Debates of Feb. 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish it were true but the reality and the facts speak for themselves. The NDP has no credibility on this issue as it helped to support the backward motion of the Conservative government, triggering the election that effectively killed Kyoto, Kelowna and the national child care and early learning programs.

The NDP does not want to move forward. It has shown it with its actions. It has no credibility whatsoever. We are the only ones who actually put in place a plan and never moved with the government and the opposition to dismantle it--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would ask all hon. members to allow the people giving responses or asking questions the opportunity to do so.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Don Valley West.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do today is discuss three points. One of them is very much inspired by the intervention by the Minister of the Environment this morning who described Kyoto as a distraction from better ideas like Bill C-30. He said, as well, that Kyoto was a 50 year marathon.

Today I want to do three things. The first is to show why Kyoto is not a distraction; far from it. It is a crucial and essential component to any climate change plan in Canada.

Second, I want to say that if we are going to have a 50 year marathon we need to get out of the starting blocks sooner rather than later and now is the time to do it.

I also would like to describe what the elements of a real climate change plan would look like as opposed to the dribble of reannouncements in a weakened form of things that we introduced, as well as Bill C-30, which, as the member from Timmins pointed out, is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever to hit this House, even though he decided to bring it back for reasons that are not entirely clear to us.

If time permits, my third point will be to set out four criteria by which any climate change plan can be judged for its effectiveness.

I will begin with the necessary connection between Kyoto and a climate change plan in Canada. By definition, climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. The Kyoto protocol is the only global forum in which the world can come together. Despite the imperfections of the protocol, it is the only global forum in which we can collectively advance this file.

It is true that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are only 2% but if we expect others, as the government does, such as India, China and the United States, to do their part, we need them to join in, not for us to leave Kyoto or to ignore Kyoto. We need to stay in and we need to stay in in good faith, as we did under the previous government, to do our part and to help others, particularly developing countries, do their part as well. A global problem demands a global solution and the only global structure for doing that is the Kyoto protocol.

Kyoto will help a Canadian climate change plan. First, it puts our targets and goals into an international framework. It gives us a sense of deadlines, a sense of urgency. If we do not set these targets and these deadlines we will take no action whatever.

Second, if we in good faith attempt to meet our targets and timetables, we leverage our success and results to get other countries to do their part. It also sets in perspective what is our fair share of this problem. We cannot do this in isolation for a global problem.

The third point is that the Kyoto protocol is the only one which gives us access to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, to help other countries, particularly developing countries, meet their targets. It also has the effect of making life easier for Canadian industry.

We forget that when we agreed to international mechanisms, like the clean development mechanism, which allows us to work with other countries to get credits, it was at the request of the Canadian business community.

It is interesting that in one of today's newspapers Stavros Dimas, who is the environment commissioner for the European Union, said this of the clean development mechanism:

This [mechanism] allows national governments to meet part of their Kyoto target by financing emission-reduction projects in the developing world. One tonne of carbon dioxide has the same effect whether it is emitted in Montreal, Mexico or Mumbai. Currently, 168 countries, covering over 90 per cent of the global population, can engage in this emerging carbon market.

Using CDM allows the EU to meet its Kyoto target at lower cost. Most importantly, it also supports investment to boost clean growth in developing countries, demonstrates the potential of new, clean technologies, allows developing countries access to modern technologies and gives EU companies access to new markets. It also means that many more countries benefit from participating in the global effort to limit climate change.

That is why we need to be in the Kyoto protocol and that is why there are these references in the motion today that we must do our part within that framework.

The second question I asked was: What were the elements of a plan B, a serious plan, as opposed to dribs and drabs of announcements in a feeble form of projects that were cancelled a year ago, and of a bill which confuses climate change with air pollution?

The problem we face in reducing greenhouse gases can be divided into more or less six equal components.

Greenhouse gases are produced by electrical generation, upstream oil and gas, heavy industry, residential and commercial, transportation, and agriculture and waste. Each one of those, if we are going to have a solution, takes a treatment and a set of projects, and a set of programs to deal with. They are interrelated, but they are also separate.

How do we imagine undertaking this great enterprise?

It seems to me that if climate change is the problem which every scientist in the world describes and has the economic consequences which Sir Nicholas Stern has described if we do not take action, we need to imagine ourselves mobilizing as we did during the second world war, mobilizing our economy, mobilizing our industry.

It is worth noting that we did that in a five-year period. We went from zero military production to full military production in a five-year period. We knew how to do it as Canadians. That happens to be exactly the same time that remains between now and 2012, the first Kyoto implementation period.

When we did it in World War II, it had the effect of totally transforming the Canadian economy, of creating a great industrial power. That is the way in which we need to view our tackling of the six great challenges, the six more or less equal slices that will require our solution.

What we need, in effect, is to couple our meeting of Kyoto targets, a response to global warming as a new industrial and, I would add, agricultural strategy which will transform Canada's economy for the 21st century, based on energy saving, innovation, and new techniques for agriculture and natural resources.

This will be a great project for Canada. It is never a mistake to undertake measures which save energy, and a great deal of what we are talking about, five-sixths of those slices, are directly about energy.

Finally, I said that there were four criteria by which any plan which addressed these six issues would be judged.

First, does it actually lead to measurable greenhouse gas reductions?

Second, is it efficient economically? Does it help us to be competitive and innovative? Do we undertake measures which are the cheapest way of getting there, as the European commissioner suggested?

Third, which is of concern to all of us, is, is it politically saleable? Is it socially just? Are we being unfair to certain segments of the population? That political test, which is our business, is hugely important, but I think the Canadian people want us to show political will. I think the climate, in every way, has changed not only the natural climate but the political climate.

Fourth, whatever measure we undertake, is it administratively feasible? Is it the simplest way of getting there? Which leads us to market-based regulation solutions like cap and trade which is probably, as we have learned in the fight against acid rain, the simplest, most elegant way of bringing around real reductions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases.

We know that if industry is set a target, given a cap, it will find a way, without our telling it what it is. It will be incented to produce surpluses, to trade and sell to other industries. This is the success, to date, of the European model.

So, with those words, I heartily endorse this motion and wait for questions.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation of my Liberal colleague. He knows, as we all do, that Canadians are asking for much more than what we have seen so far from the government, where the Prime Minister is Mr. denial and the Leader of the Opposition is Mr. delay, on this critical issue of climate change.

We are seeing the impacts this winter, certainly in British Columbia in the Vancouver region. We have seen the impacts firsthand of the fact that this file has been neglected for the last 14 or 15 years. Evidence has continued to mount and no action has been taken.

We in the NDP forced a parliamentary committee to be put into place that would actually draft the legislation that Canadians are calling for. The Conservatives are of course trying to delay the legislation. The member has made a presentation that very effectively shows that perhaps the Liberal Party has learned something. Why are the Liberal Party members on the committee pushing for delay? Any work coming forward would come after the budget is presented. We do not know if Parliament will even be in session after the budget is presented.

My question to the hon. member is quite simple. Will the member convince his colleagues and push himself for a timeline that will bring this legislation that is sorely needed by Canadians back to Parliament within four weeks as the NDP proposed and as the NDP has been pushing for? It is a very simple question. I hope the member will have a simple answer.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is totally muddled on this issue. The member for Timmins—James Bay just told us that Bill C-30 was the worst piece of legislation ever to hit the House. We agree with him, as did the Bloc Québécois and the major environment groups. We said to kill it dead.

Why then would the NDP wish to revive the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? The NDP agreed with us that we do not need the legislation. We can legislate and use all the regulatory power of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act now. We do not even need the bill.

Therefore, why would the hon. member suggest reviving something his fellow member described as the worst piece of legislation ever brought before the House? We can do it better with existing legislation.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Don Valley West for articulating a series of very constructive and specific solutions to deal with a problem that is gripping the nation and the world.

I want to focus on three areas where perhaps he can enlighten us. First, does he not see that the government is employing a tactic of essentially taking our old ideas, dressing them up, watering them down, and reintroducing them as its own? For example, there is the EnerGuide program that he was involved in.

Second, does he not see that tax shifting is something that could be utilized by the government now with existing legislation in order to use economic and financial carrots and sticks to move both industry and non-industrial polluters into utilizing alternative sources of energy and reducing their production of fossil fuels?

Third, does he not see that the impact of reducing our fossil fuels is intimately entwined with our security sector? By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East, we will be able to have a lessened dependence on this very volatile area and, therefore, disengage ourselves from an area that is fraught with all manner of security problems that is impacting upon Canadians today?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to yes, yes and yes. That would be short.

In terms of the first point which is the rehashing of the previous Liberal government's programs which were dropped a year ago without evaluation and which were praised, by the way, by the late, lamented, Commissioner of the Environment, who said that they were effective. What we see now is a feeble simulacrum of those programs. They are a shadow of what was proposed. No one believes the government.

In terms of the second point of tax shifting, this must be part of the package. I would remind members of the House that we had a binding deal with the large final emitters which had a regulatory regime which was going to be in place by 2008. It was not voluntary. It would have yielded 45 megatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Finally, on the fossil fuel point, where Canada unlike Europe is less dependent on foreign fossil fuels, the point is that we do as a world society need to make the shift from a diminishing resource, both in terms of natural gas and oil sooner rather than later, both because the cheap stuff is running out. The longer we use it the more we add to the burden on the atmosphere.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today to this motion and to highlight the efforts of Canada's new government to undertake and deliver real environmental improvements through targeted infrastructure investments.

I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Louis-Hébert. I will outline for Canadians and parliamentary colleagues how this government is delivering true environmental benefits across Canada through its targeted infrastructure spending efforts.

I will also highlight how the government is working extensively with partners at the provincial and municipal level to focus our efforts on infrastructure priorities. These priorities include improvements to Canada's water supply and improvements to mass transit that are paying immediate dividends in improving the quality of life.

However, first, I think it is important to provide some background on Canada's infrastructure needs. The former government did not focus its resources on closing the infrastructure gap and that has resulted in significant challenges and pressures on this country's infrastructure.

Actually, according to a study by Transport Canada, the economic cost of traffic congestion in Canada’s large urban centres is estimated at about $3.7 billion a year—close to $1.7 billion alone in the greater Toronto area.

This calculation does not include the financial impact on our health and our quality of life. Transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, and this sector will play a major role in our efforts to improve air quality for all Canadians.

As we know, today’s economy requires major movements of goods and people, and this has impacts on the environment such as air and water pollution.

These environmental impacts are transformed into real social and economic costs, and have an impact on Canadians’ health and quality of life.

Growth in trade and the continued dominance of just in time delivery models in the freight sector are also leading to significant increases in activity. Overall, freight movement is expected to increase by an incredible 60% between 1990 and 2020, with the largest growth in the aviation and trucking sector.

From 1995 to 2003, the freight moved by truck measured by tonne-kilometres increased by 63%. What do those numbers mean? They mean major air pollutants from transportation activities including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and volatile organic compounds have been increasing, leading to the formation of ever increasing amounts of smog.

Transportation has been linked to 81% of Canada's total carbon monoxide emissions and to 60% of Canada's total nitrogen oxide emissions. Transportation is also the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Total transportation related greenhouse gas emissions increased by 20% between 1990 and 2003.

Approximately two-thirds of these transportation related greenhouse gas emissions occur in urban areas. Smog has been linked to numerous health related problems including cardiovascular ailments and respiratory diseases, notably increased asthma rates particularly among children.

I will try to give you an idea of what this represents in costs for Canadians. The Asthma Society of Canada estimates that more than $12 billion is spent annually on asthma care and treatment. Close to 12% of Canadian children suffer from asthma and every year nearly 150,000 Canadians go to emergency rooms because of an asthma attack.

Is reducing traffic congestion the only solution to the problem? Unfortunately not, but reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of mass transit will improve our living conditions in the long term. And if that means that fewer Canadian children will suffer from asthma, it will be even better.

To this end, we have presented measures to encourage the use of mass transit, while investing in the growth of mass transit programs.

As the government, we believe that we should provide the necessary means to ensure that Canadians use mass transit more. So we have, for example, dedicated $1.3 billion to mass transit in order to relieve congestion in our urban centres, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve the quality of life in our cities—$900 million in a trust for mass transit infrastructure, and $400 million in the form of agreements with the provinces and territories.

When I was chairman of a transit corporation, I was able to see not only how important public transit is in a growing community but also how urgent it is to provide stable, foreseeable funding for it. When we talk about transportation, however, we must not think solely in terms of big money and big projects.

For a lot of people, going to work or other places and then getting home is an everyday concern and accounts for a significant share of their personal budget. It has been calculated, for example, that in 2003 a Canadian household spent an average of $8,353 on transportation—less than on housing, but more than on food.

That is why the new government is giving public transit users a federal tax credit to cover the cost of their monthly transit pass.

This investing in helping Canadians with the cost of bus passes is a tangible effort to provide them relief from the burden of transit costs. Our priority is clear. We will help Canadians by helping the Canadian economy, and we will help the Canadian economy by investing in environmental improvements that enhance the lives of Canadians. This vicious circle has at its core the recognition that this is a joint effort and the federal government must partner with and support other levels of government.

As well, all of the infrastructure programs announced by the new government include environmental objectives, such as reducing greenhouse gases and improving water and air quality.

As this government's first budget and economic update and forecast make clear, we are committed to long term investments in infrastructure. We are developing an infrastructure plan now.

In developing this plan, we consulted the provinces, territories and municipalities and a number of stakeholders about the most effective way to use our investments in infrastructure to promote a more competitive and productive economy, improve the quality of life in Canadian communities, make concrete improvements to the environment, ensure transparency and be accountable to Canadians.

In the near future, and with a view to the commitment we have made to restore the fiscal balance in Canada, we will be announcing how we intend to cooperate with our partners to ensure that Canadians benefit from the money allocated to infrastructure. We have already made concrete investments in improving the environment. Members will certainly understand if I offer them a few examples from my own province to illustrate the approach being taken across Canada.

For example, we are investing up to $36.5 million in the St. Charles River water remediation project , near Quebec City. This initiative will involve the construction of retention ponds, among other things. We are investing up to $58.5 million to upgrade the Atwater water treatment plants in the Montreal region to standard. Throughout Quebec, from Lac-au-Sable to Magog to Chelsea and Rawdon, money is being invested to improve and remediate water quality.

I could also talk about the effort being made in respect of the gasoline tax, but I will leave it to my hon. colleagues to ask me questions about that.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the minister. The first is that I am a little puzzled that in a debate which is essentially about climate change and the Kyoto protocol he would continue as it were to muddy the air and indeed the water by continuing to confuse climate change, air pollution and water pollution. They are all important questions but they do demand different solutions and they have totally different consequences. One is local by character and another is global. I wonder why he introduced that diversion on water treatment plants.

Second, on transit passes, where the advertisement claims that so many cars will be taken off the road and so many drivers will be induced to join the subway system, how does he deal with the inefficiency of that since the people who are most likely to claim transit passes for tax purposes are people who are currently using the system, not people who will be induced out of their cars? It is known in economics as literally the free rider problem.

If he would address those two questions I would be most appreciative.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I sat as a town councillor going to Winnipeg to plead the case alongside my other colleagues from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to have the former government support and sustain the transfer of gas tax money to municipalities so that we could support public transit, act on not only the demand side but also in order to be able to do it and increase the offer.

Those are two elements that my hon. colleague should remember. He should know it full well because he did exercise this task within the previous government. He should also know that congestion is a major problem. He should also know that when we talk about greenhouse gases we are also talking about air pollutants. He should also know that he should be giving his support, like the Canadian Medical Association, to Bill C-30 that helps reduce greenhouse gases. That is what he should be doing and not systematically saying--

“Take it or leave it”, “we fight climate change or we do nothing”. We have seen where doing nothing has gotten us. It has embarrassed Canada on the international stage. It was the previous government, led by Paul Martin, that created that situation.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I remind the hon. minister not to refer to another member by his or her name but by the member's riding or title. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's criticism of the EnerGuide program was that there was an energy audit requirement to ensure that the money in fact delivered real efficiencies in home heating and fuel savings.

With respect to the transit pass credit, however, there is no apparent way of checking that it will yield results. This is the accountability angle which is missing from the transit pass credit. It appears that 90% of the money being invested is only going to subsidize the cost of existing transit riders. Without investment in new infrastructure, there is no possibility of increasing ridership to deliver any benefits.

How does the minister square spending that amount of money which, by the government's own criteria, would be much worse than the situation it criticized with EnerGuide?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that my colleague has made a good point in raising that, but he has omitted to tell us that this government committed $1.3 billion to help support transit in the country.

On the one hand, yes, we are giving tax credits so that Canadians can use that and support the transit system, but on the other hand, we have given $1.3 billion. In my home province, $312 million has been given to the provincial government so that it can support the nine transit corporations in the province of Quebec with their projects in terms of building a better infrastructure.

Is the member asking me whether or not we are consequential with what we are doing? The answer is yes, because we are working on both levels.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's intentions with respect to solving the problem of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted by certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially industry.

On October 19, 2006, the government introduced Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, which gives the government additional, greater powers to take the necessary action to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. The bill strengthens the government's ability to regulate air emissions, including greenhouses gases and other air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The bill is currently before committee and I am eager to work with the opposition to move forward with this important piece of legislation. Immediately after introducing Canada's clean air act, the government published a Notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions, which clearly establishes the government's plans to reduce the greenhouse gases and air pollutants caused by industry, transportation, and commercial and consumer products, as well as to adopt measures to improve indoor air quality.

The notice of intent highlighted the importance of regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution given that industry produces about half of all emissions in Canada, both greenhouse gases and air pollution.

The government will propose mandatory targets for the reduction of emissions in the short, medium and long term. We also plan to adopt an integrated approach to emission reductions so that measures adopted by industry to reduce one type of emission, such as air pollutants, will not lead to an increase in another type of emission.

With regard to short-term targets for greenhouse gases, we are committed to targets that will produce results that are better than those proposed prior to 2005. For air pollutants, we plan on establishing fixed emission ceilings that will be at least as rigorous as those of governments that are leaders in environmental performance. This is an important measure that no previous federal government has implemented.

We are attempting to find the best means for industry to achieve the targets. We wish to ensure that we are putting in place a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost-effective means of attaining emission targets while continuing to meet environmental and health objectives.

We also strongly believe that it is important to support the development of transformation technologies to reduce greenhouse gases—technologies we need to achieve the necessary reductions so we can prevent irreversible climate change.

Fighting climate change and reducing air pollution is not a short-term undertaking, and these problems will not be solved by short-term policies. Fighting climate change and air pollution requires long- term solutions. That is why we have asked the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise us on specific emission reduction targets for the medium and long terms for Canadian industry so that we can reach our health and environmental goals while maintaining a stable economy.

At the end of last year, officials from my department, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada travelled across the country consulting the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups and environmental groups about how best to establish such regulations. We also received over 800 comments from the provinces, industry, environmental organizations and private citizens about the proposed regulatory regime. Nearly all of the comments supported the government's short term measures to fight climate change and air pollution.

I would like to emphasize the fact that we are currently putting all of our efforts into developing that regulatory regime, which will establish realistic short term emissions targets for industry, as well as compliance mechanisms.

The purpose of this framework is to set short-term targets that will put us on the right track to achieve our long-term objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% to 65% by the year 2050, which would improve air quality all across Canada.

We are working relentlessly to complete this regulatory framework. For example, we reviewed the standards set by other governments regarding air pollutant emissions for all industrial sectors, in order to identify primary environmental standards in the world. We organized workshops with experts to discuss two main compliance options: an investment fund to support the development of technologies, and the exchange of emission rights. The discussions that took place at these workshops are helping us make an informed decision on the development of compliance mechanisms.

These measures clearly illustrate the government's intention to regulate the industry's emissions. We have made a lot of progress and we will soon release our proposed regulatory framework. We will be the first federal government to make regulations to help the industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

We intend to continue cooperating with the provinces and territories, the industry and other groups as we develop the regulatory framework and the regulations themselves.

We are not doing this in an unreasonable fashion. We have emission reduction targets that are logical and that will not jeopardize our country's economic growth. Indeed, experience shows that environmental protection can also generate economic benefits.

The industry is not the only source of emissions, but it is a major one. My colleagues will talk about recent announcements on programs and measures to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in other areas, including the residential, commercial and transportation sectors.

So, the government has already taken the first steps towards regulating greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and other measures will be taken in the coming weeks. Through Canada's Clean Air Act, we are also working to strengthen the government's ability to implement such regulations in a cost-effective fashion. We are looking forward to working with opposition members to further this critical issue.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I listened with interest to my colleague's speech, I still do not feel much comfort. This past Christmas, we had an unprecedented situation in Timmins: no snow. In January, people went through the ice and drowned, which is an unprecedented situation. Trucks could not travel up the ice road until middle to late January, and then only pickup trucks because there was not enough ice on the James Bay frontier, again completely unprecedented.

People in my riding asked me how it was possible that the government could talk about dealing with greenhouse gas emissions when the Prime Minister in his end of year address referred to them as “so-called greenhouse gases”. The sense I have from people in my riding is that the Prime Minister simply does not believe it. By calling them “so-called greenhouse gases”, how much clearer can he be in his skepticism?

Through the entire last Parliament, we sat and listened to the Conservative Party come up with every crackpot theory under the sun about climate change, whether it was the flatulence from the dinosaurs still up in the clouds to the rain patterns over the Pacific. We have not heard the government clearly say that climate change is a direct and dire threat. The former minister spoke strictly of smog.

Will the member stand up and say that the Prime Minister does believe in the science of climate change? We have not heard that and people back home simply do not believe the government.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, watching weather reports for one day, one week or one year does not provide an appropriate assessment.

Here is a case in point. Two years ago, we ran out of letters in the alphabet to name hurricanes in the Atlantic ocean. Last summer, there were no hurricanes to speak of, only a few tropical storms. But our focus was on the year when Katrina caused considerable ravages, not so much because of its force, but because the levies keeping the water out of New Orleans were very old and failed. Had these levies not failed, the damages in New Orleans would never have been that extensive.

It is therefore not enough to watch weather reports for one day or one week. We have to be careful not to make mistakes. Yesterday, the temperature was minus 20. We have been having cold weather. One should not rely on the weather reports for December 30 or January 1, but rather on reports for a full year.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the prior government there was $538 million dedicated to closing coal fired plants in Ontario and a further $328 million to support Quebec's Kyoto plan, which was highly touted. There was $120 million in the one tonne challenge, which was well under way. There was the EnerGuide, another $1.8 billion into renewables, and $200 million for the development of technologies.

The government, through its speeches today, has basically said the Liberal government did nothing, but all of these programs that are nothing were all cancelled by the government. So if that is the benchmark, that all those things are nothing, we can imagine what happens when we cancel nothing and eliminate all these important projects.

My question has to do with the reintroduction of the EnerGuide. The government says that we are going to have a watered-down version of the EnerGuide program for consumers, but it is going to deliver more dollars to the consumer than ours, which required an audit to determine that any moneys paid were for legitimate environmental progress in terms of home heating or retrofitting.

Will the member explain, in regard to moneys the government gives to Canadians who retrofit their houses, how it is going to check that they are actually are spending the money on issues related to greenhouse gases?

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. A 10% administration fee will be set aside. The fact is that I have a hard time figuring how the Liberals could justify a program requiring that 50% of the funding go to administration.

I want to tell the Liberal member that working in the private sector is sometimes useful in understanding that 50% in administration fees is totally and completely unacceptable.

I am proud to be helping to achieve an estimated 90% in efficiency.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newton—North Delta, my very capable colleague.

I am very pleased to speak to the motion today. Like many colleagues here, I think some votes are more memorable than others. The vote on Kyoto, which happened in December 2002, was a very memorable one for me. I was sitting in the corner to the right of me and a group of pages were lined up along the wall on both sides. They were not working because it was after hours. I asked them why they were here. They said, very clearly, that it was a very special day in Canada's history and they wanted to be here for that. I will never forget that vote and that is why I am very proud to speak to the motion.

This issue is probably one of the most critical right now, not only for Canada but for the world. It has become a priority in the world as a whole, and 168 countries signed the Kyoto protocol. Every MP has to take this very seriously. The first step when we try to find a solution is to admit there is a problem. I believe that is at the core of what is going on today.

We are way beyond the point of having to convince people that global warming is a problem, but it seems that we still are. We must believe in the science. We must believe in our experts who are giving us the proper information. Every report that has come out lately has unequivocally indicated that we are in a global warming phase and it is caused by human beings. However, it seems the governing party does not necessarily agree with it.

As early as yesterday, when the Conservative members were coming out of their caucus, some of them were asked whether they believed in global warming. They indicated that they had to reserve judgment on that, which I cannot believe. We are not talking about three or four years ago when there was no information available. We are talking about yesterday. It is absolutely unacceptable. We have to believe that climate change exists if we are to believe there is a solution for it. How can Conservative MPs be the last people on earth to acknowledge that this exists?

If I am not mistaken, I saw a program the other day about a poll in rural China. As we can imagine, not a lot of those people have access to a lot of information. However, the number one priority with peasants in rural China was the environment. Probably for obvious reasons, people in China are having huge issues with the environment and it is probably affecting their daily lives. However, if it is the number one priority for people in rural China, it seems to me that members of Parliament on that side of the House, who should be aware of what is going on in the world, should be aware that it is a major issue.

One of the problems I see is the difficulty for the troops to be on board when the leader is not, and that is quite obvious. We saw it yesterday in the House of Commons. We asked the Prime Minister 18 times what he thought about Kyoto and would he reinstate it because he had put it totally aside. We did not get a clear answer. With those questions were 18 quotes from the Prime Minister indicating his disdain for this international accord. The Prime Minister called it a socialist plot. He still speaks about the so-called global warming issue. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Despite that, we seem to be seeing some movement on this. There seems to be a bit of a born again environmentalist movement happening right now. We wonder if it has anything to do with the latest polls, which show that it is the number one issue with Canadians. It bothers me, as a member of Parliament, that a government would react only when it sees a poll. Before that, the environment was probably number 86 or 87 on the list of the Conservatives. It was not even in the top 20. That is a very bothersome indication.

It certainly begs this question. If the Conservatives had a majority government right now, would they make this total about-change right now? I think the answer is no. It is pretty obvious that if the government had a four year mandate, it would not be reinstituting some of the policies brought in by the previous government. I think that is a scary thought for most Canadians.

The Prime Minister seemed to indicate that he prefers a made in Canada solution. It is quite obvious that his clean air act was an absolute bust. Even the National Post criticized it. The National Post never criticizes the Conservative government. That probably gives us the extent of how bad it actually was and how bad a policy it was.

We all realize that greenhouse gas emissions have no borders. The made in Canada solution is not the solution, and that has been quite obvious. This is why 168 countries have signed on to this international agreement.

I will speak briefly to Canada's reputation in this whole thing. Our country has taken one heck of a shot in the last little while because of our abandonment of Kyoto. There are other issues as well. The government's policy on foreign affairs has also been quite radical and disturbing. However, where we probably have been affected the most is with regard to the environment. I believe it is the first time in the history of our country that we have failed to honour its obligations to an international treaty.

I have constituents who have come back from Europe, one from France. People are asking what is happening in Canada. They cannot believe what is going on here. Obviously we are not the only people who are aware that there is a problem. Other countries are very much concerned with Canada's attitude toward the environment and other issues as well.

Canada has always been a leader on the world stage. We have never had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to attend events or to lead them. We have always been a world leader when it comes to this. The conference in Montreal last year, chaired by our new leader, is a classic example of optimism when it comes to the environment. Canada showed its leadership and on the world stage, it picked up our image. We were a leader, not a follower, when it came to Kyoto.

We also have to build our credibility in terms of the damage that was done by the previous minister of the environment. The meetings in Bonn and Nairobi were outright disasters. At the same time, I really do not blame the previous minister of the environment. She was not given anything with which to work. She was told to go out there, stall and pretend that we liked Kyoto but not commit to anything. I feel badly for her. She was hung out to dry. We know that all the policy comes out of the PMO.

It is very important to know that Canadians want us to respect our obligations to Kyoto. That is pretty obvious right now.

We have all had our personal experiences with climate change. Last year I had the pleasure to visit Churchill. It was my first trip there. People here have indicated that the north is probably the first and the most obvious place to be hit by climate change. I did not think tundra melted, but in fact we saw 100 year old buildings that were tilting and falling apart because of that. The science is there, but also we are seeing it with our own eyes.

I also had the privilege of visiting the icebreaker, the CCGS Amundsen, which is an icebreaker that has been converted to an environmental laboratory. Dr. Barber from the University of Manitoba, along with his colleagues from the Université de Sherbrooke, talked to us about the north. He showed us the polar ice caps and the degree to which they have been reduced.

These are facts, and the experts in the world are confirming exactly what is going on out there.

They also talked about the disappearance of certain species of fish and the overabundance of other species. Global warming is changing things around to where it is denaturalizing nature as we used to know it.

Regarding the opening of the Northwest Passage, some people may say that economically this is not a bad thing for Canada, but we have to find other ways to build our economy. We should not count on global warming to be melting our northern passages.

We have all seen green Christmases. We are there almost every year now. It was 16 degrees in Montreal around Christmastime this year, which is totally abnormal. We have all seen the severe storms around the world, which is something that did not happen 10 or 15 years ago. These days it happens more frequently.

I will speak quickly to two things that we in Manitoba should be supporting to achieve our objectives.

The east-west power grid is something our party supported wholeheartedly the last time. We have 5,000 megawatts of power right now. Ontario needs 25,000 megawatts. It is clean energy. We should support this wholeheartedly.

The second project is a $200 million investment in wind power in St. Leon, a small town. This is a huge investment which is very important for that town. Farmers also get an economic spinoff because they receive $4,400 per windmill on their property. It added 100 megawatts of power to the grid in Manitoba.

Wind power and developing new hydroelectic power is absolutely critical. There are ways to achieve Kyoto.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of my hon. colleague across the way. He stated many times that yesterday he asked the Prime Minister 18 times in the House of Commons if he agreed that there was climate change. Actions speak louder than words.

The Conservatives have made very meaningful strides in the first year of government to improve the environment. That is opposed to the record of the former Liberal government, which saw an increase of 35% in emissions, showed no plan and had no regulations. Its plan was to send $5 billion to Russia for hot air credits and not change a thing environmentally.

I do not know how the member opposite thinks that sending money to Russia for plants that have already been closed down and allowing Canadian plants to continue to pollute is helping the environment. This may be Liberal thinking, but I certainly cannot follow it. It does not make any sense at all to me.

The Conservatives have actually made a difference. Look up the kinds of things that have happened. It is very clear that we made mandatory rules rather than voluntary rules. We have taken mercury out of the air. We have gone as far as banning items found in any Canadian household that are causing diseases. We have looked after the cancer issue or are well on our way to doing that. We have received support from the Canadian Medical Association. We have a thumbs up from environmental groups that actually care about what is happening in Canada.

Doing nothing for 13 years is what has given Canada its black eye internationally, as the member referred to it.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the Prime Minister were proud of his accomplishments, he would have said that he supported Kyoto and change. Yesterday there was dead silence in the House of Commons.

What the hon. member was speaking about does not affect climate change at all. It is something completely different. What the Conservatives are proposing to affect climate change is totally different from what the Liberals are proposing.

It seems to me that if there would not have been pressure from this side of the House and the Canadian public, the Conservative Party would not have reintroduced most of the Liberal programs. EnerGuide is finally back. I am not sure what it is called these day, but it was certainly a Liberal program, with some cuts to it. Most programs that have been reintroduced have had cuts as well.

Thank God the Liberals introduced some programs that the Conservatives could copy. Otherwise there would be absolutely nothing on the table right now.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very specific question about my riding. I know the member is quite familiar with my riding and some of the impacts that have happened.

The example I will give is there are schools actually waiting to go into the northern communities, 21 fly-in communities. The weather has become so warm that the ice roads are no longer safe. People are risking their lives trying to drive on those roads. When it was common practice before, they were good for six to eight weeks. Now we cannot even get schools to stay there. Bridges need to be built, but none of the material can be transported simply due to the warm weather.

What does my colleague think about the impacts for the remote communities if we do not do something and if the government does not take some action?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, not only do I know the member's riding very well, but I had the pleasure of working up there for 18 years during the summertime and other times with my work. I had to drive on winter roads, so I know the situation extremely well.

If people are not bringing in materials by winter roads, the cost of bringing them by plane is abhorrent. No one can imagine the additional costs that would have to be incurred to bring materials up north.

The whole system is absolutely essential to the transportation system in winter. One of my NDP colleagues said the same thing a little while ago. Global warming is having an impact. It is not only an environmental disaster, it is also an economic disaster. When the Conservatives figure that out, maybe then they will move on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have time for a short question.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Secretary of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised by my hon. friend's remarks, given that, just yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said:

“At the outset of my remarks let me start of today by saying that I believe that climate change is a real and serious issue facing the world today. It is undoubtedly the biggest environmental threat that we are facing. Let me also say that this government recognizes that the Kyoto protocol is all about a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions around the world and, most importantly, for us right here in Canada”.

Did my friend note that statement yesterday? Did he hear it?