Mr. Speaker, I have two comments to make before I ask my question.
First, it is a shame to see the Minister of Natural Resources rise as the government's lead spokesperson in this debate instead of the Minister of the Environment. That is significant. This says a lot about how this government feels about managing the future plan to fight climate change.
Second, by trying to kill efforts made since 1997 to fight climate change, the minister must realize that he will be partly to blame for Canada's poor record at Bonn. It is a bit sad to see the minister use the failed Liberal approach as an excuse to abandon the Kyoto protocol.
When he talks about the supposed failure of the EnerGuide program he is proving that this government does not have a clue about how to fight climate change. We have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source.
The denunciation and abolition of the EnerGuide program show that to him energy efficiency must not be taken into consideration in a future plan to fight climate change.
We on this side of the House feel that reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source and energy efficiency have to be two important chapters in a future plan to fight climate change. Claiming that EnerGuide did not clean up the environment proves he knows nothing about the principles of energy efficiency.
I have another concern—and I can hear the minister sharing his comments. I am disappointed that he is speaking today as the promoter of the Asia-Pacific partnership when he should be promoting the Kyoto protocol. This does not bode well for the future.