Debates of May 11th, 2006

Labelling of Alcoholic Beverages

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Scrutiny of Regulations

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations presented to the House earlier today be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

Questions on the Order Paper

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to begin the Bloc Québécois' opposition day on the subject of the Kyoto protocol.

I would like to take a few moments of the House's time to read the wording of the motion:

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 is important to point out that fighting climate change is more pressing now than ever before. When I was elected in 1997, I remember listening to some members of this House—especially the opposition members who now make up the government—debate the phenomenon of climate change. In 1997-98, some of us in this House believed that it was simply a natural phenomenon, and that human actions had little or no impact on the beginning of this phenomenon several hundred years ago.

But the real situation is quite different. Since 1750, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO₂, have risen by over 31%. The snow and ice cover has been reduced by 10%. Since 1950, the surface area of sea ice has diminished by 10% to 15%. Over the 20th century, the average sea level rose by 10 to 20 cm. Extreme events have increased in number, and the warming has speeded up.

In 1988, some scientists organized to form the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That same year, those scientists sent out alarming signals which were the subject of a UN report in 2001 which gave an increasingly clear demonstration that the phenomenon of climate change is very definitely linked to the way that we humans behave. Incidentally, a report by this panel is going to be released in a few weeks. That report will show that climate change is associated with natural phenomena barely five percent of the time. In other words, the very great majority of climate change is associated with human phenomena.

Climate change will of course have major environmental consequences, but also substantial economic and social consequences.

For Quebec, of course, those consequences will be real. One need only think of global warming and the impacts it could have or is now having on the forestry industry in certain parts of Canada. Consider the increase in the number of forest fires and forest zone diseases.

One need only think of the impacts climate change will have on the level and flow of our St. Lawrence River, which are expected to decline by 10% to 20%. That will have repercussions on the shipping industry in Quebec and Canada.

People’s health is going to be affected by this.

So the economic effects, like the social consequences, will be substantial.

This was the context in which the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997. That is an important date. I was in Kyoto in 1997, when the countries signed that important agreement. It provides for a commitment by them to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions: for Canada, to 6% below the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012; for Europe, to 8% below 1988, for the same years.

One could see at the time of the signing of Kyoto in 1997 that Canada was poorly prepared to attain the targets it had set itself. Whereas 15 sovereign European nations first of all agreed as partners on reduction targets that would take account of principles of fairness and of capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Canada came to Kyoto without the benefit of any agreement with its partners. Then, in 1998, the Bloc Québécois formed a coalition, initially a Quebec and then a Canadian coalition, composed of civil society partners, especially young people—I am thinking of organizations such as ENvironnement JEUnesse—who put that coalition in place, demanding that the federal government ratify the Kyoto protocol as soon as possible.

It is thanks in part to the actions of the Bloc Québécois that we have been able, since December 2002, after a vote in this House, to proudly say that we contributed to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. We could be proud of the Bloc’s work with other partners in Quebec’s and Canada’s civil society.

This protocol came into effect on February 16, 2005, thanks to Russia’s support. Today, however, when we take a look at history and all the work that has been done, we get the impression that we are back to square one. When we hear the statements made by the Prime Minister, his Minister of the Environment, his Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and his Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we get the impression that we have returned to 1997, to the time when the government had to be forced to ratify the Kyoto protocol and implement it.

Today, as in the weeks following the election, the Prime Minister has clearly indicated to the population of Quebec and Canada that he was hoping for a new climate change protocol. A new protocol, when there already is one called the Kyoto protocol. This protocol which members on this side of the House want to see respected. This is the primary meaning of this proposal and today's motion.

We expect the government to be true to its word and to undertake to respect and meet the reduction objectives laid down in the Kyoto protocol.

This government must say so in this House today. It must say so internationally in the coming weeks. This commitment must be reflected in a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which we hope to see tabled by October 15, 2006.

This way we can truly keep our commitments and act in such a way that the international community can look at Canada and see that our country intends to respect its commitments. The reality, however, is quite different. The Prime Minister and his Minister of the Environment have committed to presenting a new climate change plan, but it would not necessarily integrate the greenhouse gas reduction objectives.

This a major setback both internationally and domesticly. We have to do something to force this government to respect this commitment.

We hope and wish that, by October 15, 2006, the government will table a plan integrating the greenhouse gas reduction objectives. Furthermore, this should integrate principles of equity, that is, equity towards the industrial sectors which have made efforts in the past, which have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions, equity towards the provinces that dared, from the early 1990s, to put action plans in place to fight climate change, and equity towards those who are prepared to contribute to the international effort.

We are hoping to see an equitable plan; we are also hoping to see an effective plan. The federal government has invested more than $3.7 billion since 1977 in combating climate change, and yet greenhouse gas emissions have risen 24% since 1990. This means that in order to comply with the Kyoto protocol, Canada will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. First, we had a government that presented a plan but at the same time backed off from its reduction objective. Now, we have a government that refuses to apply the Kyoto protocol and that believes that by backing off from it we will be able to meet our international objectives. This is nonsense.

Ottawa has methods available to it for combating climate change effectively that are within its jurisdiction. For example, Ottawa can impose stricter, more severe standards for the manufacture of off-road or other vehicles. That is one of the methods available to the federal government for improving the situation and making an effective contribution to combating climate change.

The government also has methods and tools in the tax system to encourage businesses and individuals who want to make a contribution to combating climate change, whether by eliminating the GST on vehicles that consume less gas, for example, or removing the tax benefits the oil industry is given in Canada. What could be more shameful than saying that we want to combat climate change and at the same time giving tax benefits to companies whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen significantly?

So the principles of fairness, effectiveness and respect for provincial areas of jurisdiction must be observed. Ottawa is sticking its nose into the business of the provinces, and of Quebec, where our performance is quite acceptable, both per capita and in absolute numbers.

We must have an effective and equitable plan. We must also have a plan that ensures that we apply the polluter-pays principle, and not the polluter-paid principle. That is also one of the purposes of the motion introduced today, which forces the government to implement rigorous, clear objectives for large industrial emitters.

By 2010, large industrial emitters will account for 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. We have to attack this problem at its roots. If we want to meet our greenhouse gas emissions commitments, we have to be sure that we are taking effective, rigorous and strict measures to deal with large industrial emitters.

The previous government chose to take the voluntary approach, and we have to admit in this House that it was not successful. The voluntary approach did not produce any improvement in our greenhouse gas emissions record.

When the Minister of the Environment attends the Bonn conference in a few days, we have to ensure that what we consider to be the large industrial emitters, and I stress that I am talking about the “real” large industrial emitters, will be required to contributed to the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It must be done, and I stress: the “real” large industrial emitters. To date, the federal government’s approach has been to penalize industries, particularly in Quebec. We have the example of our manufacturing industry, which has succeeded in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 7%. We have the pulp and paper industry, which succeeded in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 18% between 1990 and 2005.

To date, Ottawa has applied a principle putting industrial sectors, such as the manufacturing sector, despite its reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, on the same footing as the oil and gas sector.

It must be understood that imposing the same reductions—say 15%—on the industrial and the oil and gas sectors and on the manufacturing sector, which underlies the Quebec economy, has the effect of increasing the marginal effort required by our industrial sectors in Quebec and thus increasing our marginal costs. An additional one tonne reduction costs more and is harder to achieve for the manufacturing sector in Quebec than for the oil and gas sector, where emissions have skyrocketed.

We want to see these principles of equity expressed in the regulations we want for the large industrial emitters, since between 1970 and 1999, subsidies and direct aid to the oil and gas industry increased by $66 billion compared to the meagre $329 million that went to the fossil fuel industry.

In 2003, we adopted Bill C-48 in this House, which gave $55 million in tax benefits to the oil and gas industry in 2003-04, $100 million in tax benefits in 2004-05 and $260 million in tax benefits in 2007-08.

In the minute I have remaining, I want to say that we hope Canada will honour the Kyoto protocol, that it will affirm it here in this House, that it will reaffirm it internationally on May 15 at the start of the Bonn conference. Canada must undertake to introduce a plan to fight climate change by October 15. The plan must be fair and equitable and respect the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. We want especially to have the federal government sit down with the Government of Quebec to sign a bilateral agreement, which will be incorporated into the plan the government will introduce by October 15.

That is what our party wants. We are looking today for the support of all political parties, especially the one in government.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

Without a doubt, he is very sincere about his environmental goal. The same is true of all members of this House when it comes to their commitment to the environment.

However, I have a problem with some of the math for Kyoto. If we take Canada's targets, which was a political agreement, if we assume that we can become fully compliant, and if we were to look at the percentage of the impact that would have on the computer based predictions of global warming and run that against the total world contribution, we would find that if we do meet our Kyoto commitments we would change the temperature of the earth by two one-thousandths of one degree in the next 100 years.

Life is about risk and reward. That is not a large reward for the risk that we are posing to Canadian industry and the economy. It does not mean we should do nothing. We should. We should do whatever we can to be part of that process.

I would suggest to my hon. colleague that we could do more by not crippling Canadian industry or running the risk of that and by not shipping billions of dollars in the simple transfer of wealth to other countries that will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases.

Would my hon. colleague consider the value of spending more of our money developing and exporting our world leading technology to help those countries with their technology to make cleaner gas industries that will help the situation a lot more in the long run?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said exactly the same thing as George W. Bush's American government.

The Americans say that the Kyoto approach should not be followed and they advocate a new approach called the Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate. This new approach contains no time frames and no objectives, in terms of the technology.

Why is it not possible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reach our Kyoto target today? Take Europe, for example, which managed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 1.4% between 1990 and 2003. Why? Because, beginning in 1997, Europe decided to really commit itself to the fight against climate change. First, agreements were reached with its partners, sovereign countries, and then action plans were implemented. If it was possible in Europe, why could it not be done here in Canada?

If we give ourselves the means, we can successfully reach our objective. The hon. member would prefer to take the Asia-Pacific partnership route. We hope that this government will not promote it in Bonn in a few days. We see were this government is headed: in Bonn, our Minister of the Environment will promote the Asia-Pacific partnership—as the hon. member just indicated—rather than promoting Kyoto. The environment minister's responsibility in Bonn is to promote Kyoto, not destroy it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the mover's sentiments. The government is obviously not committed to Kyoto either in appearance or in fact.

One of the illusions in the budget that was tabled in the House was the monthly transit pass tax credit. The member will probably know that about 95% of those moneys will go to existing transit riders and the initiative suggests that this will increase ridership by 5% to 7%. However, all of those who are involved in those files will know that there is not that kind of capacity in the existing system which means that there will have to be very significant investment in transit right across the country.

Having said that, if all these are subsidized public transit systems in any event, that likely means the cost of transit will go up to eat up any of the value of the credit. The bottom line is that none of this has anything to do with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions because most, if not all, of the benefit will go to existing transit riders.

Would the member like to comment on the government's illusion with regard to its efforts regarding greenhouse gas reductions?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why our motion calls for an effective plan. The only measure in the budget—the transit pass tax credit—will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any significant way. Once again, this is a very expensive measure. According to Department of Finance estimates, the cost per tonne of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be roughly $2,000.

I have the feeling that the initial measures in the plan and the steps taken by the new government to fight climate change are very much along the same lines as the previous government's strategy, which consisted in investing more than $3.7 billion in combatting climate change while allowing greenhouse gas emissions to increase.

We need effective measures that will get the most out of every dollar spent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I will try to ask my question in French, even though it contains a lot of technical terms and this is very difficult for me.

I realized that the current situation in Canada is a disaster in terms of respecting the Kyoto protocol. The Liberals were in power for 13 years, and we are seeing the numbers now. It is a disaster. Now we have a government that wants to go to Europe to hold discussions with our friend that does not believe in the Kyoto protocol.

My question is this: I know that the member strongly believes in the Kyoto protocol and in preventing climate change. At the same time, he supported a budget that is a disaster when it comes to respect for the environment. Many people in Quebec and the rest of Canada saw that the budget eliminated some environmental programs and will eliminate others. We have lost another year.

In return for its support for such a budget, did the Bloc negotiate with the Conservatives and extract a promise that they would improve the part of the budget that pertains to the Kyoto protocol and the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to clearly state that we are not in favour of this government eliminating or cancelling programs to fight climate change. Every day, we learn that some other such program has been cancelled. What we are saying is that we wish to have an immediate moratorium on the cancellation of programs to fight climate change, while we wait to see the real direction that this new government intends to take on the issue, and before it goes ahead with cuts. My colleague knows full well that, at the last parliamentary committee, I requested that the deputy minister and member of Treasury Board appear in order to explain what evaluation had been conducted last fall of the programs to fight climate change. That would provide the best possible idea of the measures to be taken.

With regard to the budget, I invite my colleague to read page 12 of the budget speech, where the government has undertaken to set aside $2 billion dollars for a future climate change program. That certainly worries us because we do not know how Ottawa will spend that money under the program.

I believe that we must ensure that this government does not make wholesale cuts to climate change programs, since organizations are currently losing funding and we do not really know where the government is going in terms of a climate change plan. What we want today is a commitment that the government will present a plan to fight climate change that will incorporate the Kyoto protocol objectives. I am convinced that the member will support our efforts today.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today and am pleased to give my first speech sitting on this side of the House. It is quite exciting to have the honour not only to represent the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands but also to serve in the cabinet of the government, something for which I am grateful.

I am pleased to talk about the Bloc motion and the importance of the issue that it has brought before the House. I want to talk about where we are going, the importance of the environment to this country and energy efficiency. The Government of Canada is committed to bringing forward solutions to these problems in the coming months and years ahead. That is exactly why, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, $2 billion was committed in the government's first budget to these issues. I want to ensure everybody is aware of that. We want to ensure that taxpayers get the very best value for the $2 billion.

The motion on the floor by my hon. friend from the Bloc calls for us to specifically achieve the Kyoto targets. The problem is that these targets, as everybody is becoming increasingly aware, are unwieldy. After 13 years of government action we must be realistic. That is what we are saying. Everybody here wants to turn the curve down, so we can have a far better record.

However the truth is, and I believe even my friend from Bloc who I have great respect for and have known for many years would agree, that greenhouse gases under the previous government have gone up each and every single year that the Liberals were in office. Nobody will dispute that. They signed on to a climate change program and set a target of minus 6%, but today Canada is 35% above the Liberal set targets. That is the Liberal record, make no mistake about it.

We want to do something about that. We want to see meaningful progress in this area. Has it been a priority of this government in its first 100 days in office? Absolutely, yes. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Environment had discussions on how we can achieve it. We must work together. We must be like gears that are going to mesh if we are going to achieve results and that is what we are committed to doing.

It is not surprising, given the ad hoc approach by the previous government, that some of these programs have been in the headlines. One has to ask what the purpose was of the previous government's programs that it introduced. What was its intention? Let us call a spade a spade. The truth is that lot of those programs were designed to garner headlines. Let us be honest about that.

I go back to what was said by the hon. member. If some of the programs were doing everything they were supposed to, would greenhouse gases be at 35% above the targets? Is that where we would be today?

I can tell the House that in my department there were 115 or 116 programs when the Conservatives took office and 97 of them are intact and working. Yes, there were some programs that we looked at and felt were not in the taxpayers' interests. I will get into those a little more specifically. Were they achieving their goals? No.

Former Liberal aid Tom Axworthy himself said that a press release is not a policy. I would respectfully submit that is what taxpayers saw a lot of in the previous Liberal government. It is no secret that it was preoccupied with creating billion dollar programs, be it the gun registry or HRDC. We saw it over and over again. I would submit that it did not have respect for taxpayers' dollars. Taxpayers have spoken very clearly on this. We have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and they get value for their money. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Some people out there are trying to defend some of these programs and I admit there were parts of them that were probably on the positive side of the scale. I fully acknowledge that, but it is a little late. After 13 years in office, on their death bed, in their last year in office the Liberals said, “Well, we better get serious about this. Maybe this is a mainstream issue”. I accept that the environment is a mainstream issue. It is for me. It is for my colleagues and we are going to do something about it. We are focused on bringing results.

The previous government, in the last four or five years, spent $4 billion on some of its so-called programs. I ask my hon. friend, where are the results? It is not a record of which I would be proud. These are numbers that are indisputable. We will not hear the members opposite stand and discount that the GHGs are 35% above their own targets today. These are numbers set by professionals in the industry, people in departments, not by the people in the Conservative Party. These are absolute raw facts and we absolutely have to do better.

The other part that I struggle with, and I know my hon. colleague will be speaking later, is the spending of billions and billions of dollars to buy credits offshore. In many cases these countries that wanted to buy these credits did not have to do anything because places like Russia, that may have had a collapse in its economy, actually have excess to sell. It is important to note that not one iota of difference was made in the environment. Not one ounce of greenhouse gases would be reduced. We would give billions and billions of dollars to foreign countries. Is that what the taxpayers want us to do? I do not think so.

That is why we are working on biofuels. I know there are discussions right on the front end, a commitment by this Prime Minister that we can make a difference in this area. We want to see results. That is exactly why the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of the Environment are saying, “Let us make sure this works. Make sure we get it right”.

We have meetings coming up with the industries, stakeholders and provincial representatives. We want to hear from everybody and we want to move on it. We want to get our fundamentals right and we want to make a difference.

Moving forward, what is the vision? Where are we going? We are not going to shy away from the problem, but we are not going to play politics with it either. We are not going to worry about headlines. We are not going to play politics with environmental program spending. We want to spend tax dollars on programs that are going to increase energy efficiency.

I acknowledge that there are some people upset about EnerGuide, and yes, we will follow through on those commitments, but let us be honest. Let us be absolutely and painfully clear. This is a program where 50¢ of every dollar went to inspections, administration and overhead. Not a penny of that 50¢ did anything to clean up the environment. I do not think that is very efficient for an energy-efficient program.

Are there parts of that program that we could use? I am a builder. I am a journeyman carpenter. I just built a new home. I put in an energy-efficient heating system. I put in a heat exchanger because there is good value. I understand there are people doing that with some of this money. We will look at things like that where we can see a difference, but we have a fiduciary obligation, as I said earlier, to ensure that taxpayers are getting value and that we maximize the benefits.

The Prime Minister takes this very seriously. He has instructed every single person in his cabinet on how seriously he takes this. That is why we have to make these decisions and that is exactly what we are doing.

I talked about the record. Let us talk about the 2005 record. Do members know where Canada ranked out of the industrialized nations in environmental integrity? Canada was 28 out of 30. These are absolute facts.

The Liberal environmental critic ran for one party and now for another party. I am not sure where he is going. His record is the same on the environment. He is for Kyoto. He is against Kyoto. He voted against Kyoto. Now he is its champion. I remind all Canadians to look at the numbers and to look at the facts. They cannot be fooled. The record is very clear.

How can the government do better? How can we make a difference? Let us talk about the Asia-Pacific partnership. There are six countries there: the United States, Japan, Korea, India, China and Australia. Those six countries represent 50% of greenhouse gases globally. Where can the government get the greatest investment? Is it by sending billions of dollars off to places such as Russia where it will not make any difference? Or do we invest that money in technology? Should Canada develop things such as clean coal technology? Industry is on the cusp of developing technologies to provide very clean and efficient energy. Then, does Canada give that technology to places such as China and India, which would have an enormous impact on global greenhouse gases?

I submit that is a far better investment in dollars. We can become the leader in innovation and technology right here in Canada. That is what Canada needs to do.

I have said earlier that the government is committed to renewable fuels. One of the first things we will see pertains to biofuels. The government wants to set targets and then enforce those targets. The government will ensure that those targets are met. The government is working with the people in the industry and they tell us they can meet the targets. The government will work with the industries and it will happen. We will deliver.

The government will promote the technology side. Canada has the ability and the technologies developing that can capture from some of the large final emitters 100% of CO₂ gases and then pump the gas back down into the ground where it came from. At the present time there is a project where they take back the CO₂ gas that is trucked from the United States to a test facility in Saskatchewan and it is pumped back into the ground. This is working.

I have had discussions with industry. I am pushing industry and saying that we want to invest in this, but it must also. The government is pushing the industry hard, but industry must put a lot more money into the research and technology. If Canada is to win at this game, it will require the federal government, the provincial governments, and the industry to come together. It will require the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to get together and say, “How can we work together? How can we make this happen?”

This is not about us. It is not about them. It is about what is good for Canada. More importantly, if Canada succeeds it can share that with our global partners. I think everyone will win.

Canada wants to ensure that it cleans up the environment. Canada wants to clean up the air and the water. In this budget, on the environment, the government committed $500 million to clean up the nuclear waste liability at Chalk River. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. Did the previous government have the commitment to make that investment? No. Was it in the first budget of the new Conservative government? Absolutely. Why? It was there because it is the right thing to do and it had to be done.

The government must also change how Canadians think. I firmly believe that. The government needs to have an ongoing discussion on what is the best way to change how Canadians think. There is no question that Canadians are moving in the direction of a cleaner environment. SUV sales are falling and hybrid sales are increasing significantly. Hybrid sales rose 68% this month over the previous month. SUV sales have fallen dramatically over the past year. Why? It is because Canadians also want to do their part.

Do they have to be paid with their own money? I do not think so. Do we want to work with them? Do we want to encourage them to do that? Absolutely. Canadians cannot be fooled. They also want to ensure that we will succeed.

The tax deduction on transit passes announced in the budget is an enormous step forward in this regard. We should not minimize it. We are encouraging people to move forward, to get out of their cars in some of the most polluted air basins.

What about the previous government's record? We have seen the increase in smog days. We have heard about them in Toronto, Vancouver and some of the most polluted air basins. A huge part of that pollution comes from automobiles. Can we get people out of their cars? Are we moving in that direction? Absolutely.

We want to achieve results. I look forward to working with my hon. friend and with members of all parties. I know my hon. friend from the Bloc is very genuine. He wants to see us move forward.

It should be no surprise to my hon. friend who put the motion forward that every single program the Liberals created is not working. The Liberals are aware that they were the masters of creating billion dollar programs, whether they funnelled money into their own party as we have seen in the past or whether they put a billion dollars into the gun registry. We saw lots of that. We have seen the Auditor General's reports.

Mr. Speaker, you were probably in this chamber before I was born.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Well, maybe not that long, Mr. Speaker. I mean this with the highest respect, Mr. Speaker, but as the dean of this chamber, there are not many people who have that honour, and you have been here a long time.

Members need to work together. If we are going to win on this file, we have to remove the partisan hats. We have to work together. We have to find solutions. We are committed to doing that. Yes, where there are inefficiencies, where there are programs that are not working, although there might have been a great sales job done on them, we are not going to be afraid to make tough decisions.

I will be frank. Officials have said to me that this is a pretty popular program. But 50¢ on the dollar is not doing anything for the environment. Is that efficient? I do not think so.

I have highlighted a few examples. We are coming forward with deliverables. Canadians will see that in the weeks and months ahead as we move forward. We are meeting with stakeholders daily. The Minister of the Environment and I talk on a daily basis on how important it is to integrate. Her officials from the Department of the Environment and staff from the Department of Natural Resources have travelled across the country already in our first three months in office to talk to the stakeholders, to find areas in which we can improve, to do the blue sky thinking, to brainstorm and think outside of the box. How can we deliver programs, how can we create programs that are actually going to make a difference to the bottom line?

My hon. friend has brought the motion forward with the greatest intent, which is genuine but I ask him to look at the record of the old Liberal government on this file.It is abysmal to say the least, without question. We have inherited an absolute mess.

I heard the Liberals grandstand in the House yesterday about the Minister of the Environment and the challenges in front of her. There is probably not a minister who has a more difficult task in trying to untangle the mess that she inherited. Those are the facts. Members across the aisle are scoffing at me.

Greenhouse gases are 35% above the Liberals' own targets, the ones they set. They have gone up each and every single year since they took office. They did not even begin to think about getting serious until the last year they were in office, and I would suggest they were not serious then because they knew they were on their way out and they thought, holy jumping, they had better do something.

That is the truth. Those are the facts and they cannot dispute them.

Let me conclude by saying that we are going to follow a new path that is effective, transparent and achievable. My hon. colleague will be speaking later. On this side of the House we look forward to working with every single MP. The door is open. We want to hear the ideas of members. We want to work with members. If we succeed on this file, Canada succeeds and we can help the world succeed.

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

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.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member said it was unfortunate the Minister of the Environment was not the first speaker. The Minister of the Environment is sitting right beside me and was in the House for the very first speech. This demonstrates her support for the integrated approach. We are working together, and I will be here when she speaks. It is about working together, not about who goes first or who goes second. We have to get over that.

If we are going to succeed, we absolutely need to be a unified team and move forward. That is what is happening on this side. I invite the hon. member to participate in that team, to bring forward solutions.

As for the results of the previous government and presenting the disastrous news, I agree, it is disastrous news that we inherited from the previous Liberal government. We are working to change that. I look forward to the hon. member's support in doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his first speech. I hope he will not have an opportunity to do too many as a minister, but we will see how that goes.

I want to talk about Kyoto and my position on Kyoto. The fact is I have always believed in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is I was opposed to ratification before the government implemented or had a plan. That is why once the Liberal government implemented a plan, a plan that made sense in budget 2004, a budget that was in fact referred to by the Sierra Club as the greenest budget in the history of Canada, I supported that plan, and I am now opposed to a government that is systematically tearing apart that plan.

It is important to realize that while the Conservatives are critical of the Liberal record on climate change, there was a 13 year period of growth during which the economy grew by 43%. Exports of energy to the United States grew by 52%. It is extremely difficult to have economic growth particularly driven by fossil fuel energy without having a commensurate increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

I find it ironic that the Conservatives who take credit for the economic success of these times actually blame the Liberals for putting the natural gas and oil under the ground when it comes to the environment. The fact is that budget 2004 and our environmental plan had the capacity to work, and in fact were working.

The minister mentioned that the Minister of the Environment has the most difficult task in the Conservative government. I would agree with that. It must be tremendously difficult to be the Minister of the Environment in a government that does not care about the environment.

As to his comments on why he spoke first, it would seem that for the government, ministers of the environment are better seen and not heard. I would argue that the environment should be taking a front seat in this debate, not natural resources.

Beyond that, if the minister is so interested in the efficacy of environmental programs, why did he cut the EnerGuide program which was 100 times more efficient based on Environment Canada's own facts? Environment Canada said that the EnerGuide program was 100 times more efficient than the transit pass program. Why would he cut that program?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I go back a long way. I agree with him that the old Liberal Party did not have a plan. That hon. member voted against Kyoto, as did I, because there was no plan.

We are working on bringing forward solutions that will clean the air, that will clean up the environment, that will have a meaningful impact and where the taxpayers will get the greatest value for those investments. That is exactly what we are focused on.

For the Liberals to say, and the environment critic just said it, that they developed a plan in 2004, what were they doing for the 10 years before that? Is that not a little late? The Liberals signed the Kyoto protocol in 1995, if I am correct.

[An hon. member]

It was 1997.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It was 1997. I know some discussions were going on before that, so I knew it was in that timeframe.

Nevertheless, what were the Liberals doing? It is not okay to wait until they are on their deathbed, until they are on their way out of office before doing something.

The government is doing something now. It is doing something today and people will see deliverable results. I look for every member to come forward with solutions and to work with this government so that all of Canada will be better off and all of Canada will win.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was right on one thing. The Liberals were in power for 13 years and the environmental mess left behind was even greater than when they started. There is no question about that.

I would like to give a bit of a history lesson here. When those members were in opposition for all those years, how many proactive questions did they ask on the environment? They probably asked less questions than the number of fingers on one hand.

That party said, “global warming is a myth”. It said that it was not true. For years the Conservatives did not support supply management for farmers. Now they say they support it. Now they say global warming is a problem.

If my colleague truly believes in cooperation among parliamentarians, does he not believe that Canada cannot address environmental issues independently of itself, that it needs to work in a global atmosphere with all countries in the world, not just China and the U.S.? Kyoto is not perfect. We in the NDP and others would like to see even stronger elements within Kyoto to make real targets and to meet them. When 100 countries can agree on at least something, that in itself is a good basis for a start. Would he not at least agree with that?

One of the first acts of the minister was to say, very clearly, that the Conservatives had a plan when they were in opposition. However, the budget comes out and they allocate all this money for the environment without a plan. How can they say that when they were in opposition, they had a plan, then budget funds without plan? The member says they are working on it, but that is not good enough.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, after our 13th year in government, I am sure that party will be very proud of our results, unlike the previous government.

I want to talk about cooperation. The Minister of the Environment is genuinely committed to this issue. The member and I were both elected in 1997. We sat on the fisheries committee together. The two of us worked together on many files for the betterment of the fishery. We wrote reports together. We had meetings in the evening. This is not about New Democrats, or Conservatives or Liberals. The chair of the committee, the Hon. George Baker, worked with us as well. That was a most cohesive committee.

That is my track record on being sincere, genuine and looking for solutions. I am sure if the hon. member had a chance to respond, he would confirm that. That is my commitment to him today. I ask him to bring forward the ideas of the NDP because we do want to hear them.

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

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

It is notable that the five priorities of the government do not include the environment, which is clearly a top priority for Canadians. The government is driven by ideologies. It is driven by a neo-Conservative ideological perspective not only against Kyoto, but against the science behind Kyoto.

The Prime Minister said this about greenhouse gas emissions, “It is a scientific hypothesis and a controversial one. This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa”. The Prime Minister does not even believe in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions. It is very difficult for a minster of the environment to serve with a government whose leader does not even believe in the science behind greenhouse gas emissions.

It is important to note that the government is off base on a number of priorities.

When Canada needs early learning and child care centres, the government wants to build prisons. When global competition is becoming fiercer every day, the Conservative government's tax cuts are focused on buying votes, not on building prosperity. When global warming is not just a threat but a reality, the Conservative government is the only government in the world to cut environmental investment.

As a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, Canada pledged to work to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberal government understood the critical importance of a healthy environment and a healthy economy. This is a priority for Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It is a priority for Canadians living in coastal communities, as I do, whose very land mass and economic activity and lives are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It is a priority for Canadians living in the north whose livelihoods are dependent on Arctic ecosystems which are being dramatically altered by a shorter freeze of the arctic waters. It is a priority for Canadians living in our prairie provinces whose agriculture yields have been adversely affected by catastrophic droughts, floods and volatile temperature changes.

Canadians in all parts of our beautiful country have become far too familiar with smog alerts, due not only to poor air quality in urban centres, but also to the effects of greenhouse gases which trap heat and toxins in the atmosphere.

In Montreal as in many cities, on smoggy days, our most vulnerable citizens, namely seniors and children, are forced to stay indoors.

Despite the obvious realities, the government's approach to climate change is about as enlightened as those who still believe that the earth is flat. Environmental experts everywhere support urgent action on global climate change. The government refuses to listen.

The Liberal government had put in place programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in industrial, residential and transport settings, important programs that had enlisted the energy, talent and passion of Canadians in the private sector in meeting this challenge head on. The new government is now systematically killing these programs.

The Sierra Club has said this about the Conservative government's recent actions on climate change:

Whereas the rest of the world is striving to reduce emissions and assisting those who are most vulnerable to high energy prices, this government seems set to do the opposite.

The David Suzuki Foundation said:

It’s hypocritical to chair a process that you don’t want to be part of...We’re asking [the Minister of the Environment] to step down because the international climate change process needs—and deserves—someone who will champion the Kyoto Protocol.

Clearly the environment is not one of the Conservatives' top five priorities. It is probably not in its top 100 priorities. However, it is a priority for Canadians. The health, economic and social well-being of Canadians are at stake and they have entrusted us to protect and promote their interests.

This government maintains that there is no point continuing, since Canada will not be meeting its Kyoto targets. It fails to mention, however, that over the past 13 years, our energy exports increased by 52% while the economy grew by 43%, largely in the energy sector, which is the main cause of the increase in our emissions.

It is possible to have economic growth while at the same time having responsible environmental policies. This entails providing incentives for investment and for consumers as well.

Governments everywhere in the world are doing that. They are investing in the environment. They are putting in place incentives for consumers and for businesses to do that. That is what the Liberal government did. That is why the 2004 budget was referred to by the Sierra Club as one of the greenest budgets in the history of Canada.

What has the Conservative government done? It has said goodbye to the one tonne challenge, a program that encouraged Canadians to change their lifestyles to respect the environment. It is goodbye to the EnerGuide retrofit program, designed to help low income Canadians to save money on energy and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a program that was documented by Environment Canada officials as being one hundred times more efficient than the government's bus transit pass program.

That is why the international environmental community is asking for the Minister of the Environment to resign her presidency of the UN climate change conference in Bonn. It is the international environmental community that is now ready to say goodbye to that minister.

John Bennett, chair of the Climate Action Network has this to say about the Conservative Party, “This party that's in power now campaigned about the dishonesty of other parties and on this issue of Kyoto, they couldn't be more dishonest than they're behaving right now....An honourable minister doesn't continue to participate in something they disagree with”.

Why does the government not apply some determination to meeting the challenge of climate change and engaging Canadians in that? Climate change is a long term commitment and it does not end with the first reporting period of Kyoto in 2012. In fact, it is just the beginning.

Environmental policies have to be used to create favourable conditions and promote economic growth.

The growth of clean energy technology in Canada not only improves the environmental performance of Canadian companies, but it has attracted investment in cleaner and more energy efficient technologies, which have strengthened the competitiveness of Canadian firms.

Equally important is the environmental leadership of Canadian companies in the global marketplace. Canadian companies have identified the nexus between the environmental stewardship and competitive performance, developing export markets for clean technologies and processes in countries like China, India and Brazil. It is important to recognize that we gain Kyoto credits when we help countries like China, India and Brazil get the clean energy technologies they need.

I can only lament the myopic lens which impairs the government's ability to see the enormous opportunity for Canadian technologies in these developing markets.

Project Green, announced by the Liberal government in April 2005, was a bold and deliberate approach to ecological fiscal reform as a fundamental means of achieving our Kyoto commitments. Our plan included important measures, measures that had been successfully demonstrated in other progressive jurisdictions. We cannot expect a plan on something as long term as reducing greenhouse gas emissions to have an overnight effect. It takes time. The fact is the plan was there, it was working and it would have worked, but the Conservatives are killing that plan based on a narrow ideological perspective and a lack of believe in the basic science behind greenhouse gas emissions.

We put in place incentives for emissions reductions for large final emitters. We put in place a greenhouse gas technology investment fund, which was designed to fund development of technologies for companies that were unable to meet negotiated targets. The climate fund was established to purchase GHG credits from firms which environmental stewardship resulted in their achieving the GHG credits. We engaged the private sector actively in what is an international imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Our government made a priority of working with Canadians and engaging consumers, the private sector and other levels of government in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It was a priority for us because it is a priority for Canadians.

It is not a priority for the Conservative government. I would urge the government to reverse the cuts of environmental program spending, programs that were working and could have worked and had the capacity to not only build a more vigorous 21st century economy, but also a cleaner, greener planet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague and naturally assume that he supports the first part of the Bloc motion in particular. This motion wants the government to take the necessary measures to comply with the Kyoto protocol. He also seems to think that it is imperative for the government to table a new plan by October 15, 2006.

I know that my hon. colleague is a candidate in the race for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Does he intend to be similarly open to the second part of the Bloc motion, which is to say that the government’s plan should include a bilateral agreement with Quebec, which could be based on a territorial approach?

Is he prepared to indicate from his seat that this plan that the government will introduce should include the bilateral agreement based on a territorial approach and recognize—I emphasize this point—the efforts Quebec has made since 1990 to fight greenhouse gas emissions? Actually, Quebec has one of the best records in Canada when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Is he open to signing a bilateral agreement with Quebec that takes its efforts into account?