Debates of May 11th, 2006

Opposition Motion--Kyoto Protocol

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first suggestion I would make to my Conservative colleague is to avoid being fatalistic and always making references to the past.

One would have thought that after many years of forced rest — since 1993 to be precise — a new and dynamic government would have shown more initiative. We could not imagine that it would want to work alone in its corner and that it would renege on the commitment to work to reach a common global goal to save our planet that was taken here in the House by the Canadian government.

There are ways to reach that goal through innovation, research, development and new technologies. However, we should certainly not try to protect someone somewhere. We should not do that.

We know that 81% of greenhouse gases come from the production and use of energy, at least 50% for oil alone. Right now, funds are available to do something about these greenhouse gas emissions. However, going back on one's promise is a sign of a marked disinclination to go farther and to innovate through development.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Kyoto is certainly one of these international protocols that is so important for our planet and humanity. It is sometimes sad to hear the comments of the government. It talks about wanting a made in Canada solution. For years we have talked about the fact that what we really want is for governments and people around the world to think globally and act locally. Instead, we have a situation where in fact we are thinking just nationally and acting if we can. I think that is very sad for the state of our planet.

We see so many important programs that are in fact in jeopardy of being starved to death. It seems that the intention of the government is that we will in fact have no Kyoto plan and also no action plan when dealing with climate change, with CO₂ emissions and with the other need, the need for the education of the people of this country about the importance of the environment.

I also want to thank my dear colleague for his speech. But I am a bit worried considering the present situation concerning the Kyoto protocol and the federal government proposal.

I am sad and very concerned that the Bloc, which has always been in favour of the Kyoto protocol, gave a blank cheque to the government, which is in the process of eliminating several very important environmental programs.

Maybe I want—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry but the member's time is up.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke has the floor.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. It is in fact disappointing to see that the Conservatives do not have more initiative and more vision. They will pretty soon be held to account. In Quebec, 90% of the population supports the Kyoto protocol.

Is this protocol really unworkable and unachievable? I do not think that we can hide behind these labels. We have to reach a reduction of 32% to meet our commitments. If we give up, where will we be in five years from now? However, if we go ahead, if we innovate, we can get close to these objectives. We have the people to do it. It is through innovation, initiative and vision that the government has to get involved and it has to do it as soon as possible.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke and I congratulate him for his speech. I also thank him for sharing his time with me.

It is a pleasure for me to speak to this motion from the Bloc Québécois. Earlier today, I heard Conservative members ask what they could do. The first thing they could do would be to vote for the motion from the Bloc Québécois. I will take the time to read it for my colleagues from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the NDP, all gathered in the House:

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.

It cannot be clearer. The Conservatives held a ceremony and talked about an official agreement being signed with the Government of Quebec to reserve a seat for Quebec at the Canadian table at UNESCO. This is an historical agreement giving Quebec a seat at the Canadian table at UNESCO.

While chairing the United Nations climate change conference, Canada tells those people that it cannot reach the targets. The wording used is harsh. The minister and the Prime Minister said that the targets were unrealistic and unachievable.

Canada is trying to give rights to provinces and to Quebec at the Canadian table at UNESCO, but it is unable to tell the United Nations that it will honour its signature and its word, according to the vote held in this House. I cannot believe what is happening; the world has turned upside down. But it is indeed in this world that the Conservative government wants to take us, while reneging on the word given through the agreement we signed.

You think that Quebeckers are going to believe you when you tell them that at UNESCO, after giving Quebec a place at Canada’s table, if Quebec does not agree with Canada, it will still be entitled to speak? Do not even think about it, you yourself are going back on the government’s word, which it gave at the United Nations when the Kyoto protocol was signed. That is what you are now doing.

Moreover, you are trying to persuade Quebeckers that the Kyoto targets are unrealistic and unattainable. The message I am here to deliver, on behalf of my colleagues, the men and women who speak for the interests of Quebeckers, and on behalf of myself personally, is not just for me, it is for my children and my grandchildren too. I hope that I will have great-grandchildren and that I will be able to see them grow up. The fate of the planet is nothing to laugh about.

There is also nothing to laugh about when we see Canada’s greenhouse gas emission numbers.

I would like to list the increases in greenhouse gas emissions, province by province, between 1990 and 2003: Prince Edward Island, 8.4%; Quebec, 8.6%; Nova Scotia, 10%; Manitoba, 12%; Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, 16%; British Columbia, 24%; New Brunswick, 31%; Alberta, 34%; Saskatchewan, 45%.

I do not want to be a demagogue and I will not talk about where Conservative Party members historically come from. I do not want to do that, because the Conservative Party has been engaging in demagoguery and I do not want to be a party to it. One thing is certain, however: my Conservative colleagues are correct. The fact is that Canada has increased its greenhouse gas emissions, but the fact is also that Quebec, with a 12% difference from 1990 emissions, is one of the provinces that will probably reach the Kyoto targets the quickest.

All that the Conservative Party is doing today is to prevent Quebec from reaching its targets. Quebeckers paid for the investments in hydroelectricity out of their own pockets. You did not put one cent into Quebec’s hydroelectric development. Let us be clear on this: since 1990, while Quebec was investing a quarter of $66 billion dollars in fossil fuel, you have not given one cent toward the investment that Quebeckers were making in hydroelectricity in Quebec.

That is the reality. We are telling you, today, when we talk about a territorial approach, that it may be time for the Government of Canada, when it invests in achieving the Kyoto targets, to turn Quebec’s funds over to Quebec as quickly as possible, to turn over Quebec’s share of the Kyoto investments, so that Quebecers can reach those targets. That is what we are calling for. That is what the motion made by the Bloc Québécois today is calling on you to do.

So stop getting all worked up and giving--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. My apologies for interrupting the hon. member.

I just want to remind the hon. member to address all comments through the Chair and not directly to the members opposite. The hon. member still has about four minutes left in his speech.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before you kindly interrupted my speech, I was explaining Quebec’s position on its greenhouse gas emissions.

I repeat, this is not for purely electoral reasons. As I said at the outset, it is for the generations who will follow us. That is why today, in this House, we cannot allow ourselves to refrain from speaking about achieving the Kyoto targets. Why? Because some countries are meeting their targets.

There will be no objection to my mentioning the Conservative Party, as it is a party in this House.

The Conservative Party too often tends to adopt the image of the United States. Yes, the Americans! When we see the change in greenhouse gas emissions, we can compare ourselves to the Americans. I think that may be the objective, the levelling down that the Conservative government wants to go after. In other words, in tonnage, Canada emits 23.4 tonnes per capita. The Americans emit 23.7 tonnes, while the 15 member states of the European Union emit 11 tonnes per capita.

So why should we not all adopt the motion of the Bloc Québécois, which would not align us with the Americans, but simply with the European Union, which has industrialized countries, like us, that have been able to make efforts to reach the objectives of the Kyoto protocol or to move toward reaching those objectives.

I say all this because we were a signatory country, which furthermore has ratified the Kyoto protocol, like 163 states. As I speak, 62% of the greenhouse gas emitting countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol. And Canada is one of them.

The Conservative government, through its Minister of the Environment, would have us say that meeting the targets is unrealistic and unattainable. That is what the Conservative government is saying to us.

This worries me, especially since I am going to allow myself to make a little quotation. In 2002, the present Prime Minister, in a speech, said of the Kyoto protocol:

As for the Kyoto accord, we will stand alone in the House, not just opposing ratification...we will repeal the accord at the very first opportunity.

That is clearly what the Conservative government is now doing. And it is terrible.

They say that the Prime Minister wants to honour his commitments, but it will be difficult for Quebeckers if the Prime Minister decides to honour this commitment he made in 2002.

I spoke those words he said in 2002 in English. I know there is French translation for my fellow citizens in Quebec. Also, I did not want to distort the words of the Prime Minister, and hence of this government. That is the harsh reality. They simply want to withdraw from what Canada has signed.

The members of the Bloc Québécois demand, with respect to the Kyoto accord—given that Quebec is prepared to meet its targets—that agreements be ratified, that an attempt be made to respect the agreements, and that agreements be added which may well be incorporated in bilateral agreements with the provinces, so that Quebeckers can leave a better world to their children and grandchildren.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his remarks, which I listened to carefully. This is of concern to us.

I will explain to him why the motion that was tabled today in the House cannot be implemented. It is quite simple. In contrast to the previous government that was in power for 13 years, since it took office, the current government has not gotten into the habit of making commitments that it cannot meet. This is exactly what we are talking about today.

I agree with my colleagues from the House that there is some sense of urgency with the environment. However, I would like to quote Équiterre, which is far from being a group that can naturally be associated with the government, although I am sure that it will join us when it gets to know our climate change plan. As we all know, this is one of the commitments that we made during the electoral campaign. If we follow through on our plan on climate change as we have done with all the other commitments that we have met up to now, I am sure that we will have the support of the members of this House in this regard.

In fact, I ask the question directly. We are all aware that the Kyoto protocol is an important step in terms of dealing with climate change. Is the member ready to follow us beyond the Kyoto protocol? We know that this protocol will expire soon and that afterwards, we will have to make other arrangements with other countries that are not signatories now, so that not only Canada, but the largest emitters, reduce their greenhouse gases.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to tell my colleague that the Conservative government is in no way in a position to give lessons to other countries. That is the problem and that is a cause for some uneasiness.

I will tell the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse that no matter what he tells us in this House, his leader has already made his choice. I read to the House the text from 2002. We just went through the budget. If the party in power had had the slightest intention of reaching the set objectives it would have included the money in the recent budget. It did not, instead preferring to make other choices.

The hon. member has a responsibility to show the way to the members of his party. The first thing he could do would be to convince his colleagues to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois' motion. We are giving him an opportunity. He is from Quebec. All he has to do is to stand up in this House and show that he defends Quebec's interests and that he is not a puppet in the hands of his leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is very true. I would like to thank my colleague for his compassionate speech, particularly for the portion where he talked about future generations and what responsibility we all have as deputies within this place to work on behalf of our constituents and particularly for those who have not yet come to be, and what kind of world we leave behind for them.

The question I have for the hon. member is with respect to the budget which has killed the Kyoto protocol and our commitments in not so many words, but in actions. There is some allocated funding, but no plan even though the current government talked about having a plan for more than a year now.

During last year's budget debate, one of the things that New Democrats pushed for and were able to achieve was significant spending and funding for the environment. We were able to negotiate close to $1 billion, which had not been set aside into the budget, to help in some small way leave a better world for our children.

I am looking at this current budget which we can all agree is an absolute disaster when it comes to the environment. There is just nothing of substance. There is no plan to mark it by and there is nothing in the budget for the environment. So I am curious as to the Bloc's support for such a budget knowing that there is so little to nothing, and actually taking us backwards, when it comes to the environment file.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that when it is time to give speeches about or discuss the budget, we must not forget that it is not one-dimensional. It covers many different issues. Even though the environment is a major priority for members of the Bloc Québécois, our top priority is correcting the fiscal imbalance. This takes priority over all our other priorities. Once again, we have decided to give the government a chance, but we have made it very clear to them that the next budget, in 2007, must show their true colours with respect to the fiscal imbalance, or they will have to deal with the Bloc Québécois.

My colleague has realized that this is a harsh reality. It is not for nothing that the Bloc Québécois is intervening today to ask the House to give its official approval requiring Canada to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. It is precisely because the budget left behind all of the major advances made by other governments toward reaching these targets.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is a very important one. Our environment is a high priority for this government.

Climate change is one of the most complex issues facing the world today. It is a long term challenge that cannot be addressed without effective international cooperation. Because the situation that each country faces is unique, there are many options, considerations and viewpoints about how the international community should move forward. To be effective, international cooperation on climate change must meet a number of conditions.

First, it needs to be based on the principles of flexibility, cost effectiveness and national circumstances to recognize a broad range of approaches to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it will need broad participation by developed and developing countries alike with an eye on the long term. Third, addressing climate change in the face of rising global energy demand will require effective development and deployment of technologies within developed and developing countries alike. Finally, global action on climate change must integrate the additional co-benefits provided at the local level, such as improved air quality.

There is great potential for future international cooperation to meet these objectives, but if the countries of the world are going to coordinate their action on climate change, they need to work together.

Canada intends to work both inside and outside the UN to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways that are consistent with Canada's national circumstances. Within the UN, there are two official processes for discussing the future.

The first one is the Dialogue on Long-term Cooperative Action. It is open to all 189 countries, including the U.S., under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and examine new innovative future approaches to address climate change.

The dialogue is significant because it is not tied only to the Kyoto-style approach of national targets for developed countries and because it can openly examine better ways of engaging all countries in cooperative action on climate change. What is important about this dialogue is that it includes all major emitters. For instance, large emerging countries like China and India currently account for approximately 20% of greenhouse gas emissions but they are not bound by targets. It is important that these countries have agreed to participate in the dialogue so that they can be part of the solution.

The second UN discussion process is the ad hoc working group on further commitments for developed countries beyond 2012. It is being held under the Kyoto protocol's article 3.9. Its aim is to consider further commitments under the Kyoto protocol. Discussions within this ad hoc group should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation and opportunities for those countries that do not have Kyoto targets to participate in the future.

In the year 2000, the group of countries with Kyoto targets represented only 28% of global emissions. At this point, this process is only a discussion. The UN Secretariat has suggested that this discussion begin with a two year analysis and assessment phase so we can determine what has worked and what has not worked so far.

Stepping back, within the UN process we have two tracks for considering the nature of future international cooperation on climate change. The first track is a broad discussion with all parties under the convention. The second track is a discussion of future options under the Kyoto protocol. Both tracks represent great opportunities to work toward a future international approach to address climate change, one that is inclusive, innovative and effective. This is the beginning of an important phase in the international effort to address climate change.

In preparation for the initiation of these discussions, all countries have been invited to share their views on these two processes through written submissions. Canada has taken this opportunity to help shape these conversations by submitting its views to the UN. Two documents summarizing the Government of Canada's views on both of these processes have been submitted to the UN and are now publicly available. Allow me to provide a summary of some of the key messages found in these submissions.

It is Canada's view that we should examine how governments and the private sector could work together to stimulate technological innovation and move the world consistently toward a low carbon economy. Countries from around the world should share experiences and discuss what can be done well within the convention process and what may work better outside it. That is a good idea.

Cost effective, market based approaches will continue to be important. Innovative new approaches should be examined and existing approaches continually improved. The international community should continue to engage with companies, multilateral development banks, export credit agencies, private sector financers and reinsurers to explore how market based opportunities interact with future approaches. That also is a very good idea.

Important progress has been made in addressing adaptation in the UN process but much more needs to be done. We should build on existing adaptation activities and mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. As well, we should remain open to new options within and outside the UN process. We should examine what role multilateral and regional organizations, the private sector and civil society organizations could have in facilitating adaptation, including at the community level. That is also very good.

Developed and developing countries share common challenges in meeting their economic, social and environmental needs but capacities differ considerably. To be successful, greenhouse gas mitigation coupled with adaptation measures should be integrated into broader sustainable development objectives, such as economic development, energy security, public health, air quality and local environmental protection.

Finally, it is the Government of Canada's position that there should be transparent information sharing between the processes both within and without the UN. We should build on information from the complementary UN processes. We should also examine relevant non-UN processes as well as important technology initiatives.

To recap our key messages on future approaches to addressing climate change, they should take the country's specific national circumstances into account and provide the opportunity to choose the best combination of actions that result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and we have not seen that over the last 13 years, so I believe we are on the right track. We should also promote further technological innovation and the deployment of existing technologies and stimulate action on climate change that includes other co-benefits.

In conclusion, international cooperation is essential for effectively addressing the issue of climate change. It is a must. Canada is committed to working with the international community to develop a means of international cooperation on climate change that is effective and inclusive. Canada will be an active and constructive participant in these two new processes under the UN.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Don Valley East, Taxation.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question which I asked somebody else earlier in the debate. It involves EnerGuide and specifically EnerGuide for low income housing.

All Canadians want to do their part to reduce emissions and to reduce pollution. Some simply cannot afford to do so. Because of the rising cost of energy over the last number of years, they have seen the percentage of their income that they spend on energy go sky high. Canadians with the lowest incomes pay the highest price as a percentage of their income.

Last year the whole House supported Bill C-66, I believe it was, the Energy Cost Assistance Measures Act, which extended EnerGuide to houses of the lowest income Canadians, some $500 million over five years.

I know EnerGuide works, as most people do. I used to be in that business. When I worked at Nova Scotia Power, we administered EnerGuide for houses in Nova Scotia. It worked tremendously well. It is a very efficient program. It is a very effective way for people to reduce their consumption. An evaluation is done and then work is recommended, whether it is retrofits, fixing windows, doors or whatever, or improving insulation. The problem was that the lowest income Canadians could not afford those renovations. Under Bill C-66 they could.

It seems particularly mean-spirited to penalize the lowest income Canadians who have started to access this program. We heard at one point in time it was because the administrative costs of the program were 50%. It has been confirmed that is not the case. The figure is something like 13%. The administrative costs that were referred to in fact are the audits themselves, the actual work of the auditor.

Is it not unconscionable to penalize the lowest income Canadians who are trying to do their part to reduce their energy costs and to reduce pollution in Canada?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member used the adjectives “mean-spirited” and “unconscionable”.

The environment is incredibly important to this government and to Canadians. When we went knocking on doors a few months ago, that was one of the top issues. That is why we have an environment minister who is acting. She has been crossing the country. She has been listening to international partners to find a made in Canada approach that works.

NRC has done an evaluation of which programs worked and which did not. That is ongoing. EnerGuide was deemed to be not effective. Yes, Canadians need to take responsibility to make sure their homes are running as efficiently as possible. We all can take action. There is information out there. Unfortunately, that program was seen to be not particularly effective. We need to have programs that are effective.

We need to have clean air so that Canadians are healthy. I take allergy shots because of the pollution levels in the air, and I am not the only one. The health of many Canadians is seriously affected because of the quality of our air. We each have a responsibility to make sure that these dollars, and they are not my dollars nor the dollars of other members, are spent wisely. There are only so many dollars.

At the environment committee yesterday concerns were raised. An NGO asked if we had enough dollars to meet the targets. The answer was yes we do. We need to streamline. We need to focus on what is working. We need to focus on what works and make it work and make Canada healthier and cleaner. It is not dollars. It is efficiency. We need to protect the health of Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Parkdale—High Park is in downtown Toronto. The citizens I represent are very concerned about climate change. They talk to me about the health concerns they have, the asthma, the premature deaths as a result of climate change.

The previous government did very little on climate change. It was the budget negotiated by the NDP, our party, that put almost $1 billion into addressing climate change issues.

The Conservative government, frankly, is doing even less than the previous government wanted to do. While the government is abandoning the climate change protocol supported by over 180 countries that want to take action on climate change, why is it that it is now allying itself with half a dozen countries that want to do nothing on climate change? Will the member answer that for me, please?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member was listening to my speech. It was very thorough in that we are committed to the protocol but we are looking for things that are effective. We have had 13 years of a government that did nothing.

Now we have a government that is going to do something, but it would be foolhardy to make announcements within weeks of becoming government. We need to consult. I have actually consulted with members of that party.

I also have offered to consult with members of the Bloc. Unfortunately, the Bloc does not want to talk about the issues. That party likes to bring motions such as this to the table, but those members have refused to talk to me in my role as parliamentary secretary. I want to work with the Bloc.

One of the comments made by one of the Bloc members was that they want us to show initiative. The Bloc wants us to show inclusion and vision. We are attempting to do that. We want to consult with them. We want to consult with every member and we want to consult internationally so that we have a made in Canada program that works for all Canadians and we will actually be world leaders when it comes to the environment.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, with this motion, the Bloc Québécois is conspiring with the other opposition parties to force the Government of Canada to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. They all know that the previous government left us with billions of dollars in Kyoto-related programs but failed to deliver the goods. Quite the opposite. Our greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased by more than 35% over the past 10 years. Not only was the Liberal approach merely a smokescreen, as Tom Axworthy said recently, but it also put Canada in a position that makes it impossible to reach the Kyoto targets without bringing on a major economic upheaval or sending billions of dollars out of the country.

I feel that the Bloc Québécois motion is both unrealistic and irresponsible because it would force Canada to take steps that Canadians and the Government of Canada do not want. Canada cannot meet the Kyoto protocol targets under these circumstances. Our government has clearly demonstrated that it intends to address the problems of greenhouse gases and pollution in Canada. It made a commitment to this in both the throne speech and the budget. However, in contrast to what the opposition is proposing, we will offer Canadians a realistic plan, a made in Canada plan that will ensure that future generations have clean air, clean water, clean soil and clean energy. This plan will enable us to achieve economic prosperity while controlling greenhouse gases, by investing in Canadian solutions and Canadian communities.

Reducing greenhouse gases means making fundamental changes in the way energy is produced and consumed. But energy plays a leading role in Canadians' economic and social lives. In this context, the key to success, in my view, lies in scientific research and technologies. Canada is a world leader in clean technologies, which offer the world new, more effective ways to increase energy efficiency, use renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. The Government of Canada and its industry partners are working to respond to the growing world demand for clean energy technologies.

Canada is already on the right track, particularly in research on energy efficiency, alternative energy sources and carbon capture and storage technologies. These technological advances will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will enable Canada to capitalize on its huge energy potential for the benefit of all Canadians.

When I think of Canadian solutions that benefit Canadian communities, the CANMET Energy Technology Centre in Varennes, Quebec, immediately comes to mind. Its mission is to help some sectors of the Canadian economy—pulp and paper, petrochemical, and softwood lumber—reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, make more sustainable use of energy, and increase their capacity for innovation.

One of the major projects developed by the Varennes researchers is RETScreen International, which is recognized as the leading software in the world for analyzing and assessing the viability of renewable energy projects. RETScreen consists of a series of databases which provide decision-makers with data on the quantity of energy produced by a wind turbine, solar panel, high-efficiency gas burner or a small-capacity generator. It can also specify the cost of these systems. RETScreen recently launched a multilingual version of this model, which is now offered in 21 languages and reaches almost two-thirds of the world's population. It has saved users $240 million in Canada and $600 million worldwide, of particular importance to developing countries. This is a compelling example of Canadian know-how exported around the world.

CTEC in Devon, Alberta, also comes to mind with its technologies for the oil sector that reduce energy consumption and are more environmentally friendly. This company has helped the Canadian oil industry become a viable player in the energy supply sector and one that is environmentally responsible.

The new technologies developed in Devon will be the key to commercial development that is both economically and environmentally viable for energy resources such as the oil sands and heavy oil.

Thanks to these technologies, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development by 50%.

Furthermore, our laboratories here in Ottawa are at the forefront of the research, development and deployment of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies for houses, buildings and communities.

They focus their activities on energy analysis and simulation tools, technology design criteria, testing, rating and monitoring, standards development, field trials and demonstrations, technology transfer and support in technology feasibility and economics.

They work in partnership with universities and the private sector to build intelligent buildings and ultra-energy-efficient buildings that can become net energy producers.

Although we are currently reconsidering the Canadian government's climate change programs, I would remind the House that many other quality programs are being continued, programs that are good examples of sound management of public funds and that reach or even surpass their targeted objectives.

For example, take the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation, a fruitful partnership between industry and government. To date, the industry's sectors targeted by this program have saved at least $3 billion by reducing their fuel consumption and, compared to 1990, they had reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 megatonnes a year in 2004.

Reducing green house gases is a global challenge and Canada, which produces only 2% of the world's greenhouse gases, could not do it alone.

Despite our best intentions and the best intentions of the international community, statistics show that global greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing since 1990.

We have to accept the fact that Canada and the world will continue to depend on fossil fuels for some time to come. We are investing to reduce emissions from oil, natural gas and coal.

One of our solutions is a project to store carbon dioxide underground. This is a joint project between the Government of Canada, the International Energy Agency and the U.S. department of energy.

This project accomplishes two things: it eliminates greenhouse gas emissions and improves oil recovery. The initial results are extremely promising.

Investment in science and technology is most promising. This approach will allow Canada to focus on excellence, lead by example and contribute to finding solutions that will have a lasting and significant impact around the world.

These are clear, concrete solutions with a vision and well-established plan to achieve our common goal of preserving our environment.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. He and other members opposite have talked about consultation and the importance of consulting with stakeholders and other groups as they, at some point, formulate a made in Canada plan. We have heard a lot about this plan over the last several weeks, but no target date whatsoever has been given for when that plan will be announced.

However, dealing with consultation, as the member will know, fully 20% of the energy efficiency programs have been cut over the last few weeks. I would like to ask the hon. member to tell us exactly who was consulted with respect to the decision to cut fully 20% of the energy efficiency programs.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question put by the opposition member and my colleague surprises me.

The previous government had 13 years to establish effective programs and never did. Since we have taken office—only 100 days ago—we have already begun reviewing existing programs in order to establish effective ones. The people of Canada have asked us to.

Some programs considered ineffective were at times developed in a hurry, unfortunately, by the previous government. We are thoroughly reviewing programs and will keep the effective ones. What is more, we will add effective programs specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Natural Resources and MP for Mégantic—L'Érable, a riding that is in the eastern townships. There is no doubt that discussions, intentions and lip service aside no one can oppose virtue. However, we heard pretty much the same speech from the Liberal government for a number of years before it decided to commit seriously to the Kyoto protocol.

If the parliamentary secretary knows things about the Conservative Party plan, it would be an appropriate time to tell us what it is about and what it is really based on. In terms of research, technology and energy efficiency, I would like to know what the plan is.

Are capture and storage to have budgets along the lines of those the government is allocating to expanding prisons and creating new prison space instead of fighting crime? In other words, instead of working to reduce greenhouse gases, the government will capture and store them. The main principle is not to go looking for gas, but above all not to produce it.

I would like to know whether the member is aware of his party's plan, given that he is arguing so much against the Kyoto protocol. Will the minister indicate at the summit her intention to continue to apply the Kyoto protocol while ensuring that the international community meets its objectives? I would like to know what the plan and its objectives are.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the objectives are clear. No one needs to hide. All of us in this House have the same goal and that is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

My colleague is asking me to do the exact same thing as the previous government. We simply have to deliver a program quickly just to please them. We are at the review stage in order to keep the effective programs and eliminate those that are ineffective with a view to achieving these objectives.

I find it very irresponsible of my colleague to ridicule the carbon dioxide capture program. The Bloc recommends maintaining the Kyoto accord and sending Canadian money abroad. We want to invest here in Canada in effective technologies.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

For the first time in this 39th Parliament I have the honour to speak on behalf of all my electors from the riding of Brossard—La Prairie. I sincerely thank them for placing their confidence in me to defend their interests in Ottawa.

I also want to congratulate the environment critic, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, for putting forward this opposition day motion.

People from my generation and all the hon. members of this House should adapt their vocabulary to that of the young generation. The first word young people ask us to adopt is Kyoto, as in the Kyoto protocol.

During a visit to Salon Jeunes-PROJET last Sunday at the Antoine-Brossard comprehensive school, I met students between the age of 10 and 12 who had a stand on greenhouse gases. These young 12-year-olds were explaining the complex phenomena of climate change, the Kyoto protocol and the many products that contribute to greenhouse gases. These young people used simple terms chosen with passion and sincerity. They have already realized that we are playing with their future and that today's decisions could compromise their health and viability on this planet.

The second principle that must be respected, based on the themes selected by these young people, is that of sustainable development. By definition, that is development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. Young people are entitled to hope to be able to meet their basic needs, such as clean water, clean air, clean land and energy, in the future.

The third theme selected by the young people concerned soft, renewable energies. Wind power immediately comes to mind. In addition to soft energies, issues such as energy efficiency, geothermics and green building in accordance with the LEED standard have to be discussed, as well as active and passive solar heating, research and development, and new technologies to solve the problems caused by greenhouse gases.

The fourth theme was environmentally-friendly transportation. An energy scheme to deal with the greenhouse gas issue requires the use of electric cars, hydrogen cars, biodiesel fuel and public transit, electric trains, and subway expansion, as well as the adoption of ethanol. Many producers in my riding, corn producers, came to see me. They have great expectations of this government with respect to the ethanol program.

The Bloc Québécois is recommending a series of initiatives that come under federal jurisdiction. These include stricter vehicle manufacturing standards to enhance energy efficiency, rebates on environmentally-friendly vehicles, and financial support for all renewable energies.

The Bloc's position on Kyoto is clear. It wants the international commitments already made to be met. It wants equity for Quebec in the federal plan. It wants Quebec's jurisdictions to be respected.

As for the international treaty, Canada’s reputation is on the line if this government refuses to meet the Kyoto objectives.

Environmental groups, both international and local, could launch a vast campaign to boycott our Canadian products. Canada’s credibility is at stake, and Quebec’s interests will inevitably be dragged into this maelstrom of boycotts. Quebec could also be drawn into this boycott. Failure to comply with a signed agreement will certainly influence Quebeckers in their choice, in their future, in their destiny, in their choice to become a sovereign country.

Most of Quebec’s energy production is based on hydroelectricity, which is clean, renewable energy that has done little to contribute to the Canada-wide increase in greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2003, Quebec’s emissions increased only 8.6%, in comparison with 34% in Alberta and 45% in Saskatchewan. In 2003, greenhouse gas emissions were 12.2 tonnes per capita in Quebec and 23.4 tonnes in Canada. In addition, this 23.4-tonne average increases to 26.8 tonnes per capita if Quebec is excluded from Canada, leaving what is called the ROC or rest of Canada. So it is 12.2 tonnes for Quebec and 26.8 tonnes for the ROC, or a factor of 2.2. That is what we are talking about when we talk about fairness.

Quebec’s choice of hydroelectric energy has certainly contributed to this enviable performance, but its success can also be attributed to the collective choices made by Quebec citizens, its industry, the National Assembly, and most importantly, the future vision and perceptive decisions made by the managers and planners of Hydro-Québec.

Quebec’s reduction plan is clear and specific. The transportation sector accounts for 38.5% of emissions, of which 85% comes from road transportation. Marine, rail and air account for a measly 15%. Quebec’s plan should focus first, therefore, on public transit.

In my riding, some projects are underway, in particular the SLR to relieve congestion on the Champlain bridge. This is a bold $1.2-billion project. We should remember, though, that $1 billion are wasted every year in wages and gasoline expenses as a result of congestion on the roads in my riding.

Quebec’s plan is simple. The shopping list is well-known and has been published in newspapers. It includes electric trains, subway and transportation line projects connecting the city of Montreal and its suburbs. The plan is clear in regard to the emissions of the trucking industry, and the Bloc is also in favour of intermodal transportation. The great St. Lawrence river will be used for marine transportation to carry many containers. In addition to intermodal transportation, the Bloc proposes more efficient motor vehicles and electric cars.

In contrast to the Conservatives, who claim these days that the American approach is not the way to go in the fight against climate change, I say that, luckily, some American states and big cities have disregarded the American government’s plan of attack and are working on reducing greenhouse gases. I could point, for instance, to the great city of Seattle, which has had some incredible success in this regard.

Rather than trying to revise its international obligations by calling Kyoto into question, the Conservative government should introduce its plan together with a fair agreement for Quebec, an agreement that recognizes Quebec’s past efforts.

In conclusion, I strongly support the motion of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look to some of the experiences in Quebec, we see some of the things that have been done right. I would like to get the member's take on the government's seemingly lack of investment in alternative energy in the budget and on the vision or lack thereof that it has presented to Canadians. Specifically, looking at the investments in wind energy, we have seen that European countries have taken this on, set targets, met them, exceeded them, and has looked at how to deal with climate change.

I would also like to hear the member's comments about the fact that we do not seem to see investments, notwithstanding the rhetoric of the government, in R and D. I have not seen any evidence of that. I would like to hear his comments about that.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Concerning the development of wind energy, I still think that Quebec is a leader in this sector. Its program for the next years is very aggressive.

In fact, Quebec has developed its hydroelectricity on its own. It has invested billions of dollars in it. If we must wait for the federal government to act, Quebec will have to go forward with its wind energy program by funding it on its own.