Debates of Feb. 17th, 2005

Points of Order

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in fact on the committee. The chair's ruling was appealed and upheld by a majority vote.

I believe that this matter goes beyond the internal rules of a committee. In fact, all government operations, ultimately, are being called into question. If this practice, this precedent, is important and definitive, it would alter the whole validity of each committee. So a ruling on this would be important regardless.

However, an appeal of the decision was called for, and the decision upheld by a majority vote.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I personally attended the committee meetings this week. I wanted to present the ruling by Speaker Parent, and the chair refused to hear anything about it. She said that the matter was closed and that she did not want to hear it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on this because I have had a similar experience. The fact is that the chair of any committee, and in fact all the members of a committee, do rely on table officers to provide them with advice; we can only assume. But when there is a challenge, the challenge then is a challenge which is voted on by the committee members without the knowledge of the rules. We should not get away from the fact that if there was an error in the advice of the table officers to the chair or to the committee then there must be a remedy to rectify it.

I also wanted to rise because I am also aware that this problem was brought to the attention of the Table prior to returning the bill from committee and reporting that bill to the House. I would like to know more about that, because if that bill had not been tabled there could have been a report stage motion tabled in time. Once the bill is tabled, and with, I believe, the restrictions on the timeframe of submitting report stage motions, it could have been a frustration of the opportunity to correct or remedy a possible error at committee. It has happened where bills will have report stage within 48 hours of being reported to the House.

I do believe that this is much more than a dispute between parties. I think the fundamental question appears to be whether or not there was an error in ruling or judgment on behalf of the table officers advising a committee.

[The Speaker]

I point out to the hon. member for Mississauga South that amendments cannot be moved in the House to a bill at report stage until the bill has been reported from the committee, so I think he has that order incorrect in his argument.

The amendments can be presented now. The bill is not being called today on report stage, so amendments can be submitted until that happens. We will see what happens in terms of proposed amendments that members submit for report stage consideration on this bill.

With respect to the committee proceedings, I will examine the record. I thank the hon. members for their answers to the questions.

I hope that I will be able to come back to the House soon with an answer and a ruling on this important point of order.

Supply

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I have been a runner poised in the starting blocks for the last 25 minutes. I hope those watching CPAC have been as riveted by this morning's procedural debate as I have.

We are about to enter into an important debate today around a number of key issues for the government, for this minority Parliament and for the future of all Canadians. I would like to touch on a number of key topics this morning, around leadership and promises made and promises broken for all Canadians. This is about the health of Canadians and the health of our economy. It is about policy and the role of government in making policy to maintain the health of Canadians and the health of our economy.

I am very proud to stand here today. I had full intentions and hopes that our leader would be able to present this motion, as this is one of the key reasons he entered the political realm. His disappointment in not being here is great, but I am sure the House will be happy to know that he is recuperating well and is continuing to push the government for some serious action around climate change in this country.

With respect to leadership and vision about where this country needs to go, the Liberal Party of Canada presented its now infamous red book to Canadians in 1993, with a whole series of promises. Most of them, we now know, have been broken outright.

In particular, there was a promise made around greenhouse gas emissions. Yesterday we heard the tone in the House on the most auspicious day of the Kyoto accord coming into effect, where all parties rose, opposition parties at least, and denounced the government for its lack of planning, lack of foresight and readiness for this most important agreement. The parliamentary secretary called it a day of celebration. I am not sure the minister would agree with him after yesterday's debate.

It was not a celebratory mood in the House. It was a mood of frustration shared by all opposition parties and by Canadians over the lack of basic advancement and planning on the Kyoto file. When we look at auto emissions in this country, we see yet another example of lack of foresight, planning and vision on the part of the Liberal government.

We brought this motion forward today to raise the debate to the next level, to remove the rhetoric and start to talk about the actual numbers, the important numbers facing Canadians each and every day as they make decisions about the way they move themselves around this country, about the health of their communities and cities, about the smog, about the important things facing Canadians and not the rhetoric and broken promises that we have heard in election after election.

We know that light duty vehicles are very important with respect to greenhouse gas emissions. We know there is an important part to be played by the car manufacturers of this country in responding to the pollution problem that is facing Canadians each and every day, these serious effects of pollution that we are seeing in our hospital wards and schools as young Canadians face increasing health risks from the very air we breathe.

Twenty-five per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions come from this sector, about half of that from the vehicles we are going to be talking about today. Clearly, a significant part of any solution that we are going to arrive at comes from this sector. Looking for the innovation and leadership around this important issue in terms of mandatory fuel requirements is important for us all.

I am happy to share a note that was passed to me yesterday, which states that we already have support from a number of corners of the House. The chief critic for the Conservative Party of Canada, the member for Red Deer, in a response to a questionnaire from the Sierra Club in the last federal election, committed his support to mandatory regulation of car fuel efficiency standards. This is fantastic. This is good to hear. We will be looking for support from that party today for our motion, which clearly outlines the very same thing.

We have spoken to a number of members of the Bloc who also seem supportive of this notion of finally responding to the needs that Canadians have been expressing for many years, of finally responding to the promise made by the Liberal Party and never acted upon. We have seen that voluntary standards just do not make it. We have not arrived.

In 1993 the Liberal Party promised a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases. It got the number right, but it got the plus-minus sign wrong: we have seen a 20% increase in greenhouse gas emissions in this country.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Absolutely shameful.

We think we have found a way that makes sense for Canadians and the auto sector to step into the new economy and into a future that we can be proud of for all Canadians.

Some people dispute the seriousness of smog. I would like to quote a few numbers for members so they will understand how important this is to Canadians as they go about their daily business. The Ontario Medical Association states that 2,000 deaths per year in Ontario alone can be attributed to smog. The Government of Canada estimates 5,000 deaths a year attributable to smog, almost five times the rate of murder in the country.

Clearly, this is of significance to Canadians and to their health. These are statistics of the people who finally succumbed to the health effects of smog, never mind the people who suffer through the respiratory illnesses and asthma. In many of the major cities smog days are now being seen in February, of which was previously unheard.

We need to do something about the vehicles that drive through our cities. We need to imagine a future in which commuting to and from work or bringing our children to school will not harm us or our children. We need to imagine a future when we can walk to the House of Commons and not see vehicles idling in front of the House. It would be a novel concept for the government to take on. We need to identify a culture within the House, within the representatives of the country. We must do something about the increasing amount of smog throughout our cities.

Months ago the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council tabled the need for a national auto policy, and we are still waiting. If the government had the leadership and understood what Canadians needed and wanted, a national auto policy would include some of the suggestions that we will hear today. With the lack of leadership in the auto sector and a lack of clarity and certainty in where the government views the auto sector going in the future, we will continue to have greater uncertainty. This hurts business. This hurts investors looking to invest in this marketplace because they do not know where the government wants the auto sector to go. It does not know what profitable partnerships we can form with the auto sector.

In 1982 the House and Senate looked at mandatory regulations. The auto sector said not to do it, that it would voluntarily comply. It said that there was no need to force it because it would get there eventually. Therefore, the bill was never passed into law.

In 2002, according to Transport Canada, there has been regular violations of the voluntary agreement. This is the problem with a voluntary agreement. Not only do we not get reports on this because it is voluntary, but if someone breaks the agreement, there is no consequence to it. If we had a voluntary law against murder, depending on the circumstances, would we find out if people were being prosecuted for their crimes? We need to get serious about this. Waiting for the Liberal government's inaction on this file is no longer acceptable to Canadians.

[An hon. member]

It's like Waiting for Godot .

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Waiting for Godot

and others. We might need to rename this Liberal Party.

Many people say that we should not have mandatory regulations because this will hurt the auto sector, that this will drive jobs away from Canada. Drive jobs away to where? We know that California is looking at strict emissions as well as New York, Illinois and Maine. The United States is one of our main locations for export. These states are all looking at the same regulations. That is where many of our cars go. That is the market to which we look. Clearly, the industry is moving toward lower emissions coming out of the tailpipes of cars. How could this drive jobs away when the very people who will be buying these cars will also be under a regulatory regime?

Canada needs to be at the forefront of this. Canada needs to look to the future. We cannot go forward looking back. We need to look at what the sector and consumers want. I searched the websites of Toyota and Honda for hybrid options, and there are waiting lists. Imagine the businesses in Canada that would like to have waiting lists for their products, that would like to have people lined up in queue or putting deposits down on their products. Clearly, there is a market for these cars.

Canadians clearly enjoy the concept of not only of polluting less as they drive to and fro, but also paying less at the pump. Our party has recommended taking the GST off these cars to help consumers out at the front end.

I know a number of people in the auto sector who sell cars. The appeal they make to their consumers is this. While the car may cost them $2,000 to $3,000 more, they will recoup that cost in a few months, in a year to two years, depending on the original consumption of a normal car. After that time they will make money off the price of the car, while helping the environment, and having a clear conscience about what they are doing.

Taxi companies are coming on line and offering hybrid options. If Canadians had a choice between a hybrid vehicle or one that pollutes more, I wager that most Canadians would choose a hybrid taxi. They would feel better about the trip and about the day. Taxi companies certainly feel better about it. They make more money because they pay less at the pump.

The government has decided another tactic, which is the usual one of throwing money at an issue. It hires a comedian, puts together a $26 million package and calls it the “One Tonne Challenge”. Then it tries to convince Canadians that it is their responsibility to lose a little weight, that it is within their jurisdiction and that it is their fault where we are today. The responsibility clearly rests in the hands and homes of Canadians. If they do not find their way to it, then I guess it is all their fault.

The government completely ignores its role and responsibility in this. To enter into a major international agreement with 140 other countries as of yesterday without a significant plan speaks to the greatest irresponsibility ever. It speaks to the lack of commitment, focus and ability within the cabinet to work out a plan, to find out where the sector can benefit, where our economy can grow and where we can do better by our environment and for the health of Canadians. Instead the government stumbled in backwards to yesterday's most auspicious and celebratory date without a plan.

The only announcement is that it will be embarrassed in Montreal in November, when the world comes to Canada to fully describe to Canadians how badly we have done on the environment. We can only hope that there is not a smog day in Montreal during the COP11. Aside from that circumstance, the government has completely failed. We know Canadians were believing and hoping that the government had taken the horse by the bit on the environment, but it has completely failed to do that

A lot of people decry regulations in general. They say that we should not regulate business, that we should allow the free flow of commerce and that businesses will find their own way. The report from Transport Canada has said that the mandatory emission requirements Ottawa has come forward with are not sufficient and that it is breaking those commitments. That is tragic.

I remind the House to hearken back to the debates when seat belts, air bags and unleaded fuel were being suggested as regulations. Some in the auto sector brought forward the same arguments that jobs would be lost if there were seat belt regulations or because air bags were too expensive, it would drive jobs out of the country. Now we find the sector proudly advertising the effectiveness of seat belts, air bags and the efficiency of cars.

The sector finds some benefit in being able to approach consumers and say that they will be safe in their cars. Within every sector there are more progressive elements and there are lesser progressive elements. We need to reward those who seek to be more progressive on this. We need to reward those manufacturers that have decided to look the future, that have decided to say to Canadians and world that they can produce vehicles that are better for the environment and better for money in their pockets.

The government will try to table the greatest green budget in history, yet to be seen, and another promise. What Canadians and members of House have to ask themselves is this. Is there a level of trust with the Liberal government, after the number of broken promises with respect to the environment, that a green budget will actually be a green budget?

The government said that it had spent $3.7 billion on Kyoto so far. Then we found out that was allocated and it had not been spent. Did we get good value for our money? The government is not sure of that either. It does not know if the money already has been effective. Clearly not. Emissions are getting higher and higher. We need to become more determined and much stricter with the way we deal with our environment.

We seek support for this motion from all four corners of the House.

I have spoken to members from all four parties who find within their own constituencies a great concern and a need to be proud of the way we are developing our auto sector. They want to be proud to get into their cars. They want to feel good about purchasing another vehicle.

Saving Canadians money means more money in the economy. It means more purchasing. It increases the GDP. When we put more money into the pockets of Canadians, that has a ripple effect on the economy.

The NDP, under the leadership of our leader, has made recommendations. We have said that we need to put more money into the hands of Canadians with respect to cars. We need to offer them a subsidy when they purchase cars. They will recoup the costs through fuel. For low and middle income families, how much money they put in the tanks is a huge part of their weekly and monthly budgets. Reducing that by 22%, 23%, 24% and upwards, depending on the type of vehicle, is a huge savings for those families. They then can take that money and put it into an educational savings account or buy better food for their families, rather than put it into the fuel tank and pollute the air.

Today, we will attempt to step away from the rhetoric and talk about the real numbers. Today, we will spend our time, ideally, talking about what is good for Canadians.

Canadians have been demanding change in this file for a number of years. The auto sector has said that it will meet it through voluntary measures. The time has come and gone. The time has come for the government and the House to make directive policy that makes sense for consumers, that makes sense for the health of Canadians and that makes sense for the sector. It has to make sense for the sector so it can export its technology and its products to emerging markets around the world.

If anyone in the House has any notion that we can have the developing world come on line with the same consumption patterns that we have and maintain any semblance of an environment, they are obviously dipping into something they should not be dipping into. We cannot have China and India, with their massive middles classes, consuming and polluting at the rates we have over the last number of years.

We need to be at the forefront of this, not the international pariahs as we have been. The OECD ranks us last. There are two countries that pollute more per capita than Canada, the United States being one. Under George Bush, the Americans have done far more on climate change, as 39 states move toward their Kyoto commitments, than the Prime Minister has. The Prime Minister has not found his way to achieving even the small measures of success that the Americans have under George W. Bush, who is no great friend of the environmental lobby. I am not sure if he attends its galas very often.

However, under the direction of the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and three majority governments where all the power was in a few hands, they have been unable to find their way to the progressive changes suggested in this motion.

We need to look to the future. We need to look to the leadership that Canadians are asking us to hold, the responsibility that Canadians are asking us to take along with them in solving and meeting our challenges under Kyoto and meeting our responsibility to future generations.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hope the member will get his pencil out because I have a number of questions for him which I hope will be answered during the day.

His motion states, “legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada”. We already have all kinds of controls and standards in Canada. I want to know, specifically, what are the benchmarks he complaining about?

He mentioned about a GST rebate for some vehicles that perhaps have a good mileage rate. However, is he also secretly talking about penalties on certain cars? We have had that in British Columbia.

What kind of pollution is he talking about? Is he talking about NO

x

and MOX and real poisons or is he talking about CO

2

and water vapour that is related to Kyoto? I heard him falsely mixing smog and poisons in the environment and real pollution with Kyoto and climate change. The two are not the same. Anyone knows that. Again, what does he mean by “light duty vehicles”? That certainly has to be defined.

Is he referring to the California standards for all of Canada? Let him be specific. To what plan and schedule is referring?

The current laws in Canada already conform to his motion. We could accept this motion because we could say it already exists in Canada. What specifically is he asking for? Where are we going? If he truly wants to advance the results for the environment, he better have a plan and he better have a schedule, rather than just railing against cars. What are the numbers and where are they? Where are we going to go with this motion?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excitable question. The motion has brought forward a great amount of ire. I am looking to the motion to find out where the great amount of fear is and the specifics of what the member is describing.

The member asked what our plans are and what devious contraptions we have hidden within the motion. The motion is as it stands. The voluntary regime that has existed within Canada has not worked according to the government's own reports. We are asking that the voluntary regime be mandatory.

In terms of the numbers, this is what the debate actually entails. What are the numbers that the sector can live with? What are the numbers that most benefit Canadians?

In terms of the California emission standards, California has done a great deal in helping the environment and in helping to develop a new sector. Looking at what sectors actually have sustained an economy while building these emission standards is very important. Light duty vehicles is a class of vehicles that we have designated in Canada.

In terms of the member's question, the basic premise of the motion is to move from voluntary toward mandatory. In terms of the actual numbers, clearly the auto sector has to believe that the government and the House of Commons are committed to bringing in mandatory requirements.

Since 1982 the spirit has not been there. The auto sector knows it does not need to do it because it is voluntary. If the auto sector can continue on a voluntary basis, there is no need to make the significant changes we are asking for and which we know can be met. The auto sector itself has indicated that it has the improvements on the shelf for 17% of the changes.

Clearly, the point of the motion is a mandatory regime rather than a voluntary one because the voluntary one is no longer working.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that, naturally, the Bloc Québécois supports the motion made by my NDP colleague. However, I find it is somewhat of a catch all and vague. It is impossible to oppose such a proposal, the aim of which is to increase the efficiency of light duty vehicles. However, why did my colleague not specify the level of efficiency he intends to propose to government?

The government's climate change plan of November 2002 mentions a 25% improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency, which is not even mentioned in my colleague's motion. This improvement would lead to a 5.2 megatonne reduction in greenhouse gas.

I am in complete agreement with my colleague's motion, but would it not have been more advantageous and accurate to specify in his motion that he is seeking a 25% improvement for light duty vehicles in Canada?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question and a fair observation.

The most important aspect of the motion is that it creates the framework for the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the auto sector to say that voluntary standards are no longer an option, that it must move toward the mandatory.

The reason there is a need for an auto policy in Canada is that clearly we do not have one. In the absence of one, the industry has little direction as to where it needs to head with respect to the policy of the government.

If the government came forward and said that as a result of a motion in the House and under the direction of the Canadian people, there will be mandatory emission standards, the number would then be set in conjunction with our partners in the auto sector. Clearly we need to have a number that answers our environmental commitments and allows the sector to survive, while meeting consumers' needs. What consumers need is something better at the pump; they need something better coming out of the tailpipe.

The motion sets the framework for that in saying that voluntary is no longer an option, that it must be mandatory. Then we would work with our partners in the auto sector and the unions to arrive at the numbers, depending upon the vehicle and class.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, as opposed to suggesting that the motion raises ire on our side, this is a tremendous motion for two reasons. First, this is basically what we are doing already in going toward those goals. Second, it gives us the chance throughout the day to explain all sorts of programs, successes and regulations that we have put in place with respect to the Kyoto goals.

I have great respect for the member. He is a great analyst and a great parliamentarian. I was astonished that he would suggest that Canadians should not have any role, that they are not interested in reducing greenhouse gases. It is a very small part of our plan. We are working with auto companies and large emitters and industry, but a small part is that Canadians want to help out. We are showing them some ways they might do that. I am surprised that he thinks Canadians are not interested in helping out or having guidance on how to help out.

People are constantly saying there is no plan. The member has been saying that. People should know that in October 2000 there was a $500 million Government of Canada action plan 2000 on climate change. It is amazing that members in the House who are interested in climate change, especially the critics, are not aware of the plan. There was a second plan to improve it in November 2002, the climate change plan of Canada. In August 2003 there was another $1 billion announced.

In talking about our selling greenhouse gas reducing coal technologies to China and that it is one of the worst polluters, the member talked about our being one of the worst polluters in the world. However, we are third out of 12 in improvement of energy in the 1990s as decided by the International Energy Agency.

Just to make sure that people are aware of the issue of auto emissions today, I would like to ask the member some questions, and he can answer any one of them, just to ensure that the critics, the ones who should know the most, are up to speed on this topic.

On January 1 this year we introduced new sulphur reduction emissions as the opposition said. How much will that reduce sulphur emissions? Roughly how many lives did the federal-provincial study on that say it would save?

We are going to reduce smog by a large amount by 2010. Approximately what percentage of auto emission smog will be reduced by 2010 by the many regulations that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has said that we already have in place?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the government is asking me to analyze the effectiveness of its own policies. Clearly if the plans that the hon. member mentioned were effective, we would not have had a 20% increase instead of the promised 20% decrease.

We talk about the plan constantly. Yesterday was the day for the plan to come into force. Yesterday was the day of the exam and the students did not show up. They were still cramming for the exam. The day that Canadians were expecting something, a coherent policy and plan, we were told to wait, that it was coming. It sounds like the foreign policy review to me; it is coming, do not worry, it will be there. We cannot wait any longer.

In terms of international standards, the OECD ranked us 24th out of 24, and 144th out of 146 in terms of exporting our pollution around the world. I would suggest that one actually has to make an effort to end up at 144th out of a list of 146 in terms of environmental standards and exporting one's pollution overseas.

While I have great respect for the hon. member as well, when he speaks to plans and the effectiveness of plans, simply stating how much money went out the door does not a plan make.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the House on the important issue of climate change.

The world knows that climate change is real. We can already see the evidence: hotter, drier weather in some areas, less ice in the Arctic, and rising sea levels. The science is clear. Canada takes its responsibility to be part of a global solution very seriously. From the major investments we have already made to the leadership role we will take in the future, Canada's efforts to address climate change will be second to none in the world.

As Minister of Natural Resources I am keenly aware that at its heart climate change is largely about how we use energy. In Canada about 85% of carbon dioxide emissions, the leading greenhouse gas, come from producing, transforming and consuming energy. Canada has a dynamic energy framework focused on the continuing prosperity of Canadians, assuring Canadians access to a reliable and competitively priced supply of energy, and ensuring the production and use of energy is consistent with our environmental objectives.

Within this framework Canada has prospered and is positioned to continue to do so. Energy represented 5.6% of our gross domestic product in 2003. It accounts for nearly $50 billion worth of exports and a fifth of all business investments. Canada is the world's biggest producer of hydroelectricity and uranium. We are third in gas production and also are a major producer of coal. Our oil reserves are second only to Saudi Arabia.

We must recognize that Canada's energy context is changing rapidly, beginning with opportunities and challenges, particularly on the environmental front. The 21st century will be the century of sustainable development, development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

It is the responsibility of the government to blaze the sustainable development trail for Canada. That means balancing our economic activities and our environmental goals. We must ensure our continued economic and social prosperity through the development of our natural resources while protecting our environment.

Sustainable development is a challenge, but it is a challenge that brings opportunities for Canadians. It allows us to benefit from resource development and fuel innovation. It ensures that future generations will be able to enjoy a high quality of life.

Climate change is the ultimate sustainable development issue and fundamentally an energy issue.

Between the Kyoto baseline year of 1990 and 2002, total energy production in Canada grew 43%. It is projected to achieve a cumulative growth of about 42% over the next 15 years.

The fundamental issue is how to break the link between energy and emissions. This will require technological change, but until these technological goals have been accomplished, we need to keep our feet to the fire. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy production and use, while at the same time ensuring an abundant supply of competitively priced energy for the prosperity of our children and grandchildren. This is not an easy challenge.

Canada has a relatively high energy intensive economy due to a combination of factors that make it unique among industrialized countries: a cold climate, distance between population centres, and Canada's resource based economy. As well, Canada's economy and population have been growing. Between 1990 and 2002 our gross domestic product grew by 40% and our population grew by 20%.

The main thrust of the action we have taken to date has been through measures aimed at reducing emissions during the Kyoto commitment period of 2008 and 2012. We have committed to invest close to $3.7 billion in that effort and have implemented programs all across the Canadian economy.

We are experiencing tremendous success with a number of programs. For instance, we are working toward significantly increasing energy efficient housing. The EnerGuide for houses program has been a great success. It is the same story with our programs aimed at improving the efficiency of commercial and institutional buildings.

We are building on success. The Canadian industry program for energy conservation was launched 30 years ago, and Canadian industry is now saving some $3 billion a year, thanks to the energy management practices that are part of CIPECs efforts.

Emissions from houses, buildings and manufacturing have been essentially flat since 1990 despite robust economic and population growth. This is a significant accomplishment with important ramifications.

Taking the country as a whole, energy efficiency has improved by 13% since 1990. This has resulted in energy costs in 2004 that were $12 billion lower than they would have been if these energy efficiency improvements had not taken place.

Energy consumption has slowed while the economy has grown during the past decade. Canada's economy grew by 40%. Energy demand grew by 18%. This is a significant gain in energy efficiency between 1990 and 2002.

We are a world leader in improving energy efficiency. A recent study by the International Energy Agency ranked Canada in the top third among IEA member countries in improving energy efficiency, ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan.

Much of this improvement is due to deliberate policy decisions and program resources furnished by the Government of Canada. We have made great improvements to be sure, but we cannot stop now. We have momentum on our side and we have progress in our future. More can be done, more needs to be done and more will be done.

Fundamentally, improving energy efficiency helps reduce GHG emissions. It also reduces, or at least moderates, the demand for energy. Improved energy efficiency cuts operating costs and increases industrial competitiveness.

The Government of Canada is equally committed to reducing emissions in the transportation sector. We are building on a record of success and more progress is being made.

We are working with our auto manufacturers to ensure this sector does its part to reduce emissions by making available to Canadians vehicles that are more fuel efficient and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

We are also making good progress on renewable fuels. The ethanol expansion program, with $100 million in funding, has already allocated contributions to six projects that together will almost quadruple the Canadian ethanol fuel supply by 2006. We have an aggressive target to see ethanol blended in 35% of the Canadian gasoline supply by 2010. Through initiatives like the ethanol expansion program and the continuing federal excise tax exemption on alternative fuels, we are getting closer to realizing that target.

Canada's position in oil and gas production is unique. We are one of the few industrialized countries that is a net exporter of energy. More than half of the energy we produce is exported. While those exports are an essential part of our economy, they also cause us to incur the emissions associated with energy we produce but do not use ourselves.

Most of our competitors in the oil and gas industry are not signatories to the Kyoto agreement and we are constrained in this sense.

In this context, carbon dioxide capture and storage is an important technology for us. It will allow us to continue to benefit from our energy resources while minimizing the impact on the environment.

In January I announced support to four projects under the first round of funding of the CO

2

capture and storage incentive program. These projects will demonstrate the feasibility of this important technology. Along with this announcement, I issued a call to fund a second round of proposals under the program. The application deadline to submit proposals is February 22.

On clean electricity, Canada is already a world leader. Within the OECD we are second only to the United States in total electricity production from renewable sources, mostly because of our vast hydroelectric and forestry resources.

We are also making notable progress in emerging renewable energy. For example, our wind power production incentive has started a wind power revolution in Canada with projects completed, under way or under consideration in every single province.

The government has already announced its intention to respond to the success of this program by quadrupling its size to encourage a total capacity of some 4,000 megawatts of wind power.

However the Government of Canada cannot address the challenges of climate change alone. That is why we are working closely with industry to establish a regulatory system to reduce industrial emissions and partnering with provinces and territories on innovative measures to reduce emissions.

We signed a number of MOUs with provinces and territories identifying prospective areas for future collaboration. Very shortly, we will be announcing the first round of funding toward a number of initiatives under the opportunities envelope, a $160 million partnering mechanism designed to fund the most cost effective emission reduction ideas put forward by provinces and territories.

These efforts are about much more than short term results. Addressing climate change will transform our energy economy to bring about a real long term solution for our environment and our economy.

New technologies will only reduce emissions where they are taken up--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Questions and comments. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat paradoxical today to have the Minister of Natural Resources rise to speak on energy efficiency and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, in the House applauding the speech. We know that the latter is proposing stricter energy standards, comparable to California's. We would, perhaps, like to see stricter regulations here in Canada .

My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Did the trip—the mission—by the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport to California a few weeks ago inspire them to provide Canada with stricter regulations to make vehicles more fuel efficient, with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25%?

Can the Minister of Natural Resources, as his colleague the environment minister proposes, put a new law in place to make vehicles more fuel efficient, in order to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 25%.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, everything the Minister of the Environment does inspires me. He is very committed to the environmental challenges. We work together very well on every issue, because while we have to grow the economy, we have to balance out and make sure that the environment is under strict protection. The Minister of the Environment is very conscious of his environmental concerns, as I am, as well as growing the economy of Canada.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was done excellently well with a straight face.

The government talks about blazing the trail. I am curious as to why I did not hear support for the motion in the hon. member's speech.

We have heard the rumours that various ministers are involved with negotiations in the auto sector seeking to have an actual number put in place. When can we expect those regulations to be brought in and, if they are not brought in, what will the consequences be? Will they be brought in this week, next week or will Canadians have to wait while the government continues to dither?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I should give my hon. colleague some advice. When I was on the opposition side from 1985 to 1989, I never asked a question or made a comment in the House in those days when I did not know the answer.

The hon. member should do some research, and the number is 5.2 megatons.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I found the comment of the Minister of Natural Resources that he is inspired by the work of the Minister of the Environment very interesting. We have a 20% increase in greenhouse emissions when the plan calls for a 20% decrease. If that is inspiring, then obviously he is inspired by failure.

He also talked about momentum. We actually have an increase in emissions. In Ontario, 20% of hospital admissions for bronchitis in children under the age of one can be attributed to smog.

In terms of the energy efficient homes that he talked about, fewer than 10,000 homes have been constructed. That is less than 0.6% of new housing starts in Canada.

There is no momentum, unless we are talking about momentum backward, going down the slope.

I would like the minister to comment specifically on this failure of any sort of real presence in energy efficiency of homes, the failure to deal with smog and the failure to deal with greenhouse gases.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Chair, I fail to understand why the critics of the Kyoto protocol do not do some factual research. Canadians are inspired and they are taking up the challenge to carry out each of their responsibilities. The old billing efficiency program is going very well.

What the hon. member should keep in mind is that while Canada has made major improvements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the economy has grown by 40%. Therefore we have to look at the balance.

Is he suggesting that we should shut down every single industry in this country? Members from western Canada would have something to say about that, as well as people from all over Canada. Canada is doing a great deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we all realize, as the Minister of the Environment will say, there is more to do.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification from the government on its actual position on this motion and on mandatory standards.

I thought the parliamentary secretary to the minister indicated that the government would be supporting this motion to legislate mandatory improvements of vehicle efficiency, but perhaps that is not the case.

However would the government clearly state whether it supports voluntary or mandatory fuel efficiency measures for vehicles manufactured in Canada?

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, the member misunderstood what my colleague said. He did not say what the member just stated. We very clearly support the voluntary approach. Negotiations are going on with the industry and we will wait to see at the end of the day how this will work out.

Let us look at what is happening in the United States. I think that is where there is a bit of confusion. We are very happy with what is going on in Canada today. We should be talking more about what we have actually accomplished with the Kyoto protocol, the amount of emissions that is actually being reduced from the atmosphere compared with the growing economy.

For anyone to say that nothing is happening in Canada is absolutely wrong. Canada is leading in the world in what we have already accomplished, but we certainly will need to do more and we will continue to do more.