Debates of May 11th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague’s question.

First, national approaches are needed to deal with environmental questions. To do this, we will also have to work together with all the provincial governments.

I too have a question. If the Bloc member is against the Conservative government’s decision to eliminate the programs to reduce greenhouse gases, why did the Bloc support the Conservative budget, which does exactly that?

I have a hard time understanding why the Bloc supports this Conservative budget, which cuts back and eliminates many environmental programs. Why does he support a Conservative government, which is the only government in the world that is reducing environmental programs?

I have absolutely no doubt that the member is very sincere about his environmental concerns, but I have a hard time understanding his actions and his support for the Conservatives and their budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a historic debate this is as we watch the Liberal Party make its attempts at spinning what was an environmental disaster over the last 13 years. The numbers do not lie; they counter the spin, the announcements and all the confetti. Compared to many of our competitors, who actually did something after the 1997 signing of Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, emissions went through the roof under the Liberals' watch.

I know the hon. member clearly believes in the issues of environmentalism and has had a conversion around the whole concept of Kyoto, first disagreeing with it and now agreeing, but I have a question for him. In his speech, he talked about how the productivity of the economy had gone up so much and how, as a consequence, clearly emissions must have soared as well. Do he and his party connect economic prosperity with environmental degradation?

If not, why did the former minister of the environment stand in this place and say that the only reason greenhouse gas emissions had gone up was that our economy had succeeded? Is that a fundamental belief within the Liberal Party of Canada or is it just the mild cynicism that has been shown by the various members when debating this issue?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing about it, if in fact there were a direct relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation, then an NDP government would not have to worry about environmental degradation because there sure as heck would not be any economic growth.

The fact is that when there is a 43% growth in the economy resulting directly from a disproportionate growth in energy exports, and in fact a 52% increase in energy exports to the U.S., those are from the worst emitters. It does impose an extra burden on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and it did.

During a transitional economy, it is important now that we invest in the kinds of innovative technologies that enable economic growth to coexist with environmental stewardship. In fact, it can. Companies and governments can--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I see the member getting wound up for a speech and I cannot tell him that his time has expired if he never looks at the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret, and all scientists agree, that under the Liberal government Canada has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases. During those years, as we know, Canada also had, under many parameters, the best economy in the world. Of course, this paid great dividends to Canadians. It allowed us huge increases for students, for the biggest environmental budget in Canadian history and for seniors, health care, equalization and transfer payments, foreign aid, research and development, and the disabled.

Of course, when the economy is so good, it also leads to huge increases in greenhouses gases--and there is also the oil sands development--although I do not know what the figure is, perhaps 150% to 200%. Having the most successful and expanding economy, which led to those increases in greenhouse gases, also gave us the largest challenge of any nation in the world in trying to reach our Kyoto targets. That is why the Liberal government developed a very aggressive plan.

For today's speech, I will break that plan down into a series of plans. In spite of this increase of 150% or 200% or whatever it is in greenhouse gases because of the economy doing so well, we have still kept it down to roughly 135% so far, but the major and very complex programs that took so long to carefully put in place and negotiate are on the verge of reducing greenhouse gases substantially more toward our targets.

I will outline these plans quickly so I can get them all into my speech. Basically they are two-pronged. First, we have been dramatically cutting emissions in reducing the use of energy. There are numbers of programs for that. Second, the other is to support renewable technology, new technologies that do not emit any or as much greenhouse gases.

Plan one was a $1 billion green fund, which would support green projects to reduce greenhouse gases. It is also a catalyst for new technologies. What do the Conservatives have in this area? Nothing. There is no plan.

Plan two provided up to $2 billion for partnerships. This would lever even more than the $4 billion in total because it would get provinces, territories and all of Canada involved. We need to lever this funding and have everyone involved when it is such a critical challenge for Canadians. What have the Conservatives announced in this area? Nothing.

Plan three provided $200 million for quadrupling the wind power incentive in Canada. That is enough for one million homes. What have the Conservatives announced in that area? Nothing. There is no plan.

Plan four provided $97 million for renewable power production. Some examples are support for small hydro, biomass and landfill gases. What have the Conservatives announced in that area? There are no plans. There is nothing.

Plan five was incentives for biomass. In that area, there were a number of incentives. As members know, we have supported a number of new ethanol plants. Not only do they cut greenhouse gases, but they also offer big support for farmers. This gives them another area in which to sell their products. Once again, we have heard no details of any plan in that area.

Plan six was the quadrupling of the EnerGuide. Another $225 million was provided to improve the energy efficiency of houses. It allowed all Canadians to participate. Government itself cannot deal with this huge challenge. Why would it have been recommended that the program be quadrupled if the program was not working? There were 500,000 homes in Canada in the program. Some parliamentarians actually spoke about not hearing of Canadians cutting greenhouse gases, but 500,000 Canadians are aware of it. In fact, I think the Conservative government has actually cut some or all of that program. Of course there were expenses in that program for house inspectors, but that is what part of the program is designed for.

Plan seven provided $200 million for a sustainable energy, science and technology strategy. When R and D is slashed for things such as this in this country, like last budget did, it is obviously going to be very critical for the future of our children. New technologies for transportation are the key to cutting greenhouse gases and we were moving in that direction.

Plan eight, the green municipal fund, is a great success story, as everyone knows. For over a decade, the leader of the NDP was very complimentary in praising this program. The former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, was of course a real champion in funding this program for municipalities across the country. In the tight times, when there were large deficits and we had to cut expenditures, I remember how excited I was all those years ago because he increased that funding when he was finance minister. Over the years, over a billion dollars has been invested in green infrastructure projects in municipalities, with this made in Canada plan cutting tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Plan nine funds were for brownfields. It is very important to municipalities to clean them up.

Plan 10, made in Canada, was to cut greenhouse gases with clean power generation. This has been inspired through tax cuts. I am sure the Conservative government would at least agree with tax cuts. We put the capital cost allowance for these green power generations up from 30% to 50%.

Plan 11 is clean coal. Once we scrub out the NO_x and the SO_x, carbon dioxide can be one of the cleanest fuels in the world. As members know, we are leading in new technologies in that area. It is very exciting.

In plan 12, biomass, if we manage forests and farms and once again in a special way make them more efficient, we can cut greenhouse gases. Canada has some of the leading scientists in this, and not having a plan for this would be a insult to the public service of Canada. Some of them are in our departments, in NRCan and the environment department, and they are leading the world in the reduction of greenhouse gases by these methods. I have been to their conferences and have spoken there, and I have seen their scientific papers and the tremendous work they are doing.

Plan 13, made in Canada, is carbon sequestration. Once again this is another area in which Canada leads the world and where we are reducing huge amounts of greenhouse gases. There is enough potential there, by some estimates, to take all of Canada's greenhouse gases.

For plan 14, the last speaker mentioned this technology, which is that we are helping China with technologies. I cannot imagine that any parliamentarian thinks that all the greenhouse gases harming us come from Canada.

Plan 15, made in Canada, is landfill waste, for which Alberta has some great projects.

Plan 16 is the east-west grid. When we can share electricity that does not produce greenhouse gases, it is obviously a benefit.

Plan 17 is the EnerGuide for low income people. What more noble initiative can there be for the Government of Canada?

For all these plans, of course, we have heard nothing new announced by the Conservative government.

Plan 18, made in Canada, is about the mandatory plan for large final emitters, which is huge, with 700 companies and the potential for three megatonnes or even more in cutting greenhouse gases. This is legislated. I could tell members much more about this, but I do not have enough time left.

Plan 19, made in Canada, is that once again we are leading the world, this time with an auto emissions reduction plan, which means another potential five megatonnes. It is argued by many that through fuel savings and hybrid power trains these would be the best auto emissions in the world. It is even better because it is voluntary, not mandatory, which means we get much more buy-in and much more effectiveness.

Plan 20 is the one tonne challenge which, as everyone knows, has cut thousands and thousands of tonnes.

Plan 21 is for BIOCAP. I have not heard anything about the government supporting this.

Plan 22, made in Canada, has to do with solar power.

There we have it, 22 made in Canada plans that have reduced thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gases in Canada. What did we hear when the government took power? We heard that something like 15 programs have been cut right off the bat. They were just allowed to expire. The government did not even have to cut them.

This great opportunity for Canada has been lost. We were on the cusp of these new technologies with all these programs. We could have sold them to the world. Now we are going to be forced to buy them from other countries. Canada is going to have to pay other countries for these technologies that we were developing and that have now been cut.

I would like members to think of a scenario. Imagine a hospital in Calgary during a snowstorm and all the patients have been put out on the street because someone has said, “We are going to do it better. We are going to have a better hospital. We are going to have a better plan, but for now there is no plan. We are going to cut the money in half. There will be a better plan, but until we do that, sit on the street”.

We should not eliminate a whole host of somewhat effective plans, some more effective than others, and then have nothing to replace them with when Canada is in such a crisis. The Conservative government certainly must be held to account for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken often with the member on this file. His region of the world in the far north is one of those regions most affected by government inaction when it comes to climate change. It affects those folks who depend on subsistence lifestyles. The very nature and makeup of our north has fundamentally shifted.

The debate is essentially over with respect to the impacts of climate change. In the Auditor General's report on his previous government's action with respect to climate change, $3.7 billion had been announced, yet when the auditors took a look at the books after that money was meant to have been spent, a little under $1.1 billion, less than a third of the money promised, had actually been rolled out and spent.

There are communities across the region that I represent in the northwest of British Columbia that have projects on the table, designed with architects to reduce their emissions. Many of the programs the member mentioned had restrictions in them that were impossible to meet and none of the programs were funded. I know he has municipalities that face the same challenge.

Again, the question goes to his party's argument that we exported a lot of gas to the United States, we subsidized the oil and gas sector in the amount of $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion a year to create those incentives so that they could do those exports and raise our greenhouse gas, and therefore, it was impossible for us to make any of these reductions. All the while from 1997 to 2005 there was no plan in place at all.

The auditor herself said the government was gone before the confetti hit the floor. Could the member address some of those concerns?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted my colleague brought up some points that I did not have time to get across in my speech. Of course, I have to remind him that my riding just north of his is much more beautiful. We always have that argument.

The member is absolutely right that it is far more critical in the Yukon and the territories where there is the greatest amount of global warming than anywhere else in the world. It is tied with Siberia. He is right. Our economy is being affected drastically.

Species are being affected. I could make a whole speech about it. The effects are already there. If anyone thinks it is not happening, it is already too late. That is why it is so devastating that the government has cut the adaptation part. We need adaptation as much as cutting because it is already there and we have to deal with crises.

I was delighted the member mentioned that of our $4 billion plan we had already implemented $1.7 billion in expenditures. I will be delighted to see how long it takes the present government to come up with that many expenditures to cut greenhouse gases. As I mentioned, there are 22 very significant programs. Canada is being praised by other countries and leading scientists around the world for some of those programs.

There are 500,000 Canadians involved. It certainly is a great spread. Some people may have been rejected, some of the programs may have been fully subscribed; I cannot get into the details, but certainly there are some success stories. It would be better to replace programs with something than to do nothing.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 90% of Quebeckers support the Kyoto protocol, and this support is very present in my riding of Verchères—Les Patriotes. Wherever I go, I always find individuals and groups who share with me their concerns about the degradation of our planet. They ask me to keep putting pressure on the government so it stops dithering when it comes to protecting our environment.

Young people are also concerned about this major issue, and rightly so. On April 29 of this year, at the Varennes youth festival, Mr. Gaétan Savoie, chairman of the event, recognized the exceptional work of Antoine Fillion, a 12-year-old environmentalist who collected signatures from 250 of his classmates, calling for concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and who continues his daily battle to save our environment.

I would like to have my colleague's advice on what I should tell Antoine and his friends and all those who ask me what long-term solutions have been put forward by the Conservative government to fight climate change. For the time being, all we know is that it is eliminating programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve energy efficiency, and it is turning its back on Kyoto with nothing but empty words. However, it is too late for empty words alone, and this is very troubling.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the member. It is devastating that the government has cut these programs. Quebeckers, especially the young people in Quebec, are so supportive of improving the environment and cutting greenhouse gases.

I hate to pick on a new member, but it is astonishing that the Bloc Québécois voted last June against $900 million in new programs for transit to cut greenhouse gas emissions to improve the environment. How could the Bloc Québécois go against Quebeckers' feelings on this? This gives me a chance to talk about the millions we also put into transit.

If Quebeckers are so supportive of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, how could the Bloc vote for a budget that totally emasculates $4 billion in greenhouse gas reduction programs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Victoria.

What a remarkable turn of events. Come election time or in watching the House proceedings, Canadians often find themselves trying to distinguish between the various parties and their positions on key issues. Sometimes voters will lament that there is very little distinction these days, that political parties merely clamour for attention, that they are all in the middle and there is no difference between them.

Today we have the opportunity to speak about climate change, and I am very glad the member from the Bloc was able to bring the issue forward. I know the government of the day would not like to speak about it and the official opposition would prefer not to do so based upon its record. The government has various other reasons, but mostly because it does not have a plan.

We have the chance for the entire opposition day to discuss what most in the industry and most within environmental groups cite as the single greatest challenge and threat faced by us, our communities and our economy. We must speak primarily of the international commitments that Canada has made.

The government has talked vaguely but somewhat pointedly about the need to continue on and honour the commitments made by previous governments. The government has obviously thrown that away with respect to Kyoto and also now with respect to Kelowna, which is sad. Over many decades and sometimes not deservedly, Canada has earned itself a reputation as a country that engages the international community in a positive way, whether it was through former prime minister Pearson's work in the UN or eventually through such treaties as Kyoto.

The Liberal Party of Canada as early as 1993 made commitments, Liberal promises, if you will, to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but once in power, the Liberals quickly went about doing the absolute opposite. For many who do not watch the Liberal Party closely, it might come as a surprise that someone could campaign year in and year out in election after election to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then do the opposite. Anyone who works in the child care industry will know that is just endemic of a party only looking to seek power. Emissions rose 25 % to 30%.

It is important to recognize that investment is the critical issue when it comes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is like someone starting to save for retirement at age 60. I know the Speaker is a much wiser man than that and would never recommend that to any of his constituents or friends. It is an extremely expensive way to go about making the investment that is needed for those retirement years.

Successive Liberal governments have not made the investments to improve the productivity and efficiency of the Canadian economy and to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that it promised to do. There was a deathbed conversion as the Liberals were starting to sink in the polls and a plan finally came forward.

I can remember day after day the then minister of the environment saying that they had a plan, that it was coming, to just hang on and have a little patience. It took years, from the signing of it in 1997 to 2005, and what did we end up with? A discussion paper about climate change. There were no targets, no timelines and no strategy whatsoever. It was a vague and wandering report on the need to do something eventually and then the burden of making most of the reductions was put on the consumers rather than the large final emitters who made enough of a stink in the lobbies of this place to push them back. It was voluntary, nothing restrictive.

When the federal government along with Ontario was handing over some $400 million to General Motors, we said that the investment should be contingent on the automaker actually making more efficient cars. Here was an opportunity for public investment for the public good. The deal was signed, but there was nothing in it.

There was another moment when the previous government was faced with the opportunity to simply follow in the wake of California, New York and other progressive states in the United States to demand mandatory fuel efficiency and emissions requirements in cars. Instead, we got something voluntary, toothless and ineffective, a continuation of that pattern.

The Conservatives are very interesting. It appears they have finally come to what most of the world has known for many years, that climate change caused by humans is in fact happening and it is in fact a threat to both our society and economy. For more than a year the Conservatives have stood in this place saying that they have a plan and not to worry. The reason the Conservatives would not release it, as the NDP did for discussion and debate in this place, as we were meant to do, is because, and I quote: “the other parties would steal our good ideas”. How noble.

The Conservatives have now arrived in government. Here is the great moment and the most effective tool that any government has is the release of the budget. It is the direction of the use of the tax system to direct Canada's economy, the use of the $180 billion plus every year that is collected on behalf of Canadians. It is the time for the government to do well for Canadians.

It is a perfect opportunity to enact this plan that is somewhere out there, but never been seen or heard from other than in this place. However, there is nothing. There is less than nothing. It is a stepping backwards in time, as if climate change was not a growing problem for Canadians, as if it was not a pressing problem for the entire world. Canadians have received nothing.

For a government that likes to speak of its business interests I say this to the government. Last year, when the committee studied Kyoto and the impacts of climate change on our economy, business group after business group came before the committee and said that making the efficiency requirements across the board will make Canada a more productive and competitive economy, particularly when looking to our partner south of the border. We look at Washington and President Bush in power, who has more interest in Texas than in trees, and there were so few moves on climate change.

There are groups such as the Mining Association of Canada, one of the large final emitters that the previous government would do nothing with and the present government will do less with, which came to us and said, “lo and behold, we thought Canada was serious when it signed on to this agreement in 1997. We thought the government was serious, so we went about making some of those reductions that we thought would eventually be enacted in law and nothing happened”. Well and good, it took the entire burden on and, lo and behold, it became more productive, more efficient and more profitable.

Certainly, to invest in our economy, to make it a more intelligent, efficient and greener economy, and to create the jobs that the NDP talked about in its plan released more than a year ago seemed to be the wise environmental and economic choice. Now we have members in the House suggesting that to make environmental decisions is to threaten and hurt our economy.

What do we have? We have a Conservative Party that says it is always wrong to associate money without actually having a spending plan in place. The government's answer in the budget to climate change and the growing and pressing need from Canadians is to assign $2 billion with no plan in place. This is bad fiscal management. It allows the industry and Canadians no certainty as to what they can invest in.

There is no greater example for now. We know there are other cuts coming and the government has to make a number of them for all their little populous tax plans. The EnerGuide program has been cut. We have provinces and homeowners wondering what the plans will be. What should homeowners do about the retrofit that they wanted to do to lower the cost and the burden for their household with the dramatically increasing cost of energy? What should they do? Should they press ahead? Homeowners say that they cannot afford it. There are seniors on fixed incomes and they simply cannot afford it. The government was playing a small role. The NDP suggested that the government play a larger role. Instead, the government ripped the whole program out and left people high and dry.

The NDP is calling upon the government, and within the context of this debate we hope to be joined by all members in the House, that this small incentive that had been put in place to encourage wind power in this country which has been receiving some strong accolades from both Ontario and Quebec and other places needs to be set. Wind power was not mentioned in the budget and it needs to be there.

The NDP fully costed its plan. We looked through all the costs, the facts and figures. The party brought in economists and spent the money and time to ensure that it added up. The government was unwilling to do so. We wanted sound investments with good return on the public dollar.

I have great sympathy and empathy for the current environment minister because she now has to go to Bonn, Germany and meet with our international partners, and defend the one government in the world that is making reductions when it comes to environmental spending.

She has to defend this approach, somehow chairing the process that is meant to accelerate and push. We know Kyoto and climate change plans are not enough right now. We have a government in power in Canada, however temporarily, that does not fundamentally believe in making those investments. It has said as much by not producing a plan when it promised it for more than a year by misleading Canadians, and presenting a budget that from all walks of the environmental circle was an absolute disaster.

The NDP will continue to push for progressive and intelligent use of our tax dollars, and the fiscal framework that we have to finally achieve the economy that so many Canadians are demanding: a greener and more sustainable one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague and congratulate him on his speech regarding the Bloc Québécois' motion.

My colleague has made a very good point about a fundamental aspect of this issue. While the Minister of the Environment prepares to go to Bonn, our own Minister of Natural Resources, just a few minutes ago, trumpeted the Asia-Pacific Partnership's role in fighting climate change.

First, I would like my colleague to tell the House what this really says about the government's true intentions with respect to supporting the Kyoto protocol.

Second, I would like him to comment on this morning's speech by the Minister of Natural Resources, who told us that it made sense to abolish the EnerGuide program because it was not efficient. However, fighting climate change is important. Climate change 101 teaches us that we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at their source, but that we also have to focus on energy efficiency.

I would like to hear his comments on these two subjects.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reply in English because I have several points to make on this subject.

It is incredible that a program as efficient as EnerGuide would be cut. We have report after report from internal government audits that this program was efficient and intelligent government spending. It was helping, in particular, those Canadians who could least afford to make the changes in their homes that would help reduce their monthly costs. It was helping Canadians on fixed incomes, Canadians with low incomes or on social assistance, who simply did not have $10,000 or $20,000 or $5,000, regardless, lying around in order to make those improvements.

This government willy-nilly went and cut the program and then later, retroactively, tried to justify it, even though we have testimonials from Canadians, from the provinces and from the Treasury Board itself which has gone through analyses of the efficacy of this program.

Yet, this is no surprise. The Minister of Natural Resources, who has become a deathbed converter to the environment file, immediately after his election and appointment to cabinet on the west coast of British Columbia said that one of the most important things to do was to start drilling for oil and gas off the west coast of British Columbia. What a stunning environmental method and technique to improving our greenhouse gas emissions. Let us go start drilling somewhere where people actually do not want the drilling to take place.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member describe one of our programs as efficient, intelligent government spending and give a lot of credit to another one of our programs.

The member did mention large final emitters. I did want to mention it because I did not have time in my speech to compliment the tremendous amount of work done by the officials at Industry Canada, NRCan and Environment Canada on mandatory laws that would affect over 700 companies and would have produced maybe over 30 megatonnes of cuts. It was a tremendous amount of tedious work that took years, thousands and thousands of hours, because each industry is different and there are different process emissions.

It took a tremendous amount of work to come up with these plans. There are no simple solutions. One has to be very careful in those negotiations. I compliment the industry associations across Canada and the government employees. I certainly hope the NDP will support that initiative that was working toward so many cuts.

The throne speech actually mentioned that the Conservatives were going to cut greenhouse gases. Normally I believe they are usually pretty up front in what they believe in. In the last Parliament they railed that this was not an issue, that greenhouse gases were just natural climate change. Why does the member think they actually put that in the throne speech?

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

To be frank, Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clue. When we look at the enactment of that throne speech, which is manifested through the budget and then consequentially through bills that the government will introduce, there is no timeline whatsoever that the government has talked about when it comes to the climate change file, and in terms of releasing a plan.

At some point Canadians will realize that the reasonable requests from New Democrats, when it comes to climate change, are to simply put forward a plan that we can talk about, debate, discuss and make better, so that we can actually do something about it. Canadians are scratching their heads, and our European counterparts increasingly so, because there is a river of opportunity going by in terms of intelligent and wise investments, especially on the energy file. Governments after governments in this country have said they would like to do something about it, but when it comes time to put the proof in the pudding, they absolutely do nothing.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the NDP and I strongly support the motion by the Bloc Québécois calling on the government to take action to achieve our greenhouse gas reduction objectives as they are set out in the Kyoto protocol.

Personally, I think that there should be more immediate and far-reaching action than the motion suggests.

Everyone knew from the outset that the Kyoto protocol was only a first step, and a somewhat timid one at that, and that we would have to double our efforts to slow climate change and its harmful effects.

In my province, British Columbia, the effects are already being felt. Temperatures on the coast have risen a degree. The warmer and drier air in the Fraser Valley is causing more respiratory disease and problems associated with air pollution are already serious in that region.

Scientists are also predicting greater risks of flood, drought, forest fires and storms, and all the devastating effects we are familiar with. The costs associated with the ravages caused by the mountain pine beetle are in excess of $2 billion a year.

It is estimated that half of the glaciers will disappear by the end of this century. That means less water for agriculture, for energy generation and for communities.

It is not reasonable for the government to cancel the only plan we have that offers a glimmer of hope for the future without proposing an alternative. That is like driving with a puncture and having no spare tire. We have no shortage of concrete, innovative ideas or of blueprints for action. What we have is a shortage of is leadership from this government and the previous government, and that is why we are so far behind.

I found what the Minister of the Environment said yesterday in the House disturbing, disquieting and shocking. We were hearing an echo from the White House, it seems to me. After explaining that greenhouse gas emissions had risen by 35% in Canada, she said, and I quote:

To put that into perspective, that would mean that today we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets in Canada.

She further said, “that would be equal to four times the amount of greenhouse gases for every individual Canadian household that we would have to shut down”. I am very worried about the minister's sense of perspective.

Looking at our climate change allies, the U.K. for example has already surpassed its Kyoto target of 12.5% reduction and is on track to reduce by 23% to 25% by 2010, all the while maintaining a 1.7% growth rate in GDP in 2005. Germany has reduced its emissions by 18.5%. I have not travelled to Europe lately, but I believe people's homes there still function properly. They still drive cars and ride trains. Heathrow Airport in Britain has not shut down and they have not switched to horse-drawn carriages on the autobahn. Therefore, I believe the minister is exaggerating her point considerably.

The minister raises the spectre of developing nations, like India and China. Their rising emissions are very troubling indeed. However, when we point our finger at someone else, we still have three fingers pointing back at us. One Canadian still emits the same greenhouse gas emissions as ten Indians, and the current emissions overload is a result of our own excessive emissions over the past century, not India's or China's.

What the minister should be doing instead of using India and China as an excuse for inaction, is investing in making Canada a world leader in green energy at home and for export.

Nonetheless, I agree with the minister that the Liberals talked a lot about the Kyoto protocol, but they did not do much. During the election campaign, one of the candidates even offered me the excuse that the increases could be attributed to economic growth. That is like saying that if we are to be productive, we cannot be efficient, or we must be inefficient, according to the Liberals.

But now we have the Conservatives saying virtually the same thing. They are giving up without even trying.

The Minister of the Environment sounds more like the minister of oil and gas. Why does her government continue to subsidize the oil and gas industry at a time of record profit? The minister suggests the sky will fall, that Canadians will have to live in mud huts. The problem is, the government sees conservation as the antithesis to economic growth.

Rather than talk about taking every plane, train and automobile off the streets in Canada, why does her government not stop wasting taxpayer dollars on the oil and gas sector and start regulating large emitters and shift those subsidies to conservation measures, green energy investments and transition strategies for communities and workers? Why does the government not follow the advice of its own experts on understanding climate change, who stated last year, “Action must be taken now to limit atmospheric change...Action is essential and by no means premature. Indeed, it may already be overdue”.

The minister sees only obstacles when what we have to do is look beyond the obstacles. This is obviously not a crisis that we can solve in six months. We cannot do everything at once, but we have to have a vision, a long-term strategy, to make the transition to a sustainable economy. Canada has everything we need in terms of technology and resources to be a world leader and to maintain our competitive position.

I will go back to the minister's own department which argues:

Major reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide are also achievable and need to be pursued simultaneously through the improvement of energy efficiency and through the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.

It is not necessary to go back to zero. There are recommendations from a significant number of credible groups, as well as the NDP's plan which was fully costed, that propose a national energy efficiency strategy, starting with homes, energy efficient buildings and retrofit programs, establishing a made in Canada green car industry and investing in green energy and sustainable municipal infrastructure for a start.

We need a greater urgency than the government is demonstrating. We can achieve our objectives, but it will need political will, something that seems to be absent at this moment.

I heartily recommend, on behalf of our children, that the government review its plans and act in a more urgent manner to this problem. There is no problem that will have a greater impact on our children, on the next generation, than climate change.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member.

I applied for and participated in the EnerGuide retrofit program. If one is going to get government subsidy for making one's home more efficient, there has to be an audit. Therefore, the program required an audit by a firm that was authorized by the Government of Canada.

The audit cost $300, but the government was going to subsidize the cost of that audit $150. As a consequence of this audit, which laid out the areas in which I could improve the energy efficiency of my home, it indicated windows, insulation and some caulking were needed. I spent the money on the windows. I also installed the additional insulation and did the other work myself. My energy bill will go down by 30%, and I have already seen the impacts of that.

The government has now cancelled that program because the $150 subsidy for the energy audit is paid directly to the energy audit firm as opposed to being paid to me so I can pay them for it. If that is the logic of why the Conservatives cancelled the program, that 50% of the funding is going to these engineering companies to do the audit, then it appears to me that the so-called transit pass tax credit plan also must be cancelled immediately because 95% of the moneys going into that program are going to existing transit pass users. There is absolutely no measurable impact on climate change.

Would the member agree?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite for his work on his own home.

In my city of Victoria a community energy plan is being implemented that will allow the city to meet the targets that have been set according to this protocol. I regret the cancellation of this program. When we begin to sensitize people and mobilize the population, this kind of program is needed. I thought it was a useful program. I and many other people took advantage of it and made some significant changes to our homes. We need this kind of program.

The Liberals had this one good program, but at the same time they failed to regulate large emitters, which are a major source of the increase in our emissions. The program would have made a dent in the increase. In addition, the Liberals refused to implement more than a voluntary agreement on car efficiency, another area that would have been very useful in reducing—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her very eloquent speech.

The Conservative government's position is similar to that of the American government, that of President Bush. This was made very clear in the speech given by the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to ask the hon. member if this position is not actually a submission to the oil lobby.

As the hon. member must know, we export 60% of our oil to the United States. Last year, the export of energy products--largely oil and gas--increased by 27.2%. Oil companies are therefore collecting enormous profits at present.

Lastly, is this government not simply a conduit between the major oil companies and the Americans' gigantic appetite for oil? We know that they consume one-quarter of all oil production every day.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that what we heard yesterday and apparently this morning--from what I have read--were in fact echos from the White House.

It is really time to stop scaring Canadians by saying that any changes, any new programs, will lead to catastrophic results. This is not at all true. This has been proven in many countries, as my colleague before me just emphasized. Numerous examples clearly demonstrate that it is possible to continue to make progress in this area while maintaining a competitive position in the world.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to congratulate the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on a speech that was not only informative but also very passionate regarding a global issue that we just cannot ignore, as does the Conservative government.

I also want to congratulate my colleague on all the work he has done these last few years as environment critic for the Bloc Québécois. It is largely thanks to him that Canada signed the Kyoto protocol through legislation passed by this House in December 2002.

Lastly, I also want to congratulate him for putting forward this motion which, from what I see, has the support of the other opposition parties. It will show the Conservative government that it stands alone on this issue not only in the House, but also in the eyes of Canadians and Quebeckers.

I will read the motion again because it is extremely clear and complete in itself, then I will have the opportunity to elaborate on its various aspects.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol, in an equitable manner while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces; and (b) publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that includes a system of emission objectives for large emitters along with an exchange of emission rights accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

As I was saying at the beginning, the motion before us today deals with a very important issue, that of greenhouse gases and global warming. Several other members mentioned it in their remarks. It is a fact that has now been scientifically proven. If we do not deal with it, not only will the consequences on the environment and even on the future of mankind be extremely serious, but they could even be catastrophic.

Therefore we cannot close our eyes, as the government is doing, and take an approach that recognizes that there are in fact greenhouse gases and we will try to keep their future increase down as much as possible. No, what we have to do is really stop the growth of these greenhouse gases. To do that, what we need is a watershed. And as we speak, that watershed is not to be found in the books of the Conservative government or the Minister of the Environment, much less in those of the Minister of Natural Resources, according to the speech I heard from him earlier.

It is unfortunate, but every minute that we do not make a firm and resolute decision to apply the Kyoto protocol makes the problem that much more difficult to overcome. That reminds me of a parallel I want to make.

In the softwood lumber dispute, as our companies went on paying illegal duties to the American authorities, the problem born of the dispute itself became ever greater, for the $5 billion that was at stake became something to be recovered, for the American companies.

It is somewhat the same thing with greenhouse gases. As long as we take no action and do not put a plan in place, those who are against the Kyoto protocol will argue that it is too much to swallow, that we cannot honour our Kyoto commitments.

The Liberals, for example, kept to the voluntary approach. They in effect abdicated their responsibilities. The result has been a 23% increase in greenhouse gases, instead of a 6% reduction from the 1990 emissions level, as prescribed in the Kyoto protocol. Of course, those who are opposed to the Kyoto protocol will tell us that the targets are even higher now, because it is not just the 6% below 1990, now it is 6% plus 23%, for a total target reduction of 29%.

The more we drag our feet, the more we will be told that the Kyoto objectives are unattainable and unrealistic. Therefore I believe it is necessary to alert public opinion. There is an urgent and immediate need for an effective and equitable plan, as demanded in the motion.

Otherwise, not only will the opponents of Kyoto try to find arguments in their own turpitude, but the achievement of the Kyoto targets will also do much more harm to the Canadian and Quebec economy.

We have already fallen too far behind. The government must not wait: it must put in place an action plan for achieving the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. In the motion, we have set October 15 as the deadline for tabling that action plan. The minister has been telling us for weeks that she has a plan, people are working on a plan, it is being prepared. So I think she will have no difficulty complying with the motion when it is adopted. On October 15, then, we will begin working with objectives, with means of action and with a schedule for complying with the Kyoto protocol.

Hon. members know that this protocol is the fruit of a global effort by the international community. Canada ratified it in December 2002 by a vote in this House. In that context, the Conservative government cannot shirk its responsibilities. It must respect Canada's signature on a treaty that resulted in the Kyoto protocol. If not, Canada's credibility, as well as this government's, will be on the line. In fact, it is already quite poor, according to the papers. We will end up in a situation where it will not be very easy to explain this position to our parliamentary colleagues from the other signatories of the protocol.

This motion sends a clear message on the eve of the Bonn Convention on Climate Change. Canada must make a commitment to respect its signature. It must state it loud and clear. When the motion is passed, it will be clear that Canadian and Quebec parliamentarians deem respecting Canada's signature as imperative. If the government does not want to take its responsibilities, it will pay the price during the next election campaign, which will not be long from now, as hon. members know.

As I mentioned at the start, not only was the Kyoto protocol the fruit of the international community's labour, it received support from a vast majority of the Canadian public. In Quebec, 90% think we should comply with the Kyoto protocol objectives. I want to remind hon. members that these objectives are merely the first step towards a true resolution of the greenhouse gas problem.

The principles proposed in this motion are quite simple. They include respecting international commitments—which I already talked about—and fairness. The efforts made by the provinces have not been equal. Quebec in the early 1970s chose clean and renewable energy—hydroelectricity—which has contributed to preventing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada from being worse than it already is. As I was saying earlier, the increase since 1990 was 23%.

Energy options have to be taken into account. We will recall—and I hope to have enough time to come back to this—that the federal government chose oil. If memory serves, over the past 30 years, more than $66 billion was provided, in one form or the other, to directly or indirectly subsidize the oil industry, while only a few hundred millions were invested in clean, renewable energy sources. We have to go back on that choice, both resolutely and actively, by turning to clean energy for instance.

To conclude, any effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto objectives that is put in place should include stringent motor vehicle manufacturing standards to improve the energy efficiency of motor vehicles. Tax measures and rebates are also necessary as incentives for buying such vehicles. For instance, we suggested that there simply be no GST on environmentally-friendly vehicles.

In addition, financial assistance should be provided for the development of renewable energy such as wind power. Hydro-Quebec has announced its intention to make significant progress in that direction. We believe that the federal government has a responsibility because, so far, Quebeckers have paid alone for their energy option, while all Canadians benefited from it.

I would have liked to talk about the very favourable tax system for oil companies.

In closing, we must continue subsidizing those organizations which help us toward our Kyoto objectives, and not back out, as this government did, of this unavoidable global fight.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments.

I have two questions for him.

First, does the member agree with community based programming? The government cut about 15 programs, just let them expire. It was devastating to some people in my riding. I met with some of them last night at the Embassy of Norway. They are working with Norway on greenhouse gases. They had great initiatives because they know the local area in the Yukon. They were working on those things and it is devastating that these knowledge programs have been cut.

My second question relates to joining the electrical grid. The provinces are often responsible for the utilities. In our partnership program with the provinces and territories we were going to enhance joining electricity, which is so important to Quebec, so that if the provinces wanted some help they might be able to sell this electricity, a very clean energy source, farther than they are able to on their own.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. In regard to his second question, the motion talks about a territorial approach. This is extremely important for us. As I said, Quebec and the Quebec manufacturing industry have already made choices in the direction of the commitments made under the Kyoto protocol. My colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, I think, that the initial efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are the easiest. As we try to reduce them further, it becomes increasingly difficult. Our manufacturing industry in Quebec is in that phase now.

The objectives must be established, therefore, on the basis of both the province and the sector. For technical reasons, some sectors unfortunately emit greenhouse gases. Take the example of cement works. In this case, overall, both the territory and the sectors will have to contribute to meeting the Kyoto objectives, with assistance from the federal government.

Insofar as the first question is concerned, as I said, we absolutely must keep programs to provide financial assistance to groups that have expertise out in the field so that we can all promote the Kyoto protocol in what we do every day.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, did the member support our plans to legislate large final emitters? As I explained in detail earlier, government employees in many federal departments had worked for years with industry associations. I complimented the industry associations and the government employees for coming up with plans to cut over 30 megatonnes. We were in the process of putting that into legislation.

My second comment is in regard to the voluntary agreement with the auto workers. The auto industry in Canada has followed all the other voluntary agreements with the Government of Canada. As members know, if people do things voluntarily, there is even more of a buy-in than when they are mandatory. We were being congratulated on this world-leading agreement in cutting vehicle emissions, which are a big part of greenhouse gases.

Is the member supportive of the auto industry cutting emissions and mandatory legislation for large final emitters, both of which we were working on?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, following up on what the hon. member said, I think that the federal government must really assume its responsibilities, especially in the automobile manufacturing sector.

I was speaking about the oil lobby a little while ago, but this lobby and the North American automobile manufacturers’ lobby are very close. Some things seem unachievable to us. But as my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie was saying, in Europe these things have been done, not just in regard to vehicle manufacturing but in everyday life.

I will provide an example, although unfortunately it does not have anything to do with greenhouse gases. In Canada and the United States, the little pieces used to align wheels are made of lead. We know that lead is extremely harmful from an ecological standpoint. In Europe, beginning this year, lead will no longer be allowed. Our Canadian and Quebec manufacturers who export to Europe are going to adapt to this new reality. In North America, though, they will continue using lead to make these little pieces used for aligning wheels, as if it were impossible to find some other alloy.

It is the same thing in regard to energy. Substitutes do exist. There are technical solutions. What is missing is the political will. I think that by passing this motion, all the members of Parliament here will be sending a clear message to the Conservative government that we want compliance with the Kyoto protocol agreements that Canada signed and a real action plan by October 15.