Debates of Feb. 5th, 1999

Citizenship Of Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have time to go on at length the next time this bill is up for consideration because, happily for him, there are six minutes remaining in his time.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from December 8, 1998 consideration of the motion.

Energy Efficiency Strategy

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to continue the debate on this very worthwhile and important motion, Motion No. 300.

I think this motion which deals with energy efficiency and the federal government's response to the calls and expectations of energy efficiency is a very timely debate and discussion. The impact of the Department of Natural Resources Canada's programs on energy efficiency has been very positive both for the environment and for the economy.

Picking up where I left off I would like to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that he was quite correct in his earlier conversation with the House when he made the link between energy efficiency and job creation. Every $1 million invested in energy efficiency projects generates approximately 20 years of employment and millions are being invested each year.

Canada's energy services industry grew by 600% between 1991 and 1995 and is now a $300 million industry.

Energy efficiency also creates indirect jobs and it reduces operating costs for industry and businesses which in turn makes them more competitive in domestic and international markets. Competitive companies grow with the economy and generate employment and income for all Canadians.

Canadian industry is showing the way when it comes to energy efficiency. Nearly 250 companies, representing about 75% of total industry energy use in Canada, have registered with Natural Resources Canada's industrial energy innovators program. About 80% of these companies have filed voluntary action plans to improve their use of energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Ninety-seven per cent of the participants in the industrial energy innovators have also registered with the climate change voluntary challenge and registry incorporated and with the VCR. Another 46 industrial companies have registered directly with the VCR. Through the Canadian industry program for energy conservation, industry has formed 19 individual sector task forces that work in close partnership with Natural Resources Canada in finding ways of improving energy efficiency.

Let me give the House some other examples of Canadian energy efficiency achievements. During the 1990s the amount of energy used by new clothes washers and dryers, for example, decreased by about 20%. New refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers are using between 30% and 40% less energy than those manufactured just 10 short years ago. Those improvements are largely the result of federal regulations that establish minimum energy performance standards for household appliances and for other energy using products.

Progress is also being made in the transportation sector which is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. The sales weighted average fuel consumption rating for new cars sold in Canada improved by about 8% from 1990 to 1996.

From a technology perspective Canadian leadership is particularly evident in the buildings area. For example, for the past two years the energy technology branch of Natural Resources Canada has spearheaded the green building challenge 1998, an international project to develop and test a system to assess the environmental performance of buildings around the world. Just last month Canada hosted more than 600 international delegates at the green building challenge conference in Vancouver. This event was a huge success and strengthened Canada's position at the forefront of green building design and construction.

Canadian firms are also developing leading edge energy efficiency manufacturing processes. For example, with research and development support from Natural Resources Canada, Stackville Limited of Mississauga, Ontario has developed an innovative powder metallurgy process for manufacturing automative parts. The process eliminates casting, forging and tooling operations which means it saves both energy and materials. It has helped make Stackville one of the largest producers of powder metallurgy auto parts in North America.

We are finding that you do not have to be a large corporation to be a world leader. A small company from Lethbridge, Alberta is generating a great deal of interest after developing the world's first cargo carrying natural gas motorcycle, again with support from Natural Resources Canada. The so-called cargocycle produces 20% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than a similar gasoline powered motorcycle and has enormous potential in the international markets. This company is now exploring options for commercial production that could mean 3,000 new jobs in Canada.

I thank the hon. member who put forward this motion for his efforts. It is providing government with an opportunity to highlight our achievements to date. I look forward to continue working with him and this House in advancing the cause of energy efficiency and in the process advancing the cause of Canadian industrial efficiency and productivity.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 300 is an interesting and clearly well intentioned motion.

Like many NDP and Liberal initiatives it takes the attitude that government is the be all and the end all of society and that people will not do things for their own good unless they are whipped along by government coercion through regulation and what not. It also refers fairly heavily to a federal building initiative. I wonder about these things. I will get into that a little later.

The concept of retrofitting buildings to make them more energy efficient is a very valid one. It certainly is not new. On a very elemental level, 40 years ago my parents decided they were going to install central heating, a furnace in the old farm house. Before they could do that they decided they had better insulate the place. They put in a furnace and did not want to spent a lot of their hard earned money to buy oil to melt snow. That was not considered a good idea. These were practical people. They were not trying to protect the environment. They were not worried about that dreadful gas carbon dioxide being emitted from their chimney. They were interested in keeping some money in their pockets.

In his address of December 18, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre said the savings are unbelievable and almost too good to be true.

I have had some experience around here with spurious data and glossy ministerial bunk in other fields of endeavour so my reaction is that sometimes if something seems too good to be true, it is probably false. Before private owners spend money to upgrade buildings they do cost benefit analyses. They do not do that as a make work project. Their decisions are validated by the bottom line. Above all, after they have made decisions they let contracts to do the work in a properly tendered manner.

As a cautionary note, when we talk about federal government retrofitting, I invite hon. members to look around them. We have been retrofitting this place for the last four years. It is interminable. The last time I looked the government had spent about $400 million. It is already over budget and it is half done. This is the way the federal government operates.

I have some problem with the idea that we must look to the federal government to take care of waste of energy problems. I would like to see some figures that are believable and provable. When our critic in this area tried to get some details on some of these federal building initiatives from the government, he was effectively stonewalled. There was no detail available. So a word of caution.

Industry left to its own devices, free of a lot of regulatory and tax impediments, will develop energy efficient strategies because it is profitable to do so. Although this is anecdotal, I will tell the House about a couple of projects developed by the innovative Canadian mining industry many years ago not to conserve fuel in the national interest or to curb emissions of combustion gases but to help them make more money.

One of the best examples I can think of was designed and built more than 80 years ago in the town of Cobalt, Ontario where a mining company drove a vertical shaft up near the bed of a river at a waterfall so they had an enormous cascade of falling water coming through the raise. That water was used to compress air. The compressed air, which was produced at virtually no cost and with no fuel, was then used to power the drills to drill the holes in which they would load the dynamite to break the rock in the mines in the neighbourhood. It was a wonderful system developed 80 years ago.

There is an example in the Sudbury area with which I am more familiar because it gets into my age group. In order to help with the ventilating system of a deep mine, International Nickel Company drove a raise into the bottom of a very large worked out area near the surface of the ground and installed its ventilating fans. They would suck the down draft air through these old workings. In the winter the company sprayed a fine spray of water into the old workings. As the water froze it heated the air to give them free air heating to ventilate the mine. There was this great mound of thousands of tonnes of ice sitting near the surface of the mine so in the summer they sucked this air past that mound of ice and had a cooling system for the deep levels of the mine.

Industry is not stupid. Industry will do what is necessary to conserve energy, especially now when we consider the extremely high cost of fossil fuels. They will do anything they can to prevent the waste of valuable resources. This is where the real work will come from.

I have no confidence whatsoever in any federal government initiative to do anything, to do it right and to do it economically. It does not happen, or if it does, it happens by accident.

On that note I will relinquish my space to others. I do hope the hon. member from Winnipeg will give some thought to what I have said.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our party's environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal, has been working assiduously on this file.

We believe that Motion No. 300 has provided some really good food for discussion and progress within this parliament about the very important issue of the environment and how the public and private sector can work together. The government can work with and engage Canadians in a very important dialogue to make progress in a concrete way, particularly relative to the environment, given our Kyoto commitments.

It is interesting that the previous speaker said he has no confidence in the federal government's ability basically to do anything. I must challenge the hon. member on that assertion. It is not necessarily the size of government. The size of government has been debated largely in the House and by Canadians, but we have to consider the role of government.

I would argue that the government does have a role, a leadership role, to play in the area of the environment. The benefits of a clean environment are not felt solely by individual Canadians nor by individual companies. There is a societal benefit to a clean environment. As such it is imperative that the government act decisively to work with the private sector to meet the obligations we have made in Kyoto.

Energy efficiency benefits all members of society. When the private sector engages in more energy efficient behaviour, we will see a lowering of operating costs for business and better workplace productivity. Productivity is an extraordinarily important issue. Our productivity has been lagging that of our trading partners over the past 20 years. This is one area, one opportunity Canada has to improve productivity in environmental areas.

This is a particularly important issue, given the degree to which the U.S. government and President Clinton and Vice-President Gore have engaged in a leadership role on the environment, on sustainable resource development and energy efficiency. Canada cannot stand back. We must take a more proactive role.

When the government engages in more energy efficient behaviour ultimately the taxpayers will save money. It will help us meet our international obligations, for instance those made at Kyoto. Over time, municipalities and provincial governments will be able to invest the money saved by more environmentally sound practices in things like community infrastructure, recreation and education.

The federal government particularly has a leadership role to play in this area. We have seen organizations such as Edmonton Power and the Canadian Homebuilders Association promote efficiency in new homes. This type of technology can be sold not just within Canada but globally.

We have the potential to improve the quality of life of Canadians and to reduce the damage to the environment by using greener sources of power. Ultimately less taxes will be paid by Canadians because energy efficiency will result in greater operating efficiency for government. In time there will be a better quality of life for all Canadians.

Frankly, it is unfortunate that the government is not actively pursuing these initiatives, as opposed to the opposition and my colleague from the New Democratic Party who has put this motion forward.

One thing concerns me relative to the commitment we have made in Kyoto. That is the lack of meaningful dialogue in Canada prior to those commitments being made. There was very little meaningful dialogue with the sub-national governments, the provincial governments and the municipalities. The level of dialogue with the private sector was not as extensive as it should have been.

It is very important that we are debating these issues now but it would have been far better had we debated them more thoroughly and diligently prior to going to Kyoto. Then our commitments made in Kyoto could have been based on sound research and consultation with Canadians.

Now after the fact we need initiatives like Motion No. 300 which brings to the forefront the important issues: jobs and energy. There is an inextricable link between energy efficiency and investments in energy efficiency augmentation and employment growth, particularly in the new economy in a global sense. Around the world countries will be seeking better approaches to energy efficiency and better approaches to some of the age old problems.

This is an opportunity for Canada not just to compete globally in this newly emerging sector, but to succeed globally. Young Canadians can pursue education in these areas and participate in what could be an exciting new growth industry where Canada could be a leader. We need leaders in Canada who recognize the potential of this extraordinary opportunity to contribute not only to a better quality of life for Canadians, but for a better quality of life for everyone on this planet.

We have a responsibility to this generation and future generations to protect the environment. We have been extremely fortunate. For far too long we have taken for granted our country, its tremendous potential, its natural resources and the relative purity of our environment.

Pursuing this type of initiative more actively would cause us to consider and improve every aspect of everything we do in our day to day lives to contribute to better energy efficiency and to a cleaner environment. Ultimately if we do this properly, there will be more jobs for Canadians.

I believe the Reform Party's position is that global warming is not a proven phenomenon and may not exist. We can ask a thousand doctors if smoking causes cancer and we might find one who says that it does not. The fact is the weight of evidence clearly indicates that global warming is a problem. When the weight of evidence is so overwhelmingly in support of global warming being a problem, it would be irresponsible for us not to act decisively.

This does not have to mean a loss of jobs. This does not have to mean, as some would assert, a loss of opportunities. It can mean more jobs, more opportunities, a cleaner environment, a better Canada and a better world. All of that is possible if we act decisively and we ensure that this House provides the leadership so that Canada can provide the kind of global leadership that the world needs on the environment.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the member for bringing this motion to the House. I am pleased to see his commitment to energy efficiency and his interest in the federal buildings initiative, something that is important for all of us.

Energy efficiency helps Canadians save money. It ensures a responsible use of our resources and as has been pointed out, it ensures and protects our environment. Energy efficiency is important not only for government but for all Canadian homeowners, industry, small business, and automobile drivers for that matter.

Energy efficiency is a winning strategy. It contributes and helps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is critical in achieving our Kyoto commitments on climate change. Our commitment on energy efficiency is also key in creating high tech jobs and in making Canada a world leader in this field, something of great note.

My remarks today will focus largely on the role of the Department of Public Works and Government Services in this initiative. As a major property owner in Canada, the Department of Public Works and Government Services has the opportunity to promote and implement energy management initiatives such as the federal buildings initiative.

The federal buildings initiative, or FBI, is a voluntary program which helps government departments and agencies improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. The FBI offers a new approach to updating federal buildings with energy saving technologies and practices with no front end cost.

The federal building initiative employs an innovative contractual arrangement involving a pre-qualified energy management firm and federal government departments or organizations. Through this arrangement the full cost of energy efficiency improvements is financed with the resulting energy savings.

The energy management firm finances a project and supplies and installs the new equipment. The department then pays the resulting lower energy bill to the utility and an amount equivalent to the energy savings to the energy management firm until the full cost of the energy efficiency improvement is recovered. At no time does the department pay more than its pre-improvement energy bill. After the improvements and costs have been recovered, it pays a lot less.

The FBI reduces the cost of government operations. It generates thousands of jobs and in the process lowers greenhouse gas emissions. In many buildings, annual energy savings of between 10% and 15% can be achieved by implementing relatively simple measures such as high efficiency fluorescent lights and motors, and heating-cooling system upgrades. Energy accounts for roughly 30% of a typical facility's operating and maintenance costs so that even modest improvements can add up to improvements that are substantial in nature and substantial in savings.

Let me describe a few success stories. In Winnipeg for example, Public Works and Government Services Canada is upgrading four federal buildings which will result in annual savings of $100,000. Environment Canada reaped annual savings of $880,000 through its retrofit of a Burlington, Ontario facility.

Public Works and Government Services Canada alone has signed 29 contracts representing about $33 million in energy investment by the private sector. This generates over $5.2 million in annual savings for energy costs, reducing CO2 emissions by 80,000 tonnes per year and creating 660 jobs in the process.

By the year 2000, Public Works and Government Services Canada estimates that it will have reduced energy consumption by $12 million per year and CO2 levels by 14%. This is quite remarkable. This is an important element in the government's response to meeting our greenhouse gas emission commitments which were made in Kyoto.

In addition to launching its own projects, Public Works and Government Services Canada as a common service agency helps others departments implement the federal buildings initiative by undertaking project management on their behalf. With its broad expertise in the areas of procurement, fleet management, water management, water conservation and energy efficiency, Public Works and Government Services Canada is well suited for this task.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre will be pleased to hear that public works is now pursuing the feasibility of the federal buildings initiatives in all leased buildings it manages. This of course means more energy savings and more job creation.

Virtually every department that owns buildings has made a commitment to pursue this initiative and the programs of the federal government are having an increasingly positive effect on the energy efficiency of government operations. We are also encouraging the private sector to go faster in its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as well.

It is only appropriate then for the federal government, a big energy consumer itself, to set this kind of important and positive example. Canada is recognized as a world leader in energy efficiency, and deservedly so. That is something we can all be proud of.

Let me assure the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre that the federal buildings initiative is alive and well and will be implemented wherever and whenever possible. It is important that we as Canadians do so.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Motion No. 300. We highlight job creation in the motion. That is a basic belief of the hon. member who placed this before us.

If this country takes the leading edge in addressing its federal responsibilities we would be creating development into high tech expertise. This expertise could be exported to federal buildings throughout the world.

We have a similar climate to European countries, circumpolar countries and countries with boreal forests. The high tech expertise we would practice and use under the federal buildings program could generate opportunities in long term employment and investment back into our communities and industries.

There are about 50,000 federally owned buildings in this country. In retrofitting these buildings through the federal buildings initiation and the many departments that would be investing, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre is correct in calling on the House to recognize that this buildings initiative can work but it has to be accelerated. In about five years we have had about 100 buildings that have been addressed. We have to address 50,000 buildings. We have to accelerate this program. That is the challenge before us.

This motion is asking that the federal government undertake its responsibilities on the properties it owns and make them energy efficient and in the process address the unemployment regions, the training of the many trades that would be affected in all regions of Canada. There should be an equitable program, not just located in certain urban centres. These buildings are in all corners of Canada.

Canada's international commitment as highlighted in the Kyoto protocol was targeted at a 6% reduction from 1990. Since 1990 we have increased greenhouse gas emissions up to 13%. That is a total of 19%. Almost 20% has to be targeted now. That is almost a quarter out of all our initiatives that we have to take from here on in.

This initiative has to be taken seriously by all Canadians. We listen to members who say the federal government cannot take leadership. It cannot take leadership behind closed doors. Leadership has to be shown by example, as this motion is saying. The federal government could show example by retrofitting its own buildings and leadership by taking the question to Canadians.

We have 12 issue tables that have been formulated by the greenhouse gas and Kyoto protocol secretariat. Those are closed debates. None of these members of parliament are participating.

We represent our communities. None of the residents in my constituency are taking part in these debates. These are industry debates.

The industry is protecting its interests. It has put its foot down directly on what will impact on the Kyoto protocol but this protocol is well on its way.

The scientific reality is this target is not even adequate enough to address the economic disaster we will create for our children to come.

Aside from employment and environmental opportunities, I think what we need to do since it is a millennium project as well that could be coined is to prepare our youth.

These buildings are age old, rusting, moulding. Let us recreate the future for our children but have them do it. We have young people who are represented through visiting this House, visiting museums, visiting the many art galleries throughout the country and these buildings are going to be renewed.

We have a new building up recently, the home of the Maple Leafs, the gardens. It is the last of the old arenas from the original six. These things cannot be retrofitted to a point that they have to be rebuilt as well. They need to be completely redone. That is the challenge here as well.

The hon. member has challenged us to extend the life of these buildings by retrofitting them. It is a challenge to check out new technologies so that when we get to building the new buildings, when we build the new structures, the technologies are tried and proven.

We went to Kyoto. Members accompanied our delegation. We were shown in Japan the high tech initiatives of solar energy. Anything that faced the sun had a photovoltaic cell. It captures enough power to power all their computers when they operate. It is continuous power to generate any power need they want in this building as long as the sun is shining. Even though there are clouds it still collects the power.

If we do not capitalize on these leading edge technologies, we will be buying Japanese technology. Why can we not buy Canadian technology, invest in it now so that we can sell it worldwide?

When I was growing up there was a concept in Popular Science , geothermal energy. My vision of geothermal was that someone sticks a pipe far down into the ground to the hot rock. They could heat their water and get it up here. That was my imagination, down to the centre of the earth. It came out in a movie. Actually geothermal goes only a few feet below. It works the same way a refrigerator works. There is a heat pump. It is exchanged and then pumps can be run just below the permafrost. In the farther north, they have to go a little deeper but it is also available. It is just a few degrees. The heat can be captured and circulated in the home.

We talked about Toyota coming on the Hill just before the year was over and the Minister of Natural Resources was riding around in a hybrid car built by Toyota. I challenged the minister to bring up vehicle designed by a farmer in southern Saskatchewan. He designed his own electrical vehicle.

Why does it have to be labelled Toyota? Why can it not be Canadian made? Why can it not be made in Canada? It is. There is one in Saskatchewan. We saw it on CBC. It woke me up during the Christmas holidays. A man designed his own battery powered car.

That is the creation. That is the energy of Canada that makes our country great. We have minds that have travelled to see the world. We have technology, theoretical and academic experience in our engineering departments of universities. Why do we not challenge these as a Canadian leader since our budgets are in place for the federal departments? The budgets are filled every year to consume energy. Why not take a portion of the consumed energy and invest it for retrofitting to save energy? As long as energy is being saved there is investment into our youth to broaden their minds and experience and to create a major job experience for them into the future.

Regarding district heating I want to address a federal program that came through an initiative by a Cree community, Oujé-Bougoumou. It will be a community highlighted for the retrofitting and energy saving initiatives in northern James Bay Cree. They will be the highlight of Bonn, Germany in the next expo as a village of the future. Here is a northern community to be highlighted internationally. It was initiated by a federal department that listened to a community that wanted to address its problems of high energy costs. Let us challenge ourselves into the new millennium. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this worthwhile cause to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 8, 1999, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must confess this is not the usual practice but being Private Members' Business, whips from all parties tend to respect the independence and autonomy of Private Members' Business. Given that we have already agreed to defer votes until Tuesday of next week at the end of Government Orders, there might be agreement to further defer this vote as well.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being effectively 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.13 p.m.)