Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, be read the second time and referred to committee.

Public Service Staff Relations Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to the order of Tuesday, November 17, 1994, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-58.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the Chair and all members of this House are aware, we have a long list of votes this evening. To speed up the process, I think you will find there is unanimous consent to do the following.

I think you will find unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed to Bill C-58 which is before us now, as follows: Liberals, in favour; the Bloc Quebecois, opposed; the Reform Party, in favour; the New Democratic Party, opposed; and the hon. member for Beauce wishes to be recorded as having voted in favour of this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, as reported (with amendments) from a committee.

Department Of Natural Resources Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of Bill C-48, an act to

establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related Acts.

The first question will be on Motion No. 3, standing in the name of the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the previous motion as follows: Liberals, opposed; Bloc Quebecois, in favour; Reform Party, in favour; New Democratic Party, in favour. I may add that the hon. member for Beauce has indicated that he wants his vote to be recorded as nay.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion lost.

The next division will be on Motion No. 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Abitibi. The result will also be applied to Motion No. 6.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed to the motion before the House, as follows: Liberals, nay; Bloc Quebecois, yea; Reform Party, yea; New Democratic Party, nay; and the hon. member for Beauce wishes his vote to be recorded as nay.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare Motion No. 4 lost, and consequently, I also declare Motion No. 6 lost.

The next division will be on Motion No. 5.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote on the previous motion to the motion before us, as follows: Liberals, nay; Bloc Quebecois, yea; Reform Party, nay; New Democratic Party, nay; and the hon. member for Beauce wishes his vote to be recorded as nay.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare Motion No. 5 lost.

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the previous motion to the motion before us, as follows: Liberals, yea; Bloc Quebecois, nay; Reform Party, yea; New Democratic Party, yea; and the hon. member for Beauce wishes his vote to be recorded as yea.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from November 21, 1994, consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-53.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the previous motion to the motion now before the House, as follows: Liberals, yea; Bloc Quebecois, nay; Reform Party, nay; New Democratic Party, nay; the hon. member for Beauce, yea.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

Global Climate Change

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker, in essence this motion is about climate change. It is an issue for the 21st century which has to be tackled in this decade. It is an issue that has serious economic and environmental consequences.

Climate change as predicted by meteorologists and scientists all over the world would have serious consequences on forestry, on agriculture, on fisheries, on biodiversities. Most important from a human perspective are the consequences on sea levels and what that might do to populations around the Pacific whose existence would be threatened by rising sea levels as predicted by some.

Leading scientists and technical experts are telling governments all over the world that greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities are increasing substantially. For instance, according to Environment Canada statistics the emissions of carbon dioxide, which I will refer to as CO2, in Canada alone are on a constant increase and represent by comparison to other nations 2 per cent of all emissions produced in the world. That is second only to the United States.

If we look at the statistics on a per capita basis then we as a nation are at the top of the list when it comes to carbon dioxide emissions. This is due to a number of understandable reasons. It has to do with our climate. It has to do with the great distances and size of our country. It has also to do with lifestyle.

However, the result of these emissions is to be found in an increase in average temperatures in the earth's surface. It is interesting to note there is clear evidence that the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up by half a degree Celsius over the past century. In the case of Canada alone it has been measured as having gone up by 1.1 degree Celsius. The 10 warmest years of the last 100 years have occurred and have been measured since 1980.

Consequently climate change was discussed at length and was almost central in the debates at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio. On that occasion Canada ratified with many other nations a convention which calls for governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are very close to that date.

Recognizing the urgency of this issue and recognizing our international responsibilities, the government has actually made a further commitment. It is contained in the 1993 election campaign red book. This commitment is to cut by 20 per cent the carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005.

As a result of that commitment, federal-provincial negotiations have taken place at an intense pace over the past 10 months culminating with the meeting in Bathurst, New Brunswick a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion environment and energy ministers of the federal, provincial and territorial governments of Canada discussed this matter at length.

We learned on that occasion from newspaper clippings that the representatives of the Alberta government were opposed to any regulations aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. From the clippings we learned that Alberta wants a voluntary approach only and that this position is also favoured by certain industries. I quote from the Gazette of November 8 where we learned the following:

Alberta won't go along with a plan by Ottawa and other provinces for mandatory regulations to reduce carbon pollution and clean up the air. "We're not participating," Alberta's Ty Lund said yesterday as he emerged from a day of talks among Canada's environment ministers.

Mr. Lund, who is the environment minister for Alberta, scoffed at Ontario minister Bud Wildman's comment that some mandatory requirements would have to be put into place to cut

the amount of pollution from smoke stacks and car exhaust pipes.

The question is why is the Government of Alberta opposed to such regulations? Why does it support regulations in other sectors? It accepts regulations and support regulations in aviation, agriculture, health and hygiene, you name it, but it does not want regulations with respect to climate change. Why does the Alberta government not want to help in meeting an obligation to the world community and reduce greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide which is the most prevalent of all the greenhouse gases as we all know?

On the other hand, people in Alberta support the environment and we know that. People in Alberta understand the international obligation that we have. It seems to me that Alberta members of Parliament and senators have a role to play here in convincing the provincial government to co-operate.

In support of what I just said I will quote from the Globe and Mail of November 8. According to a poll taken by the Environics Research Group Ltd., the paper stated:

The public apparently supports change, too. The results of a poll of 1,500 adults taken in August and September showed strong support for strong measures, including majority approval of a 10 per cent increase in energy prices, if the money was used to cut pollution-

That is quite an interesting expression of public opinion. In the Gazette of the same day the same point is being made. It states:

Apparently, so does the Canadian public. Most people interviewed in a new poll said they would be willing to pay 10 per cent more for their energy if the money were redirected to reduce pollution.

Today and for the next three months leading into February the federal Minister of Natural Resources has a very difficult task of seeking the co-operation of provincial and territorial governments so that a national plan can be forged to reduce this type of dangerous emission.

The question is, does Alberta want to isolate itself from this effort? What good would it serve to be alone, saying no to an effort that will attempt to reach the desired goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and which cannot be left to the voluntary sector alone?

The question also arises here, to have a complete picture, is what needs to be done? Today's energy policies need to be looked at thoroughly and they need to undergo a profound change at the federal level of government as well as the provincial and municipal.

Let us take, for example, the federal level and in particular the federal Department of Natural Resources, formerly known as energy, mines and resources.

Here we find year after year in the budgets of that department, and particularly in the last 10 years, generous subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Alone in 1994 and 1995 natural resources, Canada's energy division, just one division within that department, expects to spend a total of $383 million.

Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that 87 per cent of this amount will be spent as grants and contributions with most of these funds going to fossil fuel projects? Only a very small portion goes to energy efficiency, energy conservation, and research into alternative sources of energy. In this day and age against the background of the climate change issue, this does not make sense any longer.

Look at the Department of Finance. Here we find generous tax rebates and tax expenditures all favouring the Canadian fossil fuel industry. Actually, if one looks over a period of time, for years the fossil fuel industry sector has enjoyed extremely generous subsidies in the form of outright grants, tax deferments, write-offs, loans, loan guarantees, and exploration subsidies. You name it, Mr. Speaker.

Every year, according to the calculations we have conducted, the federal government gives over $5 billion in the form of tax concessions to the fossil fuel sector. Over $5 billion in tax concessions. If you apply to this amount a tax rate of 20 per cent, this kind of assistance or hand-out, depending on how you want to call it, results in over $1 billion in lost revenue.

As recently as October 1993 during the last campaign, some $85 million was given to the Lloydminster heavy oil upgrader which finally had to be cancelled some six weeks ago. I congratulate the Minister of Finance for that decision. It had to be cancelled after a loss incurred on the part of the taxpayers of Canada of some $945 million.

The amount of $85 million that was made available in October 1993 exceeds by some $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the efficiency and alternate energy program. I repeat, the amount that was given to the Lloydminster project, on its deathbed if you like, exceeded by $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the efficiency and alternate energy program.

This does make sense. There is no coherence in these kinds of financial decisions and budgetary decisions.

To make things worse, the 1994-95 funding for approved efficiency and renewable energy projects was cut back because of budget constraints. In addition, the government in Ottawa currently has a large sum invested in fossil fuel megaprojects, notably Hibernia, which represents a commitment of some $3 billion.

If you put this picture against the background of Canada's commitment to stabilize and then reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent, these subsidies clearly must be examined

and must be reapplied and invested in new directions, first for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency and, second, in reducing over the long term our dependence on fossil fuels.

On energy efficiency we find that Canada's global competitors, including Japan, Germany, you name it, have enjoyed strong economic growth because many years ago they understood that energy efficiency means a measure that brings about economic advantages at the same time.

They adopted strong energy efficiency measures. We by comparison must admit that we still have a long way to go. Studies conducted in the United States, New Brunswick, Quebec, and British Columbia all confirm that investments in energy efficiency consistently create more jobs than investments in conventional energy supply projects.

A 1987 study by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, which is back quite a while, concluded that investments in efficiency create an average of 19 direct and indirect jobs per every $1 million invested compared to an average of seven jobs per $1 million invested in oil and gas extraction. This is quite a stunning comparison for which we are indebted to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which, however, does not seem to be capable of putting its own findings into practice.

Clearly, money saved by industrial, commercial and residential investors in energy efficiency would be freed up and could be respent in other areas of the economy. According to a report for the British Columbia Energy Council by Marbek Resource Consultants and G.E. Bridges and Associates, this respending accounts for more than 50 per cent of all new jobs created and 90 per cent of the net jobs created over equal investments in conventional energy supply projects.

To conclude, if we are to act in our own self-interests for the long term and if we are to meet our obligations internationally because we want to behave as good members of the family of nations where the recognition has been made that there is a serious problem that must be dealt with, Canada needs a national plan on carbon dioxide as other nations already have. Those who do not have it are working at it quite laboriously.

This kind of national plan would set out for each province what each economic sector is to do and what each level of government can do through various means, through budgets, taxation measures, and regulations. All this would be done in order to achieve greater energy efficiency which is an economic plus to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and therefore slow down the trend in climate change. Finally, it would be to achieve for generations to come this very difficult but necessary, gradual shift in our dependence on fossil fuels to a dependence on renewable sources of energy.