in 1997, the Reform Party members were in complete denial that global warming was a problem. They would bring up all the old yarns that cow farts were more devastating to the environment than the impact of human activity. We watched that thought process evolve. The member for Red Deer had the unenviable task of trying to represent the Reform Party's views on global warming which seemed to be evolving as fast as global warming itself.

I do not envy the public watching who are trying to get their minds around where the budget is going and where their tax dollars are going to be spent because it is in a state of flux and contradiction. The Conservative Party voted for the original Liberal budget, which contained elements for spending on meeting our Kyoto targets and fighting greenhouse gas emissions. We voted against it because that budget had no spending for social issues, and the biggest deficit that Canada has today is the social deficit left in the wake of years of budgetary cutbacks.

A flip-flop took place. As soon as the NDP successfully used its minority status in this opposition Parliament to lever its agenda onto the public domain, as a good political party would do, the Conservatives reversed their position. They are now against the Liberal budget even though it has been broken into two separate bills. The original budget that they first voted for is Bill C-43 and they seem to be opposed to that now, and by extension they are opposed to any social spending.

This contradiction is not lost on Canadians. This contradiction has been partly responsible for the absolute plummet in the public opinion polls for the Conservative Party. If Canadians ever did see that party as a grassroots party here to represent the little guy, they certainly do not see that anymore.

What Canadians see is a party that is using its significant opposition status in this minority Parliament as the Queen's official opposition to no constructive purpose at all. In fact, opposition members are holding back some very good news spending for ordinary Canadians, municipalities, post-secondary education, and social housing in the very communities that they were sent here to represent.

The contradiction is glaring in our mind, for those of us who deal with it every day. However, it is glaring in the minds of ordinary Canadians too who are tuning in and trying to figure out just what the Conservatives are doing. We almost feel like saying that if they cannot do something constructive, why do they not just stay home because they are just getting in the way of us trying to do something constructive on behalf of ordinary Canadians.

It must be terribly frustrating for the voters who sent them to Ottawa to act on their behalf. The ultimate task and duty of any member of Parliament is to bring home the bacon. Well here they have an opportunity to bring home the bacon and they are obstructing. They are stalling and opposing spending for their home communities.

In other words, they think that it is squandering taxpayer dollars to invest in things such as social housing, post-secondary education, and cleaning up the environment, the very air we breathe. As Canadians are choking on smog days to an unprecedented degree, we have a budget that actually plans on spending money to address smog days, but the Conservative Party is opposing it. It boggles the mind. The plummet in the public opinion polls can be attributed in part to this confusing message that the Conservative Party is sending to Canadians.

The NDP finds itself frustrated to one degree because it would like to send Canadians a positive message before this minority Parliament adjourns for the summer break. Our party would like to say that we have used our time well, that we have used our time constructively, and that we have used what little influence we have in these 19 seats way over in this corner of the House of Commons. Our party has managed to use its political capital to lever some good news spending for Canadians and our members are very proud of that track record. Look at what we have done with 19 seats. If we only had 99 seats like the Conservative Party of Canada has, imagine the constructive good news spending that could take place.

There is one message that I would leave people with as my time expires. It is plain to see that when voters send more New Democrats to Ottawa as members of Parliament, good things start to happen. That is self-evident and abundantly clear, and Canadians apparently have taken note.

They also know that when they send 99 Conservative members of Parliament to Ottawa, it stalls progress. They are the antithesis of progressive. Maybe that is why they took the word “progressive” out of their name because progress is stalled when 99 Conservatives are standing in the way. It is like 99 bottles of beer on the wall. We have to knock them off, so we can move forward with the agenda that we have.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member should spend all this time beating up on the Conservatives because everyone knows they voted against all the environmental issues.

I want to talk about the Bloc and the environment. We did see a little bit of light this morning because it seems like the Bloc does agree with international trading credits unlike the Conservatives. So that is the one good news story. However, I find it inconceivable that at one time the Bloc seemed ready to support the environment, and are now voting against the largest environmental budget in the history of Canada. It sounds like the Bloc is going to vote against the ideas of the NDP on improved money for transit which of course will help the people of Quebec with air pollution. It will help them with greenhouse gases. I cannot believe the Bloc is against cutting air pollution and greenhouse gases.

I found it absolutely astonishing that the environment critic from the Bloc, who just spoke, said that it was good for large companies to reduce but not for companies in Quebec. It is great for companies in the rest of Canada, but their companies could not reduce their greenhouse gases. He said that it would somehow hurt them drastically.

It is like drugs. We want to get lower drug prices for the poor people, but the Bloc could not support that because of Quebec's drug companies. I want the member to comment on the inconsistencies in the perceived philosophy of the Bloc. The people of Quebec are really supportive of the environment, of cutting greenhouse gases, and cutting pollution, but the Bloc is not and its members are voting against it.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague from Yukon this way. It is an achievement to get environmental issues into a budget. It took a learning process and an education process right across the country for us showing leadership to convince Canadians that the environment is enough of a priority that it deserves a significant place in our federal budget for this year.

I think the problem now is the inverse. There was a time when we had to drag Canadians along to the belief that the environment was a priority. Now it is Canadians who are demanding that their governments respond and do something. Canadians are waking up in the morning and finding that the smog situation is worse than ever before, even though cars are becoming cleaner, et cetera.

The real driver here is ordinary Canadians who are demanding better of their government. We have listened. When I say “we” I say the architects of this budget have listened and put significant environmental spending into this budget.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Guay Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I know that the environment has always been an extremely important issue to the NDP, as it has to the Bloc Québécois.

I wonder if, instead of buying international credits just to look good, it would not be better to invest in other resources, such as electric cars. These environmental measures may be taken on a small, medium or large scale, but they give immediate results. Among other things, there could be a tax credit for people who buy an electric car.

I would like his opinion on this.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005Government Orders

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that Canadians are anxiously waiting for is the share of the gas tax that is to go to municipalities to help introduce things such as rapid transit to reduce emissions.

We also welcome the idea of green roofs, technologies associated with demand side management. One of the elements of this budget is to introduce an energy retrofitting program for residential homes and multi-family residential dwellings so that they will use less energy. It would eliminate waste, create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The trading of emission credits is one small component in the environmental details that we contemplate coming out of this budgetary spending. I have worked closely with my colleagues from the Bloc on environmental issues. This time I believe the time is right to vote in favour of this spending. It is better than nothing and it does in fact address some of the issues that we consistently raise.

Municipalities need help right now with transit issues, et cetera. There is no justification for delaying and stalling the flow of this money. We should roll out this spending now without delay.