Debates of May 11th, 2006

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I take very great pleasure today in speaking about this very important issue for the future of our society, namely the Kyoto protocol.

Allow me to very sincerely congratulate my Bloc Québécois colleagues who have spoken today in this debate, that is, the member for Joliette and more particularly the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for all his work on matters concerning the environment.

Again we have evidence that the Bloc Québécois is the party that best defends the interests of Quebeckers.

The motion that we have put forward today calls on the Conservative government to take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objectives for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto protocol, and that it publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan, accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, this motion is actually a warning to the minority Conservative government about its intentions concerning the Kyoto protocol.

There is in fact cause for concern about the true intentions of this government concerning the Kyoto protocol. Like many groups associated with the world of the environment, we have all noticed that this government’s approach is incompatible with the commitments made by Canada concerning the Kyoto protocol.

Our concerns are also confirmed by some new information. This information tells us of major cutbacks in various programs that were actually aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, and show that no alternative option has been proposed, nor does any negotiation seem to be taking place with Quebec to reach an agreement.

Furthermore, in the riding I have the honour to represent, a municipality presented, in collaboration with the Régie de gestion des matières résiduelles de la Mauricie, a project to recover biogas to heat greenhouses. In addition to helping reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this project could create some 100 jobs in this region. Treasury Board agreed to fund the project and Environment Canada approved it. All that is missing is the agreement of the Minister of the Environment, which is now harder to get in view of her position on the Kyoto protocol.

This example shows that not only is the government not respecting the commitments contained in the protocol, but also that it is not respecting certain programs established by the former government. This government tells us that it is going to take care of the greenhouse gas problem, but it does not present us with anything concrete, while the problem is getting worse, and drastic and appropriate decisions are now becoming urgent.

It is important to remind this House that the Kyoto protocol is a greenhouse gas reduction agreement accepted by the countries, including Canada, that gathered in Kyoto, in Japan, in 1997. Under this agreement, the signatory countries must attain a greenhouse gas emission rate for the period 2008-12 of 6% less than that of 1990. Canada, however, is emitting 24% more greenhouse gases than in 1990 and they are still on the rise.

To achieve the reduction target from 1990 levels, Canada will therefore now have to reduce annual emissions by 32%. That is why the motion before us today is so important, to ensure that the federal government confirms its intention of honouring the protocol, that is, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels, and that it publish the necessary and equitable measures that it intends to take so that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction in compliance with the commitments it made when it ratified the Kyoto protocol.

That protocol, which has been in effect for over a year, was supported by 163 states that are responsible for 62% of greenhouse gas emissions.

When I say “equitable”, I do not mean equitable only to Quebec, which has already reduced the greenhouse gases produced within Quebec. As a result of all the efforts it has made since 1990, Quebec’s contribution to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions is minimal. Emissions there have risen by 8.6%, as compared to 34% in Alberta and 45% in Saskatchewan for the same period. In 2003, Quebec’s greenhouse gas emissions record was the best in Canada, consisting of 12 tonnes per capita.

That is well below the Canadian average, which is 23 tonnes per capita. Without Quebec, the Canadian annual average would be 27 tonnes per capita.

Quebec’s performance cannot be explained simply by the fact that it chooses to use hydroelectricity. From 1990 to 2003, the pulp and paper industry and sawmills, for example, succeeded in reducing their emissions by 33%, while the aluminum industry, which operates primarily in Quebec, reduced its emissions by 15%.

For the same period, emissions in the thermal power industry rose 41%, and emissions in the oil and gas industry climbed by nearly 50%.

In 2003 alone, 35% of total emissions were attributable to the oil and gas industries and thermal power industry alone.

It is the collective choices made by Quebeckers, their industries and the National Assembly that have made it possible for Quebec to achieve such encouraging results.

Given that Quebec, and more specifically industries in Quebec, have been able to reduce their emissions, the upcoming federal plan must not penalize them. To be equitable, the federal plan must take into account the efforts made by industries in Quebec and must also call on the large gas emitters—and especially the oil companies—to make a contribution proportional to their emissions.

This is why the Bloc is calling for the federal plan to include a system of emission objectives for large emitters. This plan should provide for the exchange of emission rights, given that these industries, especially the oil companies, will be responsible for nearly 50% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

The Bloc is making another suggestion concerning the rich oil companies: in order to treat all taxpayers more fairly and equitably, the new Conservative government must no longer act like the Liberals; it has to put an end to subsidies and tax giveaways to oil companies whose profits that could be described as excessive.

It is important to add that, while calling on the government to commit to honouring Canada's Kyoto commitment and to publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan, we are also favouring a territorial approach, as part of a bilateral agreement with Quebec, as requested by the Government of Quebec incidentally. We believe that this approach is the fairest and most equitable to Quebec, as well as the most effective, because the Quebec government would then be able to use better tools to achieve the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol more quickly.

I will conclude by saying that, as the Bonn conference on climate change nears, it is important that the federal government reiterates its commitment to Kyoto objectives. Addressing climate change is far too important to the future of our planet not to follow through. We will be facing catastrophic consequences if we do not take strong, immediate action. The lack of political will and the attitude of this government, which throws into question its international obligations and the Kyoto protocol, is unacceptable.

Yesterday, a Greenpeace representative suggested that, by stating that it will not honour Kyoto, the Conservative government was actually taking an approach similar to that of the Bush administration. There is cause for concern when the Minister of the Environment describes the objectives set out in the Kyoto protocol as unachievable and unrealistic. That is what prompted us to put forward this motion, which is important to Quebec, Canada, all children and people all over the world.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc for putting the word “territory” in the motion. Quite often people forget the territories. I am delighted to see that in the motion.

We had a small disagreement with the Bloc. We agree on a lot of things. I think we are in agreement on climate change and on various programs. One disagreement we had was on the starting point.

There were some suggestions, earlier at least, maybe the Bloc has changed its opinion, that different provinces or different countries should actually start with a credit, which means they would have to reduce less than others. It would be inconceivable to administer. How could the province of Quebec tell each city that because some of them were farther ahead than others, they did not have to cut as much, or different factories?

Our particular plan, which we outlined in great detail, had everyone starting with so much emissions to cut, although various industries were negotiated separately. I wonder if the Bloc still has a position on that particular point.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

Statistics show that Quebec produces 12.2 tonnes of greenhouse gas per capita. According to the latest statistics, Alberta produced 70.9 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita in 2003. These statistics are accurate and are the result of research.

Why should Quebec pay for the greenhouse gases produced by Alberta's oil industry? The Bloc believes that, with a territorial approach, Quebec, which has shown its ability to reduce greenhouse gases through the development of hydroelectricity, would be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Quebec should not have to pay for—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. I must give the floor to the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the translation is not working and I wonder if, once it is fixed, the member could repeat his answer to my question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Can we verify that the translation services are actually working right now?

Do Francophone members hear the translation?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the English translation now available? It seems that it is.

Could the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé repeat his answer to the hon. member for Yukon?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I will summarize it.

A territorial approach would respect Quebec's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Through hydroelectricity, we have shown that Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions have been reduced, unlike other provinces that are more focussed on the oil industry and that produce more greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bloc believes that the “polluter pay” principle should be applied. These industries should pay more. And a province like Quebec, which has made considerable efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, should not have to pay the same amount to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan, where emissions are much higher.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his excellent speech.

However, I would have liked to know more and I am wondering about something. My colleague certainly has a copy of Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory with him, which gives the number of tonnes per capita, since he indicated in his speech that Quebec produces only 12.2 tonnes of greenhouse gases per capita.

If he has that document, I would like him to give us the number of tonnes produced by the other provinces and by Canada.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

I do have certain statistics here. I mentioned earlier that Alberta produces 70.9 tonnes of greenhouse gases. In Saskatchewan, it is 65.6 tonnes. These high numbers stem from the heavy presence of the oil industry in those two provinces.

The document shows 15.3 tonnes for B.C., 16.8 tonnes for Ontario, 18.8 tonnes for Manitoba, 21 tonnes for Newfoundland, 21.1 tonnes for P.E.I. and 22.6 tonnes for Nova Scotia.

As I indicated earlier, it is 26.8 tonnes for Canada, without Quebec.

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I am proud to rise in the House today to speak on such an important issue as the Canadian environment. I am proud to be a member of a government that is facing our challenges on the environment head on by finding solutions that deliver tangible results and put Canadians first.

Earlier today the Government of Canada submitted two sets of documents to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. The first set is Canada's 2004 greenhouse gas inventory. The second set includes two submissions that are part of Canada's new input into the global dialogue on future international cooperation on climate change.

What does the 2004 Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory say? It says that Canadian emissions were up by almost 35% above the Kyoto target negotiated by the Liberals. That is equivalent to the emissions from all our transport vehicles, that is, all cars, trucks, airplanes and trains in Canada.

What does our 2004 greenhouse gas inventory say? It says that Canadian emissions were up by almost 35% above the Kyoto target negotiated by the Liberals.

The numbers speak for themselves. We have inherited a situation that makes the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated unachievable. Why is it unachievable? Let me spell it out.

In 2004 our emissions were 195 megatonnes above the Liberal Kyoto target. How much is 195 megatonnes? It is the equivalent of more than all of our transportation emissions, the emissions from every car, truck, plane and train in Canada.

We would have to pull every truck and car off the street, shut down every train and ground every plane to reach the Kyoto target that the Liberals negotiated for Canada. Or we could shut off all the lights in Canada tomorrow, but that still would not be enough. To reach the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated, we would have to shut off all the lights and shut down the entire agriculture industry tomorrow. Or instead, we could shut down every individual Canadian household, not once, not twice, not three times, but four times over, in order to meet the Kyoto target the Liberals negotiated for Canada.

Or we could do what the Liberals thought was the answer when faced with the realization that the targets they negotiated meant shutting down Canada's economy. We could spend billions of dollars overseas buying international credits. The Liberals had set aside up to $600 per Canadian household to be sent overseas in order to help reach the Kyoto target they negotiated for Canada.

Let us be clear. Many Canadians predicted at the time that the targets the Liberals negotiated were unrealistic and voiced concerns that a proper implementation plan had not been reached. But politics got ahead of good policy and the Liberals negotiated a target without a plan to meet it.

So we cannot meet the targets that the Liberals negotiated, but that does not mean that we give up the fight. We are committed to real progress on cleaning up Canada's environment and on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and we are committed to face the challenge before us in an open and transparent way and develop realistic and reachable goals to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.

We are turning a new leaf on the environment with a commitment to Canadians that all the money for the environment will be spent on the Canadian environment. We will not send taxpayers' money overseas to buy credits. These are billions of dollars that can be invested in Canada to help reduce pollution right here at home, to build greener infrastructure, to develop new technologies and to make Canada more efficient and economically competitive.

The principle that guides us is that in our initiatives Canadians will always come first. To that effect, our government is focused on made in Canada solutions that are inclusive and results oriented. We will respect the particular needs and circumstances of each of our country's provinces and territories, but we will always insist that our initiatives have direct benefits to Canadians and the Canadian environment. We want to see tangible benefits where it matters most to us, which is in Canadian communities.

Our first focus is on domestic action to ensure that Canadians can enjoy clean air, clean water, clean land, clean and secure energy and healthy communities.

We have already begun, with an investment in made in Canada solutions that deliver real environmental and health benefits to Canadians, by investing in new, greener, cleaner transportation and incentives to get Canadians out of their cars and into public transit. This is important because transportation is one of the highest contributors to pollution and greenhouse gases. In fact, in Quebec, transportation is the highest cause of greenhouse gases.

Very shortly we will be sitting down with the provinces and territories to launch our way forward to a national renewable fuel strategy that will see real, tangible benefits to the environment and economic benefits to the agriculture sector.

We are launching a long overdue review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, Canada's most important piece of environmental legislation. The Liberals put off the review, but we committed in our Speech from the Throne that it will receive the comprehensive review it deserves for the sake of the Canadian environment.

We have begun a review of the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has not had a serious review since 1987.

Soon, the health minister and I will lay out a vision and direction on the important need to deal with transboundary air pollution and will work with the health authorities across Canada and the provinces to develop the Canadian clean air act. Today Canada falls behind the U.S.A. in every industry sector on pollution control. We do not just want to catch up, we want to compete and we want to lead.

The impacts of pollution on health are well known. They are deadly, and the cost to our health care system is in the billions. Last year Ontario had 53 smog advisory days and Quebec had 34. For the first time ever in Canadian history, we saw 10 winter smog advisory days. On those days, Canadian children with asthma and elderly people with respiratory diseases cannot leave their homes. Our government knows and feels that this is unacceptable.

The answer, though, is not to blame the U.S.A. and other countries for the pollution that crosses our borders. We have to set an example and clean up our own backyard first.

We are beginning discussions with the provinces on a national water strategy to share information about water quality and water quantity, to ensure Canadians have access to safe and clean drinking water, and to identify the quantity and resource related issues that are emerging throughout Canada today.

We will be working toward a system for large emitters to deal with greenhouse gases and ensure that we take the right steps to facilitate Canada's ability to contribute in what I think is our strongest capacity to this international challenge--through the development and deployment of clean technology.

These are just a few of the things that we are working on. All of them are made in Canada solutions with real benefits and tangible results for Canadians and the Canadian environment.

We will ensure that our domestic policy aligns with our international policy. This will also ensure that Canada will continue to exercise a leadership role within international consultation and cooperation by advancing realistic and inclusive international options within the United Nations, and we will explore other mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in ways that accurately reflect our national circumstances and effectively protect our country's interests.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I see that several hon. members want to ask questions.

If we can keep both the questions and the comments to a minute, we can accommodate more speakers.

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was recently announced that the government was supporting the initiative to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. As I pointed out in a recent statement in the House, I indicated that at a recent meeting of the parliamentarians associated with the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum it was unanimously agreed that climate change could be best addressed through support of the international treaty, Kyoto.

Would the minister please outline what she thinks is the definitive difference in terms of the objectives of being part of the Asia-Pacific partnership and how the government's strategy is in effect, through that organization, going to address climate change?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, many of our international counterparts are looking at multi-track ways to address pollution, energy security and greenhouse gas reductions. The Kyoto protocol is one track. The Asia-Pacific partnership is another. The G-8 plus 5 is another. As we know, a lot of our international counterparts are engaged in regional partnerships and continental partnerships. It is an approach that Canada is looking at.

We do not want to put all our eggs in one basket. Right now, a number of different initiatives in the international dialogue facilitate an opportunity for Canada not only to help reduce global emissions but also to take advantage of the ability for our industry to deploy to and develop clean technology for a lot of the countries that necessitate it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the minister's statements about combatting climate change are as empty as the Conservative Party's recent election platform.

I would like to know this: given that Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol, does the minister not think that she and Canada have an obligation to introduce a plan that incorporates that protocol's targets in this House by October 15, 2006? I would also like to know what she will answer next week in Bonn when countries ask the president of the conference why Canada has decided to reject the Kyoto protocol targets.

What will the president of the conference, who today is the Minister of the Environment, answer?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be discussing with my international counterparts in Bonn next week the same challenges that I have discussed with them ever since I was appointed Minister of the Environment and president of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They are well aware of the challenges that Canada is facing with an unrealistic target that was negotiated by the Liberals in a very political manner. They understand our desire to cooperate with our international partners to find better, more realistic and more tangible ways to reduce greenhouse gases. Many of our international counterparts are facing the same challenges.

I look forward to the discussions in Bonn. In fact, I have had discussions in Edmonton with my international counterparts. I invited the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change group to an adaptation conference that I hosted just a week and a half ago in my hometown of Edmonton, to talk about adaptation measures that we need to face. I will be discussing the same things in Bonn that I have been discussing with them for the last three months.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to ask the hon. minister is whether she can confirm today that she actually believes the science provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, composed of approximately 1,600 scientists from around the world? Would she actually confirm that she believes this today?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the debate on this issue is long gone. It has passed. I find that a strange question to be asking when Canada is engaged in a number of different international organizations, which the government is participating in, to talk about the issue of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So I would say yes, absolutely. I find it a very strange question. We are working very closely with our international counterparts to find ways for Canada to contribute.

Frankly, as Canada makes up 2% of the global emissions, I believe the best way for Canada to participate in the global environment is by developing and then deploying clean technologies to those countries that actually are the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, that is, the United States, China and India. One of the things we want to do is make sure that we participate in ways and in partnerships so that we can do this. We can develop clean technology and deploy it to the countries that need it.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak on an extremely important subject, namely climate change. I am pleased to address the motion of the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

In speaking of climate change, one of the elements we have to consider is the transportation sector and the contribution made by public transit to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation sector offers great potential for improving air quality and reducing the effects of climate change in Canada.

However public transit is not the only solution. We must help Canadians who do not have access to public transit, or those still unable to use it, to reduce their dependence on traditional fossil fuels. We must also look at how the freight transportation sector can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This government realizes that climate change is an important issue for the country.

Just last year, as the minister indicated before and it is worth repeating, there were 53 smog days in Ontario, 24 in Quebec and three in Atlantic Canada. For the first time ever, 10 winter smog advisories in Quebec and five in Ontario were issued. This is simply not acceptable.

I can assure members that this government is committed to ensuring that public transit is an attractive option for Canadians. Good public transit systems make a real contribution to urban planning and to the successful functioning of our communities. Good public transit systems make it easier for people to get to work and to the other activities that are key for their quality of life.

I say this as both Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and also as past president of la Société de transport de l'Outaouais. I was also fortunate to be president of the Quebec Association of Urban Transit . As such, I have hands-on experience in this issue dealing with urban transit. I recognize the need for investing heavily in public transit and providing people with alternatives that encourage them to leave their cars at home. We must take and are taking action.

Budget 2006 proposes a tax credit for transit passes and a $1.3 billion investment in a public transit capital infrastructure trust. As well, the budget maintains the gas tax funding commitment under the new deal for cities and communities. In 2009-10, this initiative will provide the equivalent of up to 5¢ per litre of gasoline excise tax, or $2 billion, for municipalities. I would point out that some of our biggest cities, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, have already indicated that they will use all of their gas tax funds to support public transit.

While these actions are significant, they are not all that we are doing. Allow me to expand on the government's commitment to public transit.

I am proud to tell members that the budget that was just adopted proposes a 15.5% tax credit for the users of public transit, which takes effect in just over one month. This is real and immediate action.

That means that a person who buys an $80 pass each month will save $150 a year. That is money in the pockets of Canadians who do their part by leaving their car at home. This is important now, and will be even more important for the future. We have to create a culture of public transit in Canada.

And as the government, we will not stop there. One of the biggest obstacles to increasing the clientele of public transit is its relative cost and its practicality. So we have to upgrade and increase the public transit infrastructure.

The government is determined to provide stable, reliable funding to the provinces, territories, cities and communities so that they can meet their infrastructure needs. This investment in public transit infrastructure will make it possible to reduce highway congestion and the associated harmful emissions.

In budget 2006 we are providing $900 million in a public transit capital trust. This trust will help provinces provide funding for capital investment in public transit infrastructure, including rapid transit, transit buses, intelligent transportation systems and other investments, including high occupancy vehicles and bicycle lanes.

A further $400 million in funding for public transit has been provided through agreements with provinces and territories. Nine of those agreements have been finalized and those jurisdictions already have the funds.

The Canada strategic infrastructure fund has been renewed in the budget with an additional $2 billion. This fund is already supporting public transit initiatives, such as the Toronto Transit Commission, the Canada Line in Vancouver and the light rail transit right here in Ottawa. These measures represent real and tangible investment in public transit.

Since coming to power, the government has done more than any other government to encourage the use of public transit.

But not all Canadians have access to public transit. What is more, some people have to use a vehicle to get to work. Therefore we have to consider the matter of the fuels we use for our cars, trucks and other motor vehicles.

Renewable energy sources offer great potential for innovation, job creation and regional diversification. We are setting ourselves the objective of 5% renewable content in Canadian engine fuels by 2010. We intend to move ahead with this commitment, collaborating fully with the provinces and territories. Here is why.

Increasing the renewable energy content of fuels can help us achieve numerous objectives. From the standpoint of environmental conservation, 5% renewable content in engine fuels will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Biodiesel can also contribute to improving air quality.

Economic development is important in everything we do, and there are big upsides in moving on this front. This brings a whole new business opportunity to our farmers and to the forestry industry, and strengthens the local economic bases of our rural communities. If we are smart about how we move this forward, we can help advance next generation technology development and lay a significant stepping stone to future biorefineries and related renewable industrial and consumer based products.

As well, on May 5 I announced more than half a million dollars for projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the freight transportation sector. This funding is provided under the Transport Canada freight sustainability demonstration program.

In French, this is the PDTU.

Transport Canada is also supporting the introduction and use of safe, environmentally friendly vehicles through its advanced technology vehicle programs.

This government fully recognizes the critical role the transportation sector plays in our economy as an open and trading based nation. This sector needs to be a focus of our attention and to make progress on both the economic and environmental fronts.

We have taken action. We are going to continue taking action.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are still a lot of members who want to take part in this debate.

If we could keep the questions and comments and the responses to a minute, we could accommodate more speakers.

The hon. member for Mississauga--Erindale.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister but first, I would like to make a comment on what I see in the environmental plan of the government.

It gives me great concern to see the government take the initiative of downloading its responsibility for the environment on to businesses and organizations instead of taking a leading role in prevention and putting together a plan. Not only is the government risking our fiscal and financial longevity, but it is also risking the future of our environment in this country.

While I do hear what the government and the hon. minister are saying, my question is, does the government have any targeted plans? Do the Conservatives actually have a plan and targeted goals that they expect to achieve within their mandate?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give my hon. colleague a very direct example of the plan.

When we spoke about a tax credit that is going to be coming into play very shortly, as the former president of Société de transport de l'Outaouais on the other side of the river, for the people who live in Buckingham and who have decided to take the bus on a daily basis, their inter-regional pass costs $102.50 per month. That represents that 15% tax credit, plus another 10% that the transit corporation itself will add on to that in order to keep its clientele. That is a 25% reduction, $253 on a yearly basis, which is equivalent to a little more than two months of free bus passes.

That is a very tangible example of what we are doing in terms of diminishing greenhouse gases.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a direct question to all government members and all members of this Parliament: what personal effort have they made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

I can give you my own report card, and I hope that the report card of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will be similar to mine.

The day after our vote on the signing of the Kyoto protocol, in 2002, I bought a hybrid vehicle. I also convinced our environment critic, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, to do the same, which he did a few months later. I also convinced the member for Brome—Missisquoi to get a hybrid vehicle. That is the effort I made.

After that, I convinced the city of Saint-Eustache to get hybrid vehicles, and the city of Deux-Montagnes, and the city of Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac, and the city of Boisbriand.

What has the minister done?

His recommendations on transport are strictly financial and will not contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Sorry to the member, but we must allow more time for other members.

The hon. Minister of Transport.