Debates of Feb. 19th, 2001

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-4.

We have heard a lot about global warming today in this debate. Global warming is an important issue. At this time of year in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which on the southern tip of Vancouver Island, we are usually counting flowers. I would like to advise the House that I took my little ones David and Victoria tobogganing in Victoria this weekend.

I agree with the concept of this bill. I look forward to it going to committee where it can be further flushed out and we can get into it in more detail. I agree that as we go into this millennium air quality is going to be an increasing concern for people globally. It is something that we should tackle head on.

This foundation will receive $100 million in funding from the government to look at everything in technology and to ensure that we can have increased air quality and reductions in greenhouse gases. That is a positive thing. I agree that is a good first step. It is going to becoming increasingly more important as time goes on.

Ten years ago people were talking about the importance of air quality. That debate of course is so much more significant today than it was 10 years ago and it will be increasingly so 10 years from now.

I alluded to my concerns with the board in my question to the member for Davenport. As I understand it, seven of the 15 members, including the chair, will be appointed by governor in council.

There are boards out there that work. I know David Strangway, the former President of UBC, is the Chairman for the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It does a lot of good work. If this is going to work though, it is so important that there is accountability to the taxpayers because it is essentially taxpayers' money. They want to see value as I do. Members across the way want to see that it is truly working toward this goal. This is a concern I have. We do not have to go very far. We know some of the other stories. There is the Federal Business Development Bank and we do not have to go too far into that.

We see that there are patronage appointments. I would urge anybody in the House who has influence in the debate that these appointments be based on the foundation being very functional and based on science. I know there are provisions in the bill that there be people from the scientific community, the business community and from the not for profit, so there is a strong balance. Again, I only have to go back to some of the things that have happened in the past. I see that the former Liberal candidate from Port Moody—Coquitlam, Mr. Lou Sekora, was recently named a citizenship court judge.

In earnest I question if these decisions are based on politics. I would argue that in appointments such as that they absolutely were. I would hate to see a foundation like those types of appointments. I know the member opposite would love to see it based on scientific communities, arm's length, with NGOs and a whole cross section of people who have the same ultimate goal in mind and that their decisions are based on science.

As this goes off to committee these ideas can be fleshed out and we can get into greater detail to ensure that these safeguards are put there.

I also agree with the member for Davenport that we should not just look at reducing greenhouse gases. This is critical. We have to reduce greenhouse gases and ensure better air quality in the future, but consumption is such a huge part of this equation. We not only have to, through technology, decrease consumption and deliver the same, but we have to look at the whole way we do things. I think we can. We have to start changing the mindset of people not to be wasteful. We see an energy crisis in California right now. These are very real problems and they are happening in our own backyard. I take our own backyard as being North America.

I have travelled all over North America as most members of the House have. We would all agree that we live in somewhat similar economies. Other parts of the world are much different. In North America things generally can be quite similar. They are having problems in California which is very heavily populated. It is a sign to all of us to say this could be a problem that could expand and grow if we do not take the issue head on.

I also agree with the member that consumption is a very real problem. At the same time, when we are looking at this foundation, we have to not put blinders on and recognize there has to be a balance between economic growth and industry. I would argue that we use the best available technology to ensure the reduction of greenhouse gases, that we ensure better air quality in the future and we start getting the continuum going the other way.

I look forward to the bill going to committee. I look forward to following the bill closely and seeing what recommendations they come up with.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the House.

I am not sure whether I am pleased or displeased to do so, particularly since I have been watching the debates since 11 a.m. and I am under the impression that everything has already been said about this bill and I would not want to repeat the same comments.

I would like to ad lib, and I hope that I can accurately express the concerns of women. As the Chair knows, I take a great interest in this issue. In fact, I am the Bloc Quebecois critic for the status of women.

Women are very concerned about the environment and about health, education, family policies and poverty.

Looking at the bill before us, it is obvious that women cannot be opposed to it, since it is a small step in the right direction.

However, we feel that this bill is incomplete. Moreover, women do not trust it. This bill reflects a blatant lack of respect for the table. It lacks transparency, and duplication, including in Quebec, costs money.

I will discuss these issues so as to explain the position of Canadian and Quebec women on this bill.

First off, we would ask the minister to go and do his homework, very simply because the bill is incomplete. There is absolutely no reference to the requests made at the issue table. A person who belongs to a group of women knows all about an issue table is.

An issue table can be bodies or people each with their own attributes agreed on undertaking a project and giving their opinion. This is very special, because these people are qualified to give their opinion and because it costs money.

When it costs moneys, the group agrees to use the report prepared by the issue table and to implement it. People agreed on that. Women are very aware of the value of money, because they are poor and do not have their fair share of this product. Women do not necessarily enjoy equality.

This bill is incomplete. The groups working at the issue table on the bill came up with eight ideas. Eight elements were advocated. The government chose only two.

To the women's groups, this shows lack of respect for the individuals and the organizations working at this table. The women are very perplexed about what will happen next. When there is no respect for the remarks made at an issue table, for what it establishes, for what it advocates, how will people react later on in setting up this famous bill. Will it be respected?

Third, women think that the bill is lacking in transparency because of the process for appointing directors. If I read correctly, if I understand the bill correctly, the governor in council will appoint seven directors out of fifteen. That will leave eight directors to be appointed. These eight directors will be appointed by the other seven, who have been appointed by the governor in council.

I can presume, even though it does not mean that it is indeed what is going to happen, that the governor in council will appoint people it trusts. Maybe these people will in turn appoint people they know and trust. In fact, people will appoint each other. That means that the government has not set up a transparent process to appoint members to the board of directors.

Moreover, we have no guarantees with regard to the projects that will be favoured by this foundation because the directors who will appoint each other will most likely favour projects for which they have a personal preference. The bill does not provide for any mechanism for project selection. Again, the recommendation from the table was not followed. As for directors, there is no mechanism to ensure transparency with regard to their appointment and their eligibility.

Fourth, we have eligibility criteria for projects, but there are none in the bill. For women's groups, this bill certainly does not inspire confidence.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is something we could support, although it is a bit timid. What guarantees can the federal government give women that the money allocated to this foundation will be spent wisely and legally, in a transparent way, and how will the expenditures be accounted for?

At a time when one out of five children in Canada is poor and when a lot of single mothers in Quebec are having trouble making ends meet, the government is spending $100 million establishing this foundation, which leaves women wondering how these millions of dollars are going to be spent. As I said earlier, women are concerned about the environment, but also about poverty.

I know of a support group for women with AIDS. This Canadian group just had a grant application for $15,000 turned down by Health Canada, because it does not necessarily look out for all women. Yet this group only needed $15,000. The government scrutinizes the work of this support group, but introduces a bill with no mechanism to ensure the good management of public funds and the transparency of the appointments to the foundation board. I do not get it. I would also remind the House that in Quebec we already have a fund. Bill C-4 is promoting the same thing.

What I want to say is that it is upsetting, really upsetting, and for a woman it is even insulting. The Liberal government is going to use money to do the same thing in Quebec when we, in Quebec, have already allocated money and have our own bill. This is duplication. In this sense, I wish the federal government would take the money it wants to use and give it to Quebec, so that we can do what we want with it.

However, I believe that it is not only in Quebec that things happen this way. I think this happens also in the other provinces. In this respect, women are tired of seeing that for the sake of power and political visibility, our political leaders take money and use it for other things than what could help fight poverty, such as social housing, or to help children, and women with children, and to eliminate poverty.

To conclude, I would like to say that the environment, greenhouse gases and clean air are issues very dear to me personally. The future quality of life of Quebecers, Canadians and their children depends on it.

I can guarantee that, if there are no assurances that all the money allocated for the implementation of the bill will indeed be used to develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as requested by the technology issues table, women will continue to oppose this bill.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member with respect to her comment that women need money in the form of transfers and that they do not support such a bill. I think that that goes without saying. Women are not the only ones opposed; so are young people and other groups as well. Opposition is widespread.

When blank cheques are handed out as a result of legislation such as this, with terms as important as technology, in order to produce equipment necessary for the environment, the amounts in question are very large, but the board must know how to manage them.

My question for my colleague is this: with respect to the money now available, how much will be spent on implementing such an important piece of legislation? Will the federal government's contribution be used to promote this technology, or will it really be used to buy the necessary technology? Does the member not think that this money will simply be used to put in place another system identical to the one the provinces already have?

The question is this: will this money just be transferred to the provinces to buy the technology or will it be used to create another level, when it is really much more necessary to buy the equipment for this technology?

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have clearly understood my colleague's question.

As I said at the start of my speech, I wanted to go beyond the theoretical framework in order to explain the view of this bill held by the women of Canada and Quebec. A group of women got together to look at this bill and we found it did not go far enough, that it did not contain enough guarantees.

However, some things were obvious. We did not go to see what the situation was in the other provinces, but the Government of Quebec already has a sustainable development fund of $45 million.

According to the bill, the government is going to use a certain amount in order to certain things in Quebec. It is very clear to us that this is federal interference in an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction.

It seems to me that my colleagues in the House are sufficiently clever to understand. I think it is clear: a province is in the best position to know its own needs.

Going still further, the women expressed concerns that the federal government would uses this money to interfere in the municipalities' environmental management, for instance municipalities on the shores of waterways wishing to create a special project. This is a concern to me. There is no guarantee in the bill, nothing to specify what would happen.

As hon. members are aware, women are prudent creatures. They feel that the best action if one is not sure is no action. Canadian women and Quebec women have reservations about this bill and wish no action to be taken.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Surrey Central are pleased to have me participate in the debate today on Bill C-4 concerning the establishment of a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

For the benefit of the folks who are watching, sustainable development means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

In the 2000 federal budget, the Liberals announced that they would be creating a sustainable development technology foundation to administer these funds at arm's length from the government. Later on when we look at the bill we will find out that the length of the arm is too short. Perhaps their hands are in their pockets.

In that budget they earmarked $100 million as the amount of initial funding. It is to be operated as a not for profit organization. It will administer funding primarily to projects that will bring innovation and technology. The foundation will accept proposals from existing and new collaborative arrangements among technology developers, suppliers and users, universities, not for profit organizations, and other organizations, such as industrial associations and research institutes.

Clause 5 of Bill C-4 provides that the objects and purposes of the foundation are to provide funding to eligible recipients for eligible projects. That is a very vague definition. The foundation will dole out funds on a project by project basis. Clause 19 of the bill talks about eligible projects in a very vague way. It states:

The Foundation may provide funding to eligible recipients to be used by them solely for the purposes of eligible projects in accordance with any terms and conditions specified by the Foundation—

The minister mentioned that those who qualify for funding will be mentioned in specific funding agreements. What are those specific funding agreements? We will never see them.

Being the past co-chair of the scrutiny of regulations committee, I can share with the House that most bills give very little information about subject matter, the modus operandi or various other things that cover the whole bill or the scope of the bill. Most of the stuff comes through the back door in the form of regulations. We will never debate those regulations nor the terms and conditions of the stipulations. That is what will happen with the bill.

Where are the principles that will guide the allocation of funds? Will they be coming through the back door? We do not see transparency in the allocation of funds. I would like to see the regulations before the House in black and white so that we can debate them in the House.

The people of Surrey Central support the kind of initiatives that will create synergy and teamwork where people will work together to respond to new challenges by way of innovation. We appreciate the initiative to enhance innovation in technology and sustainable development as well as a clean and healthy environment, but we do not agree with the modus operandi as suggested in the bill. The bill is poorly worded. It lacks clarity, transparency, accountability and effectiveness.

I would venture to say that members of the official opposition would like Canada to create a balance of economic, social and environmental goals and challenges and thereafter reap the rewards from them. We want excellence in exploring efficient fuel sources. We want to explore various ways of harnessing energy, such as solar and wind power. We want to enhance oil and natural gas recovery technology and mobilize partners in industry, universities, research institutes and in businesses everywhere.

We want to protect the environment and work on projects related to greenhouse gas reduction and improving air and water quality. Our children certainly want that and we want our children and our grandchildren to have that.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance policy supports sustainable development initiatives. Our policy states:

We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

I heard someone from the Liberal side, perhaps the environmental minister, saying no. The Alliance policy goes on to state:

Therefore, we will strike a balance between environmental preservation and economic development. This includes creating partnerships with provincial governments, private industry, educational institutions and the public to promote meaningful progress in the area of environmental protection.

As a government, the Liberals have mismanaged our environment and failed to provide sustainable development. They have signed international treaties, including Kyoto, Beijing and Rio, with no intention whatsoever of carrying out these commitments.

They have made those commitments without consulting Canadians, parliament and the provinces. They have failed to provide commitments with the required scientific support. Rather, they have made political decisions about matters that require scientific decisions. These political decisions have amounted to nothing more than interference into scientific matters.

That in a word explains the fact that the government cannot meet the international commitments that it makes when it comes to protecting our environment. Perhaps it is too busy trying to garner votes and counter Canadian Alliance policies rather than allow scientific principles and evidence to drive the efforts to protect our environment.

This weak and arrogant Liberal government has allowed the endangered species legislation to die twice on the order paper. Since 1993 it has been promising Canadians that it will pass endangered species legislation. What do we have after seven or eight years? Another bill that it is promising to pass. The government is proposing an endangered species bill without consulting Canadians and the scientific community. In any event that is another story for another day.

This weak Liberal government lacks vision. It has done nothing since 1993 in terms of initiatives on our environment and sustainable development. Other countries have passed legislation and are way ahead. Even the United Nations has a sustainable development office. There is a worldwide race to reap the rewards of innovation and state of the art technology, but the Liberals allow Canada to be left behind.

The government expects the foundation to be in place by March 2001. The bill was originally introduced as a part of budget 2000, delivered almost a year ago today. It has been one year and the Liberals have still not passed the legislation. That goes to show Canadians just how serious the government is about sustainable development.

After a year of doing nothing following the Liberal government budget 2000 agenda and seven or eight years since red book one, the government would like the bill to be passed by the House, the Senate and receive royal assent by March 2001. That is when it would like the foundation to exist with $100 million to hand out.

After doing nothing for a year the government is giving us only a couple of weeks to work on the legislation. There will be no opportunity to have a fair debate in the House because there will be undemocratic time allocation to limit the debate. The committee hearings will be a farce. The witnesses before the committee will be set up and the opposition amendments virtually ignored. The half-baked bill will be rammed through because of the government's parliamentary majority and its arrogant attitude. It is unbelievable.

We on this side of the House want to make some amendments before we could support the bill. The amendments will not deal so much with the sustainable development aspects of the bill but with efficiency, accountability and transparency; in other words with the modus operandi of the bill.

According to the bill the Liberal government would appoint six directors and a chairman of the board of directors. These appointees would appoint another eight directors and the appointed board of directors would appoint the auditors.

The intent of the bill is to create and enhance innovation in technology and not patronage. The Liberals are developing innovations in how to make the best use of patronage. They are proposing to turn the sustainable development foundation into a Liberal patronage pork barrel for the friends of Liberals and defeated Liberal candidates. I see a hidden agenda. If the modus operandi is not corrected, that is what the bill would do.

Rather than creating and encouraging new and private funding for technology and innovation, taxpayers' money will go to the friends of the government and ultimately to a black hole, and we will one day see another boondoggle. We want this to be corrected. Let me again read for the Liberals a simple paragraph from Canadian Alliance policies:

We believe that a non-partisan civil service, an independent judiciary and competent leadership of government agencies, boards and commissions are vital in a democracy. We will therefore ensure appointments to these positions are made through an open and accountable process based on merit.

The appointments should not be based on patronage or defeated Liberal candidates or friends of Liberals or any Liberal connection. We want these appointments to be made based on merit.

The people of Surrey Central and I are dismayed. We are so disappointed that the government would take such a wonderful initiative of supporting projects related to greenhouse gas reductions and improving air quality and turn the effort into some kind of Liberal Party payoff.

When will the government stop behaving this way and doing these things? When will it evolve into the new millennium and put a stop to these kinds of 17th century old boys' club practices? When will it abandon the politics of exclusion? When will it stop implementing the systems of disenfranchisement? The patronage practices of the government are virtually fascist, in the strict political definition. The Canadian Alliance will put a stop to this sort of thing when it forms the next government.

The creation of a sustainable development foundation is something all Canadians have wanted for years and the Liberals are turning it into some kind of arena for political payoffs. It is a sham.

On the subject of auditing the foundation, while the foundation does provide an annual report each year to parliament, the foundation appoints its own auditor and has final approval on the financial reports before they are made public. Is that not convenient? While the legislation does set out rules as to who would be eligible to be the auditor, there is no mention of allowing the Auditor General of Canada access to the books of the foundation. Only those auditors appointed by the Liberals would have access to the auditing of the books. The Auditor General of Canada would be left aside. He would not have access to these audits.

It is no wonder that the government does not want the Office of the Auditor General of Canada involved. The Liberals have had a difficult ride with the outgoing auditor general. His report tabled early this month was probably the most scathing indictment yet of this government. Each auditor general's report on the mismanagement of the Liberal government is worse than the previous one.

The official opposition wants these issues, the questions of who will audit the foundation and how appointments will be made to the foundation, to be dealt with at the committee hearings on the bill, which will be held shortly. We will not allow these two concerns to be swept under the carpet by the Liberals. We want those issues to be addressed and properly addressed.

Unless there are amendments along these lines, we may have to oppose the bill and we do not want to have to do that. We want these amendments to be incorporated so that the official opposition members on this side of the House can support the bill.

Let me cite an example of sustainable development that I saw myself, an evolution of sustainable development taking place. I will cite the example of Taiwan as an example of strategic and sustainable development, where new and private money has been pouring into innovation and technology.

Taiwan is a small island the size of Vancouver Island, with a population of about 25 million people. Sometimes I wonder; if 25 million people lived on Vancouver Island it would probably sink. Taiwan is a small island with an unemployment rate of about 0.5%, not 5%, but half a percentage point. That is an admirable record. How did Taiwan do it? Taiwan has accomplished that in large part through their sustainable development strategy, with a special emphasis on technology and innovation that has led to business development, exports and economic growth while protecting their precious and rather limited resources.

In conclusion, once again we have the Liberals taking an initiative, one that everyone would want to support: the creation of a sustainable development foundation. However, what do they do? They leave so many terms undefined. The bill is vague. They turn it into a venue for patronage payoffs and they close the books to the auditor general. They want to control the $100 million they give to the foundation without anyone else finding out which Liberal Party donors receive the bulk of the $100 million.

It would be amazing if it were not so sad. The people of Surrey Central, who want to support the creation of a sustainable development foundation, do not want to support this bill. Rather, we do not have to support this bill, because of the way the Liberals are playing politics with it. If the Liberals are prepared to fix the flaws and the corruption they have written into the bill, then we would be glad to support it.

We are giving the government the opportunity to have a fair debate, to listen to the amendments, to consult Canadians through parliament and to incorporate those amendments so that all parties can support this wonderful initiative.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he is not fully in favour of the idea of an institute or a foundation like this being created, that he has reservations about the amount of money being used. We are all concerned when we hear figures like $100 million, which is being allocated with a sketchy sort of mandate that we are not really certain about.

However, putting it in the context of other programs, when we look at the EI fund, for instance, it is showing a surplus of $600 million a month. With the relative importance of the issue of sustainable development, would he not agree that $100 million toward such a necessary, timely and topical subject is money well spent?

Would he not also agree that his own province of Alberta should welcome the whole movement toward the true and genuine study of the issue of sustainable development as we, as a planet, try to wean ourselves off fossil fuels for our own future? For many people there is a growing realization that we cannot exist simply in an economy based on oil, that there is no future in it and that we are soiling our own nest to the point we cannot live in it any longer.

My question is whether he feels that $100 million would be well spent with a tighter mandate, a real objective or assignment, given to this new foundation, which would ultimately result in weaning our population off the burning of fossil fuels and toward alternative energy. Would he be more satisfied if it had that kind of rigid mandate?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the wonderful question. It is a very thoughtful question.

By the way, just to correct the record, I am from B.C., not Alberta, although that is nearly the same neighbourhood. From here in Ottawa or from the CN Tower, when we look past the Rocky Mountains things are not visible sometimes, but that is okay. I can understand that.

With regard to the funding, we are not debating the funding. I think every reasonable Canadian realizes that we have to do a lot of work in innovation, technology, research and development. Probably it is the initial funding that is stated in the budget. Funding is not an issue here.

The issues are these: how the bill is worded, what is missing in the bill, and what the modus operandi is of administering those funds. Is it clear? Is it transparent? Is accountability there? Those are the factors that are more important, of course, particularly with the rising costs of fuel and natural gas. It is becoming more important than ever before that we look for efficient, economical and cheap sources of energy in regard to fossil fuels, as the hon. member mentioned. Of course we want to develop efficient resources so that taxpaying Canadians and our children and grandchildren have enough resources to play with, to utilize in industry.

I very much agree with the hon. member that we have to invest in technology and research and development. That is why the topic of sustainable development is so important. However, we want to do the right thing in the right way. That is what we are asking the government: that it do the right thing in the right way.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-4. As I mentioned earlier, I believe it is probably the most timely and topical thing that the House of Commons could be dealing with. It speaks to the very future of the human race on this planet. All else really pales in comparison when we view what other subjects we could be debating in the House of Commons.

Bill C-4 is a disappointing reference to the very pressing, timely and topical issue of sustainable development. The NDP opposes the bill in its current format in that we believe, as I pointed out earlier, its mandate is vague and its funding has no real specifics attached to it. We consider it a gesture to the subject, but it has no real and specific plan.

I would also point out that in regard to the idea of creating a new foundation of this sort, the government does not really talk about where it would be based or what centre it would work out of. It actually puts in question the future of an institution in my own riding, the International Institute for Sustainable Development. This institute was created years ago and has had its funding reduced year after year, to where it is really a shadow of its former self. There was a time when it had a staff of 140 people and its own building. Art Hanson was the CEO. It now occupies a very small office, with maybe a handful of people, on the third floor of an nondescript office building in the centre of downtown Winnipeg.

I wonder about the logic and the sense of it. It makes me wonder if the government has completely forgotten it already has an institute of sustainable development in my riding. Maybe the government members do not get outside the city limits of Ottawa often enough to remember that such a place exists. There is a growing feeling in Winnipeg that there is a real reluctance to decentralize the activities of Ottawa to any real degree. There was a possible exception to that when the government could not find any other place to put a level 4 virology lab and plunked it down in the middle of Winnipeg. It took away the CF-18 contract and gave it to Montreal and then gave us the virology lab so that the Ebola virus and every unsavoury thing that comes into the country is going to wind up in our backyard.

I really do resent any steps that might threaten the viability of what is left of the International Institute for Sustainable Development in my riding. I am certainly not entirely thrilled about the idea of the creation of a new foundation which might put the institute in jeopardy.

One of the reasons this whole subject is so timely and so topical is that it is a top of mind issue with most Canadians given the soaring and skyrocketing energy costs that we are all witnessing. That has brought the issue home to the kitchen tables of the nation instead of it being an academic exercise.

Again, look at the funding of $100 million to try to change the very way we live on this planet in terms of challenging the very foundation of our economy, which is the burning of fossil fuels, and compare that with the $1.3 billion the government threw into a wasteful program to try to mitigate the impact of the rising costs of fuel.

Surely that $1.3 billion would take us a lot further down the road of sustainable development and would address in a permanent way the problem we have with access to fossil fuels.

We have come to a day of reckoning in terms of energy. We have come to the growing realization that we simply cannot run an economy based on oil any longer. A number of things will not tolerate it anymore, not the least of which is the fact that we cannot continue to soil our own nest to this degree and continue to move forward and prosper.

Everyone on the planet cannot use the amount of energy that Canadians use. It simply is not possible. If the 1.3 billion people in China had two vehicles in the garage, an SUV and an outboard motor, and if all people in the world consumed the same level of energy as Canadians, we would need six more planets. There simply is not enough fossil fuel in the world for that kind of energy use.

There could not be a more pressing and more topical issue than to revisit the way we view our precious natural resources. We must try to wean human beings away from burning hydrocarbons because it will not work.

What are we faced with? The one upside of skyrocketing energy costs is that it has forced people to revisit energy conservation. When we are hit in the pocketbook we get motivated to do something.

The oil crisis of 1973 was the reason people switched from V-8 to four cylinder engines. They realized a four cylinder engine could push a car almost as well. The fact that oil prices went through the ceiling is what pushed the new technology. It had the shock effect of forcing people to find solutions.

We are at a point now where we must to conserve energy or find alternative energy sources. The $1.3 billion that was thrown in a scattergun approach toward energy rebates should have perhaps gone toward the research of hydrogen as a fuel. We are very close to a breakthrough where cars will burn hydrogen and not gasoline. The only byproduct would be water dripping from the exhaust pipe. That, frankly, would do the country and the world an enormous favour.

The $1.3 billion could be spent in any number of positive ways. Instead, the government essentially rolled down the window and threw it out, hoping some of it would fall on people who would benefit. That was wasteful.

Now we are hearing a figure of $100 million to cover the huge pluralistic issue of sustainable development, and yet the government put $1.3 billion into a very narrow and fixed program, a one time payment to offset energy costs for Canadians. It really does make one wonder.

It also makes one wonder why, if the government was serious about sustainable development, it would not follow through on one of its own programs, the federal building initiative. The federal government owns 68,000 buildings, most of which are absolute energy pigs. They were built in an era when energy was not expensive. It was cheap and plentiful.

The government did undertake a token effort to energy retrofit those buildings, to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce operating costs and to make indoor ambient air quality better so that federal public servants did not turn green when they tried to work eight hours at their desks. They are being slowly poisoned in many ways in a bunch of sick buildings.

All those things are now possible. The empirical evidence now shows we can reduce operating costs by as much as 40%. It would be such a positive measure. It would be revenue generating. However the federal building initiative, under the auspices of the Minister of Natural Resources, has renovated only a couple of hundred buildings. At that rate it will be 150 years before all federal buildings are energy retrofitted.

It makes one wonder what the government is waiting for. The energy savings from its buildings alone could pay for the development of new technologies that would allow Canada to become a world leader. We would be a centre of excellence in energy conservation and sustainable development technology with just the energy savings from the 68,000 federal buildings.

I have been riding this hobby horse for years and to no avail. In 1993 I came to Ottawa, long before I was a member of parliament, to appeal to the Minister of the Environment at the time. I was given an energy innovator's award by NRCan, the federal department of energy, for the innovative idea of retrofitting publicly owned buildings as a pilot project, as an example to the private sector of what could be done. However eight or nine years later in its own federal building initiative program the government has only done a couple of hundred buildings.

I question its commitment. It is willing to throw $100 million at a new foundation that should blah, blah, blah, but it has a unique opportunity to show the world how it can be done. We live in a harsh northern climate. We have massive geographical challenges. We could show the world how to use energy in the smartest possible way. We could show the world how to live comfortably and in a healthy environment without being the largest consumers of energy in the world, which Canadians find themselves being today.

I am the first to admit that Canadians and people all around the globe need to embrace the concept of energy conservation and sustainable development in everything they do. It should be the common thread through any program the government undertakes. I do not believe the creation of a new foundation, which may jeopardize the institute that is already in existence in my riding, will in any way move us closer to that admirable goal.

If there were $100 million to spend, why would the government not restore the institute to its former stature, that of a world leader, research centre and source library for anyone interested in the whole concept of energy conservation or sustainable development? Why not start a centre of excellence right in the centre of Canada and become world leaders so we can export the technology?

It does not have to be jobs versus the environment any more. To speak this way does not mean we have to shut down industries and put people out of work. We now know that it is jobs and the environment: jobs with the environment, jobs for the environment.

There are unbelievable entrepreneurial opportunities in the field of energy retrofitting or sustainable development. There are now smart thermostats or boiler systems or heat pumps that harvest units of energy even if it is 20 below. There is a difference between 20 below and 30 below. The other 10 degrees of air can be harvested. There is warmth and energy in there and that energy can be used.

We have not been thinking outside the box. It is far too easy to start another oil well in Alberta than it is to set up an institute and research alternatives that will give our children a future.

I sometimes think the worst thing that happened in western Canada was Leduc No. 1 in 1947 when they struck oil in Leduc, Alberta. It was regressive. I almost wish the world would run out of oil more quickly so that we still have some air left to breathe by the time we find alternative fuel and energy sources. That would be my first wish.

Ban the internal combustion engine is a radical idea, but we could still move around if were burning hydrogen. The Ballard fuel cell, which is being developed in B.C., is close to marketability. It needs one little nudge before it replaces forever the internal combustion engine. The $1.3 billion the government flushed down the toilet in the failed energy rebate program may have moved us one step closer to finding a true alternative and a true solution for the planet.

The jig is up in terms of our wasteful energy use. We can no longer carry on as we are carrying on. As I said, for all people on the planet to live as Canadians do, we would need six more planets. There are not enough resources in the world for everyone to be as wasteful as Canadians.

We can go one of two roads. We can be head in the sand ostriches and carry on until it is an absolute crisis, or we can change direction. We can voluntarily simplify and use less energy and, I argue, without a reduction in the quality of life. People do not have to freeze in the dark to use less energy if they are smart.

We have done a great deal of research in this regard. The best example and most graphic illustration the federal government could point to is its own buildings.

The most beautiful thing about the concept, to expand on the federal building initiative and its potential windfall for demonstrating the whole concept, is that all of the above could be done at no cost to the taxpayer. There are private sector companies willing to pay upfront for renovation of federal government buildings and be paid back slowly out of the energy savings. They are called ESCOs, energy services contractors.

Why not do that? What if such a company offered to renovate a big federal government building with operating costs of $1 million a year by putting in state of the art mechanical equipment, insulating the exterior and putting in new windows and doors at no cost? What if it were paid out of the energy savings and after over four years when the total renovation costs were paid the government could keep the energy savings from there on ever after? Would that not be smart?

It would stimulate a whole industry and put thousands of trades people to work. It could use materials and mechanical equipment, smart thermostats and boilers that could be produced locally. Then we would be able to point to our federally owned buildings as a showcase to the world. We could show the world how it could be done. We would have the smartest, best run and best operated buildings in the world.

They could be shown to the private sector too. Many property owners and building managers face increased fuel costs but cannot raise rents to their tenants. The only way they can show a profit is by reducing their operating costs. They would be very interested in such a concept. If the government were a little more progressive or a little more action oriented instead of being academic about its commitment to sustainable development, we would see it moving on that front. It is absolutely natural.

We have reservations about Bill C-4. We believe the government's mandate is far too soft and fuzzy. We do not know what it is being challenged to do or what responsibilities it is being charged with. The government talks about promoting technologies to address climate change. Frankly we would like to know more. There are also air quality issues.

As is often the case, members of the NDP are frustrated at the composition of the board. We are not comfortable with the way the foundation's board will be struck, who will be appointed and how, and for what terms. The specifics of how the board will be structured will be the success or failure of it. We do not want it to be another dumping or patronage ground for failed Liberal candidates. We do not want it to be a patronage holding pattern type of place. We were always frustrated by that in the past and would certainly speak out against any move in that direction again.

It is very much an open ended funding arrangement. The government is saying it will be $100 million to start. What is it for? How will it apply for further funding? Will it be part of an annual report to parliament? All these are unknown commodities and things that make the NDP very uncomfortable.

If there is $100 million to be spent on sustainable development, a very worthy subject, it should be put into the International Institute for Sustainable Development on Portage Avenue in the riding of Winnipeg Centre in my province of Manitoba. Let us rebuild the institute for sustainable development to what it once was. That is where Canada could be proud.

I have a feeling the newly struck foundation will be located somewhere within the capital region of Ottawa. Instead of decentralizing this innovative technology, we have every reason to believe the architects of the bill could not find the province of Manitoba with both hands and a flashlight.

We are always frustrated, in terms of western alienation, that the government does not consider such things. We feel we often get the raw end of the deal. Instead of the CF-18 contract we get a virology lab. Instead of getting an institute of sustainable development with reasonable funding, we get an announcement that there will be a new foundation to study sustainable development. Does that mean the lights will be turned off once and for all in what was once a well respected international institution in the riding of Winnipeg Centre?

We are very critical of that. At this point we will oppose Bill C-4 and will be voting against it.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I highly appreciate the speech given by the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. In fact, he worked hard on it and he has essential knowledge of the subject which I really admire.

He mentioned that Canada could have been a leader in sustainable development and technology. I agree with him. However, it is the lack of vision by the weak Liberal government that did not let it happen. For the seven or eight years since it has been in power, its abysmal record on environmental and sustainable development is quite evident.

Besides the point he mentioned in his speech about the technical part, we have to start the sustainable development somewhere or this initiative has to be implemented somehow. Would the hon. member agree that if patronage is taken out of the whole bill and also if the auditors, those who were appointed by the board of directors and report to the board of directors, and if there is a mechanism to restore accountability, transparency and clarity in the whole process, would he support the bill?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have made it quite clear. If the original mandate was not so fuzzy and more clear, the reason for which the foundation was developed, if the composition of the board was free and clear of any possibility of patronage or being used as a holding pen for Liberal hacks or failed candidates and if the funding and accountability issues were more transparent and more to our liking, then we would have no problem with the federal government allocating $100 million to the topic of sustainable development. In fact, we would welcome that.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was explaining to us that there was already an institute for sustainable development in his riding. He seemed to be a little bit disappointed that the federal government wanted to propose a foundation. If I understood correctly, he seemed to say that it would have been better to put the funds allocated for the establishment of the foundation into the institute for sustainable development in his riding.

My question to the hon. member is twofold. First, does the hon. member think that this is unacceptable interference by the federal government in a provincial jurisdiction, which seems to be the objective of the Bill C-4? Second, is the hon. member going to take the time to explain to the people of his riding the federal government's actions?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are looking at a jurisdictional dispute in this matter. The International Institute of Sustainable Development in my riding is in fact a federal program, a federally funded institute.

I will certainly raise the alarm in my riding that we, in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, stand to lose an important contribution to our community and a well respected international institute that has a reputation far and wide for doing wonderful work in this field.

We do feel threatened by Bill C-4 in that it could further diminish the important role that the institute plays in the riding of Winnipeg Centre.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of Canada was listening to our hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre talk about where that money should go. He is absolutely correct that a facility that is already up and running has been severely cut back.

I believe that what the $100 million will do is allow the government to say that it is arm's length, that it is no longer responsible and that it will shuffle its responsibility off somewhere else.

Our former colleague Peter Mancini from Cape Breton brought up the issue of the tar ponds time and time again in the House of Commons. Environment minister after environment minister from the program went to Cape Breton said that something needed to be done. They are still talking about the cleanup of Canada's worst environmental mess.

My question for the hon. member is about using $100 million to set up some sort of agency. If that money cannot go to his particular area of Winnipeg for the institute, would it not be better spent in cleaning up the tar ponds once and for all?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Sydney tar ponds stand as a blight on the landscape of Canada. I agree that there is environmental degradation that needs to be addressed right across the country.

We cannot address these issues in isolation. We cannot try and separate the ideas of energy conservation, alternative energy sources, sustainable development and environmental degradation. They are all part and parcel in cleaning up the planet and viewing it in a different way so we can all move forward in a way that does not pollute and gives our children opportunities.

If there are hard dollars to be spent, if there are actual, tangible things to be done, the Sydney tar pond disaster should be first and foremost in the minds of government as it spends money for environmental cleanup and fixing environmental degradation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, human resources development; the hon. member for Manicouagan, water quality.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-4, an act to establish a foundation to fund sustainable development technology.

One would think this is truly environment day here in the House, after considering the motion by my hon. colleague from Davenport, in which he specifically asks the government to conduct studies in order to get a clear idea of the impact on the environment of fish-farming and its industry.

Today, we are studying Bill C-4. We do not know when but perhaps in a few days we will study the bill on threatened species.

Quite honestly, when I read the bill, I rather supported it. The bill advocated a number of principles, which one cannot oppose.

In Quebec, it is often said that it is impossible to oppose virtue and apple pie. This is where we are at with this bill at first reading. In other words, it permits the creation of a foundation which has basic funding, which would permit the funding of research on sustainable development, but more specifically, in order to work on the development of energy to fight climactic change and atmospheric pollution.

When I read the bill, I said “Finally the government is doing something to respond properly, by allocating the necessary resources to meet international objectives on greenhouse gases”. I said “This is a way for the government to meet its international commitments, especially those pertaining to climatic change and the Kyoto conference”.

This foundation provides financial assistance for the development and demonstration of new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues. It is a foundation which would operate like a non profit organization, with a chairperson, 14 directors and 15 members, all appointed by the government.

Quebecers remember what happened in the case of the millennium scholarship fund, an endowment fund or a foundation with a chairperson and a number of directors that was supposedly set up to achieve the laudable objective of helping students pursue their studies.

When we took a closer look, we discovered that this foundation was not necessarily there to meet the needs of students. The millennium scholarship fund was not established to meet the essential and critical needs of students and help them achieve their educational goals but, rather, to award scholarships based on merit. The fund had been set up so that the maple leaf could appear on the cheques.

Today, a similar foundation is proposed. Its members will be appointed by the government and, more often than not, for the government. Under the bill, the foundation would receive an initial endowment of $100 million per year. Is this a realistic figure to achieve the objectives agreed to before the public and before the heads of states at the Kyoto summit? One hundred million dollars per year to achieve the Kyoto objectives is not acceptable.

If the government had really wanted to adequately meet these objectives, it would not have created a foundation which, in a way, is a bogus foundation.

Clauses 11 and 15 deal with the appointment and selection of directors and members. Clause 11 reads:

1. The appointment of directors shall be made having regard to the following considerations: a ) the need to ensure, as far as possible—

Remember these words “as far as possible”. At any time, about half of the directors will represent persons engaged in research, while the other half will represent people involved in the business community and not for profit corporations.

In selecting the directors we must “as far as possible” ensure that half of the appointees are from the research sector. There is no obligation to ensure that these people have the required knowledge, expertise and experience to make a major contribution that would give Canada the means of production to achieve the goal of reducing greenhouse gases.

Also, clauses 11 and 15 stipulate that the appointment of members shall be made having regard to the following considerations: a ) the need to ensure, as far as possible—

Therefore, at all times, the membership must be representative of persons engaged in the development and demonstration of technologies to promote sustainable development. There is a need to ensure “as far as possible” that the members of the foundation are experts.

If the government were truly honest and really wanted to make a serious commitment to the environment and renewable energies, would it have included in its bill clauses to ensure that experts would be appointed as far as possible? The answer is no.

If the government were truly sincere, it would have ensured that experts would be appointed to this foundation, not friends of the Liberal Party. What we want is more transparency. I am not sure the foundation will have all the transparency needed to ensure that its goals will be reached.

I want to come back to the $100 million initial funding for the foundation. Will it be enough? One could put that question to all the experts, not to the environmental groups, not to the so-called green organizations. One could ask the experts in the field of technology and renewable energies. They would say that $100 million, that is peanuts.

I want to remind the House of the Bloc Quebecois' commitment to sustainable development. The Bloc Quebecois suggests that the federal government invest a further $1.5 billion over five years to better meet sustainable development requirements. We are not opposed to a fund, we are in favour of a real fund with real resources to ensure that the real goals are met. On this side of the House we are not convinced that this fund will make it possible to meet these goals.

Why do we have reservations concerning the resources available to the fund? I will say honestly that I would rather be on this side of the House today, I would rather not be on the other side of the House and have to introduce a bill such as this one which is providing $100 million a year to deal with a fundamental issue requiring a major shift in terms of energy, namely renewable energy. We have doubts as to the government's goodwill when we look at the results concerning its international commitments.

I remind members that in 1992 the federal government signed the Rio framework convention on climate change and the ensuing Kyoto protocol containing more definite commitments, namely, for Canada, a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. Are we anywhere near achieving the Kyoto objectives? The answer is no. To meet these objectives we need real resources, not $100 million a year.

Far from dropping, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 13% in Canada. They have not dropped. We are not on our way to meeting the targets set by the federal government in Kyoto, far from it. In Canada, there has been a 13% increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, according to the figures put out by the federal government and the Royal Society, we are far from meeting our targets.

A report was tabled at the end of May by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, who was quite critical of the federal government. He faulted the government for its failure in the fight against smog. On a more global level, he underlined the importance of reducing air pollution, which causes disease and death. Even though the government and the Minister of the Environment announced, yesterday and last Friday, a policy to help us reach that goal, we must realize that we are still very far from it.

Even worse, in terms of the financial means available to us to meet our targets at the international level, the insignificant amounts included by the federal government in its 2000 budget show the Liberals' lack of vision with regard to the environment. Just for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government should be spending $1.5 billion over five years, not $100 million.

The urgency of the situation requires a $1.5 billion investment, but instead, the government is planning to spend a total $700 million over the next four years on all environmental issues.

A $100 million investment will not be enough to help us face these environmental changes, and neither will the $700 million included in the last budget. We need $1.5 billion. Here is the situation: in 1997, Canada's emissions were 13% higher than in 1990.

With regard to the issue of climate change, I reviewed Quebec's position, its performance and how we fare compared to the other provinces and to Canada itself. That review shows that Quebec is clearly performing better in that area than the federal government and the other provinces.

Why do we have a better performance? Because we made the green revolution several years ago. When we look at the energy policy of Canada, of western Canada, with due respect to my colleagues, we realize the energy policy is still based on fossil fuel energy sources. There are three fossil fuel industries: natural gas, coal and oil.

Western Canada is a major producer of greenhouse gas, an oil producer and an oil user, which mainly produces greenhouse gas. However, since the 1960s, Quebec has had a totally different energy policy.

We have been using an energy that is called renewable. Hydro-electricity has contributed concretely and totally to Quebec's economic growth. Besides, it has allowed to stop the production of greenhouse gas.

This is a practical application in a country, the country of Quebec, of the sustainable development concept. We do not put the sustainable development concept in a bill such as Bill C-6. It does not belong in a bill such as the one the minister has introduced today. Sustainable development calls for a practical application. This means economic growth and the use of our resources with consideration for environmental protection.

Mrs. Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway, had defined this sustainable development concept that we are now applying in practical terms in Quebec. We have given ourselves all the tools required to achieve these environmental objectives without necessarily neglecting economic growth. This is what is different.

Often, people think that a change in energy policy leads to reduced economic activity. Quebec is a prime example. A few years ago, how many homes used coal, natural gas or petroleum? How many businesses and industries used them in order to produce consumer goods? How many houses were heated with oil? A very heavy majority.

Yet today, we use another source of energy, what is termed renewable energy. In the case of Quebec, it is hydroelectric power, electricity. Yet the economic activity of Quebec has not been affected by this pro-ecology and pro-environmental move.

On the contrary, Quebec's government corporation has been able to export energy, to the U.S. for one. This goes to show that a change in energy use does not necessarily mean job losses, as some would have us believe.

How often we hear the comment “The petroleum industry is so important to Canada, and jobs connected to that industry must be preserved”. I say there is a way of making a logical and balanced change of direction toward Canada's use of a sustainable energy source.

I am referring to hydroelectric energy. It is not the only type of renewable energy there is; there are other kinds. Among other things, there is solar energy, which works fairly well in certain countries. Proper investments would ensure that this technology could be developed.

There is wind energy as well. This energy has been tried out in many countries, including Quebec and Canada. Wind energy is used in Europe, among other things, as a primary source of energy, and not just as a secondary energy.

I will conclude by talking about the principle underlying the bill. As I was saying, I agree with the principle of the bill. It is impossible to oppose investment in technology that will mean the achievement of the objectives of sustainable development.

However, I have some doubt as to the vehicle for achieving these objectives, namely a foundation appointed by the government, with, in my opinion, insufficient funding.

My final remark is to the effect that the foundation would not permit the achievement of the objectives and the environmental green shift. I fear instead that it will manage to sprinkle a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars about without really achieving its target objective, that of producing while respecting and protecting the environment at the same time.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on his speech. As always, he was very eloquent and quite clear in what he said. He has been working very hard on environmental issues since the last election.

I particularly noticed his concern in the matter of the contaminated water in Shannon, in the Quebec City area. His interest in these problems is obviously very high.

I listened to him carefully and I agree with him when he says that the proposed foundation will have no effect on what is being debated today.

Since he always has an answer, I would like to ask him what he himself would do if he were in the government's place. What would he propose, while respecting jurisdictions, to meet the objectives and reduce greenhouse gases?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which basically is twofold. I do not know how long I still have, but to me the Shannon issue is really important. It is so because the government has to admit one thing. The contaminated lands in Shannon are located on lands under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government.

Let me tell the hon. member that on last February 6 I wrote to the Minister of National Defence, asking him to proceed immediately with the decontamination of the site and work together with the province in order to find a sustainable solution to the problem. That falls precisely within the scope of this bill.

This is not about patching problems, but finding a solution. The solution involves decontamination. As for the means available to us, while the federal government is proposing a foundation, I should remind the House that Quebec does have an action plan to deal with climate change.

There is a whole range of means that the Quebec government made available to the public—voluntary measures in some cases, and public information—in order to deal with the major challenge represented by climate change.

Given the federal government's performance on the climate change issue in recent years, would it not be sounder and more transparent to transfer these $100 million to the province that already has an action plan and made sure to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets?

Does the member not think that, on that issue, the Quebec government gets much better marks than the federal government? Let the federal government take that money and transfer it to Quebec, and then we will be able to meet targets even higher than those we have met so far.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is commonly known that Canada has been vilified by international environmentalists because it is seen as one of the main brokers of deals to try and get around the Kyoto protocol and the obligation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

We are seeing token gestures on the part of the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with its own federal buildings. It is also trying to encourage municipalities to energy retrofit its buildings.

A $25 million fund has been put aside for green municipalities. Out of $25 million, $30,000 will be allocated to the city of Montreal to energy retrofit its municipal buildings. Would the hon. member have any comment on that allocation of resources?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an eloquent example of the danger of this bill. My colleague has just given an example, and I will document it.

Thirty thousand dollars went to the City of Montreal to retrofit its equipment and buildings in order to meet environmental objectives. That is the danger of this type of foundation, which has an initial endowment of only $100 million.

Earlier, I mentioned this danger in the conclusion to my speech, and I repeat that the danger is that this leads to a sort of piecemeal approach, with the result that the objectives would not really be met. The member for Winnipeg Centre spoke earlier about the institute for climate change. In Quebec, we have an action plan for reaching our objectives in this area.

Would it not be possible to recognize the work being done by the provincial governments or by the institutes on this issue and to fund these institutes or governments in order to consolidate the work they are doing, rather than create a foundation appointed by the governor in council—we do not know whom he will appoint—and to pour $100 million a year into it?

We do not know to whom this money will go. We know that there will probably be agreements, but clearly it will be very difficult for us, with the foundation they want to create, to know with whom agreements will be reached. It will be incredibly difficult. We are talking about a foundation with $100 million dollars.

I agree with my colleague and I think that recognition should be given to the work done in the institute for climate change in his riding, and to the Government of Quebec's action plan, and that the federal government should improve and consolidate existing measures rather than create a foundation that will throw money all over the place.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague for Rosemont for his splendid work. He acts in a competent and eloquent way.

I do not have to tell any member of the House that we need air and water to live, hence, the importance of environmental protection. It just so happens that there has been contamination of the water table by the Department of Transport in a residential area of the town of Sept-Îles. On three occasions, that is February 1, 2 and 5, I raised the issue. As a matter of fact, I have been speaking about this issue for three and a half years. The Minister of Transport admitted to the fact and recognized his responsibility.

On February 14, that is quite recent, I received a document which I hope to be able to table tonight. In this document, the department of public health recommends not drinking the water in the Des Plages area, and this recommendation comes from Dr. Raynald Cloutier.

How are we to believe in the government's credibility? Even if Bill C-4 contained the best clauses, does the government think that, as it included in its policy statements a clause based on the “polluter pays” principle while it was itself polluting and contaminating the Des Plages area—a woman says she is desperate because she is without water and sewer systems—we are going to give it credibility? According to Le Soleil “People are Desperate”. There was also action taken by the town of Sept-Îles on February 12, which is also fairly recent. But I was not satisfied with the answer the Minister gave me in the House.

I ask my colleague for Rosemont if he sees a way to solve the problem of the Des Plages area of Sept-Îles so that the Department of Transport will finally act responsibly. Does he see in Bill C-4 any means to avoid such situations in the future?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent question. Today I make the assumption that since the House reconvened the federal government has been introducing environmental bills that intrude in provincial jurisdiction, for example Bill C-6 amending the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, the bill respecting species at risk, and this bill establishing a foundation to fund sustainable development.

Could the federal government not look after areas under federal jurisdiction rather than meddling in provincial areas of jurisdiction? Let it proceed with land decontamination in Shannon, at CFB Valcartier, or at the airport, in Sept-Îles. That is all we ask. The federal government has no say in provincial jurisdiction, particularly not as regards drinking water management. This side of the House does not need any lectures.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the sustainable development technology foundation legislation Bill C-4.

Like so many initiatives of the government, this initiative represents a baby step in the right direction, a glossing over of a very major issue with what some would describe as a cosmetic approach in order that the government can say that it has in fact done something to address the issue of sustainable development and climate change. However, it is very much a baby step.

The Liberals have had an abysmal record on environmental policy.

I have in front of me a quotation from David Boyd, a senior associate with the eco-research chair of environmental policy at the University of Victoria, in the riding of the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Boyd, who is an expert on the environment, has said that “ in two terms the Liberals have yet to pass a single significant new piece of environmental legislation. Many green promises from the Liberal red book remain unfulfilled”.

That is a damning description, to have seen this level of demise, of two terms of Liberal government, a party that has historically had strong principles relative to environmental issues. The principles and values of environmental policy in the Liberal Party is indeed unfortunate.

The notion of a sustainable development technology foundation should have been addressed and developed before Kyoto. Instead the government's plan in terms of the Kyoto agreement was basically written on the back of an airplane napkin on the way to Kyoto. There was no long term planning. There was no real negotiation with the provinces or with industry sectors. In fact it was a last minute, hastily drafted agreement.

The federal government was not responsible for developing, in advance, a long term strategy on how to meet the terms of the Kyoto agreement. It was left scrambling after the Kyoto agreement. This legislation is a band-aid approach to make up for lost time years later. That is highly unfortunate.

[An hon. member]

Too little, too late.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre says that it is too little, too late. As with so many things, I share his views on that. He was speaking earlier about some of the omissions in the legislation, including the fact that the government is not addressing the important potential of decentralization of research and policy development in terms of this very important area of the environment.

With the death of distance as a determinant in the cost of telecommunications and with companies around the world decentralizing and putting research and policy development out in the field, it is the people making the decisions and researching the policies that are close to the people that are ultimately affected.

It is not just in terms of the foundation. That same rationale could be applied to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Instead the government continues to fill office buildings in Ottawa and continues to cut down on its commitment to the regions to develop the sound policies close to the people ultimately affected in the regions. This is again a missed opportunity by the government.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre also referred to the process of appointment in terms of the board members of the foundation. I share with him his concerns. The government has an unfortunate record of cronyism when it comes to the appointment process.

The member for Winnipeg Centre also referred to the habit that the government has of appointing failed Liberal candidates to senior positions. While I share his concern, I would remind him that the only thing worse than a failed Liberal candidate is a successful Liberal candidate. In many ways we should at least be thankful that there are still some failed Liberal candidates. We hope that we will add to their ranks in the future.

With regard to the direction of the foundation to have a greater level of private sector participation, I do share the notion that we could do more to incorporate the private sector in the delivery of products that are actually beneficial to the public good.

Look at the general trends in terms of medical technology or biotechnology. A lot of these cutting edge technologies can provide immense societal gains and benefits. Many of the developments are actually coming from the private sector. Therefore, I do support the notion of leveraging some of the government investment. In this case it is a very small investment of $100 million into $400 million, which is a fairly small amount of money, but it is still positive that there is a leveraging effort.

I can point to another example in recent days. It was the announcement on the human genome project. One government funded group had spent 10 years encoding the human gene. Another group, which was a private sector group, completed much of the same work in three years. There are some private sector advantages developing these types of cutting edge technologies. We can, through public policy, effect and create greater levels of interest in developing these societally beneficial technologies.

There are some tax credits currently for research and development in Canada, but we could possibly develop a more advantageous set of tax credits to apply specifically to sustainable development technologies. For instance, research into alternative energy sources and the whole emerging industry of wind generated power comes to mind. Certainly, during question period we would have no shortage of mega watts coming from the government side of the House. Even the House of Commons could potentially be powered by wind generation in such a scheme and perhaps some of this money may go in that direction. That would be parliamentary reform that would have long term benefits.

The issue of private sector participation in this is going to become increasingly important in Canada. Whether it is an environmental policy or almost any new area of technology, we can demonstrate to private individuals and companies in Canada that good environmental policy is good economics and good economic policy is good environmental policy. For far too long we separated environmental policy and economic policy. In failing to incorporate the two, we did a great disservice to both disciplines and to the public in general.

If we do more, such as internalize externalities of production at the time of production and ensure that the cost borne by consumers of particular products or services reflect not just the cost of production but the environmental cost of production, we would be far better served. These are the types of regulatory reforms that can effect changes. It might be actually more significant than that which is presented in this legislation.

This legislation is very vague on how it would address the long term issue of sustainable development. Again, it is only $100 million. A few months ago, anything dot com could have raised that in an IPO anywhere and those companies only took a few months to burn through that. With government involvement it may take less time. However, I have some real concerns about the scale of commitment of the federal government. Again, it is not a huge commitment. It will allow the government to point toward this very vague and cosmetic approach to this very serious issue and claim that it has taken action. In fact, it really is not a significant level of commitment to such an important global issue.

I would urge the government to be more responsive to this issue and incorporate a more effective regime of tax based incentives to reward and encourage private sector development of new technologies for sustainable development, as well as to encourage consumers to make choices, whether it is in their own homes or the fuels that they choose for their automobiles, to be more sensitive to environmental issues.

A positive thing that has happened in recent years is if one goes to a high school, speaks to a class and asks how many of the students feel environmental policy is of great priority, almost every one of them will put up their hands.

Ten years ago or fifteen years ago, if we had asked the same question to a group of school students probably most of them would not have said that. I do not think the environment was of huge importance to me when I was in high school. However, education has effected change in that direction and that is very positive.

We have now an emerging group of young adults who are environmentally sensitive and intrinsically interested in environmental issues. They may be more responsive to tax based measures which encourage sustainable environmental policy and greater levels of sensitivity as consumers. These Volvo vigilantes can make a huge impact on the future of the country, regardless of the car they choose to drive. It is important that we recognize more creative means by which to develop approaches.

Canada in so many areas, particularly in environmental policy, has failed to research best practices around the world of other jurisdictions and governments in terms of policies which apply in this case to environmental policy, but in so many other areas, whether it is in tax policy or social policy. We could have tried a little harder in this case to be somewhat more creative.

The government has almost a franchise like approach to policy development and the creation of these foundations. It names a bunch of Liberals to the board. Then, it sends it off to ultimately die a natural death and spend some money. In some cases, by hook or by crook, and I do not mean crook as in the stuff that has been alluded to in question period over and over again or in a criminal reference, sometimes a positive thing will come out. By and large the results have been less than substantial.

The fact is we could do much better. I was the co-chairman of the Progressive Conservative platform committee for the recent election. All three Canadians who read that document thought it was an excellent document. It was supported across the country by these people. They all voted for us.

The fact is the Sierra Club actually recognized that platform for its sound environmental policies. It also recognized the New Democratic Party. If there is an area of policy that I would be quite proud to stand beside my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, but not all policies, it is the environmental policy. There is a level of commitment that is consistent and of vigilance in areas of the environment that I have a great deal of respect for.

In another area and on another topic, the Canadian Alliance of Students Association, not to be confused with the other Canadian Alliance, said that the Conservative platform was the best in terms of student policies and education policies. Those are two areas that may not be recognized widely as cornerstones of conservative policy, but they certainly are cornerstones of Progressive Conservative policies, of which we are very proud.

We need to do more than simply institutionalize lip service to environmental and other important issues. We need to work with the provinces to develop meaningful tax and regulatory incentives to encourage a greater level of commitment from all Canadians, from the business community and from individual citizens. This is our legacy that we are leaving to future generations of Canadians.

We should not talk just about Canadians when we talk about the environment because this is a global issue. There are no borders when it comes to environmental policy. The legacy we are leaving to future citizens of the world is a very sad legacy.

I believe it was last week that there was another report on the whole global warming issue indicating that the worst fears of global warming are coming to fruition. We are seeing it in many of the natural disasters occurring in all parts of the world. The fact is that we in the developed countries which have led and created much of the problem are better insulated to survive during these crises than some of the developing countries.

There are some real issues of equity that we as a developed country, as a country that has in the past been a leader in environmental and foreign policy, can play in a greater role than the size of our population would typically dictate in leading greater co-operation globally on environmental policy.

Some people are talking about the issue of intergenerational equity. When they talk about that they are talking about the issue of the national debt which future generations are going to have to pay. That certainly is an issue of intergenerational equity. People your age, Mr. Speaker, leaving that kind of equity on people like me, the next generation, is indeed unfair. That is a career limiting move.

However, a more damning legacy and on intergenerational equity issue is that of the environment. We will at some point have to pay off the national debt. I would argue we should pay it off more quickly than some would argue. The damage we have inflicted on the environment is a debt that we may not be able to ever repay. That is a scientific fact.

We need to become increasingly vigilant. We have been asleep at the wheel for far too long on environmental policy. That is not a legacy that as policymakers in the House we can afford to leave for future generations of Canadians.