Debates of Feb. 8th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Kyoto Protocol

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to read Quebec's energy policy. It does not say anything about oil and gas development in the St. Lawrence. That is one important element. Quebec's position with regard to its energy policy remains and will continue to be based on the production of electricity through hydroelectric power and wind power.

I think that Quebec could contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through a carbon market. I am also thinking of New Brunswick, among others, with the Belledune plant that produces greenhouse gas emissions. I am confident that the Gaspé could, in a carbon market, sell or trade its greener electricity to a province that produces a lot of greenhouse gas emissions because of the Belledune plant that is still open, among other reasons.

Quebec's energy policy has not changed. It is based on the development of hydroelectric power and wind power, both of which are renewable energies.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that my hon. colleague is very concerned about the environment. He was just telling us about renewable energies, which is very interesting.

I would like to know what he thinks about our government’s strategy, which is to work more on renewable energy, biofuels and the wind sector. Does he think this is a good approach for our country?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have always thought that we need to invest public funds and make them available to industries that want to develop wind power and renewable energy in Canada. The reality, though, is that the previous and current governments have always given major tax breaks to the oil industry in Canada. It was true of the previous government, it is true of this government, and it is true historically because $66 billion have been invested since 1970 in the development of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels.

The problem with the federal government’s announcements on renewable fuels is that they are not very well suited to the reality in Quebec. Quebec has more wind energy projects producing kilowatt hours of electricity than this program permits. The hon. member should know that the WPPI program, for example, which is supposed to encourage the development and production of electricity through wind power, includes ceilings that prevent some provinces and companies from receiving the maximum for the projects they are submitting now to the federal government.

The development of renewable energy in Canada is therefore constrained by programs that are poorly designed and inappropriate and that fail to meet the needs of industrial sectors and provinces that want to produce this energy. That is why we say that for every dollar invested, why not just transfer Quebec’s share. In this way, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could be maximized for each dollar invested.

The Conservatives always decried the Liberals, saying, “You invested billions of dollars in the fight against climate change and emissions increased by 27%”. It is not different programs we want but a different approach—one that is more efficient, more effective and fairer, and the way to do this is through a territorial approach.

For example, Quebec would be left with the task of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6%. It could adopt any policies, plans and programs it wants so long as it reduces these emissions by 6%. However, the money that is transferred to Quebec and invested in the fight against climate change would probably be invested in sectors where Quebec does not do very well. Industry in Quebec has already reduced its emissions by 7%. This is not the sector we should be focusing on in Quebec but rather on transportation. This $328 million transfer to Quebec would make it possible to invest more effectively and do a better job of reducing Quebec’s greenhouse gas emissions.

If the government want to take effective action against climate change and achieve its Kyoto targets, it should change from a sectoral approach to a territorial approach. It is not just a question of programs.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Louis-Hébert.

In many comments we hear in this House concerning the government's environmental agenda, and in particular its ecoenergy renewable initiative, there is little mention of what we are actually talking about.

I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the various kinds of renewable energy with which the government's legislation is concerned. Canada is blessed with abundant energy sources, both conventional and renewable. Conventional energy sources will continue to be a large part of Canada’s energy mix. Fossil fuels are a long way from becoming dispensable. However, the share of clean renewable energy in Canada's energy mix will continue to grow.

Renewable energy has been defined in many ways. Generally speaking, it means fuel sources that produce usable energy without depleting resources, as is the case with fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal.

Renewable energy has also come to mean low or zero emissions of air pollutants or greenhouse gases. In accordance with this commonly accepted definition, the main sources of renewable energy are water, biomass, wind, solar and earth energy.

Using more of these energy sources to improve the environment is basically using the environment to improve the environment. This is what the ecoenergy renewable initiative is attempting to do.

Let me focus for a moment on these various clean sources.

First, there is wind energy. The energy of the wind can be converted into mechanical energy or electricity. Wind energy is an infinitely renewable form of energy. It does not require fossil fuels, and it does not produce greenhouse gases or other air pollutants.

Although people have used wind energy for thousands of years, modern wind technologies provide reliable, cost-effective, pollution-free energy for individual, community and national applications.

In good wind areas, the costs of generating electricity range between 5 and 10 cents per kilowatt hour—higher than traditional electricity generation but decreasing every year. Most conventional generation costs continue to increase.

As of November 2006, Canada’s installed wind-energy capacity was 1,341 megawatts, enough to power more than 400,000 homes. Each megawatt-hour of electricity generated by wind energy helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants that would otherwise be produced by fossil fuel-based generation.

As for solar energy, there are many ways to transform sunlight into energy. However, the main kinds are solar panels that convert sunlight directly to electricity, or photovoltaic panels, and panels that absorb heat from the sun and transfer it as space heating or water heating.

Solar energy has a number of advantages. It does not emit air pollutants or greenhouse gases. The energy from the sun is virtually unlimited and largely free once the initial cost of the installation has been recovered. Solar photovoltaic energy systems can be stand-alone or connected to a power grid.

Hydro power uses energy from flowing water to generate electricity. Hydroelectric energy is Canada’s main source of electricity, most of which comes from large projects developed by electric utilities.

Today, more small-scale hydroelectric projects are being developed. These smaller projects are often classified as small, 1 to 30 megawatts, mini, 100 kilowatts to 1 megawatt, and micro, 100 kilowatts or less. Small-scale hydro projects take up little space and do not require the construction of dams, since the turbines are generally placed directly in the flowing stream. As a result, small-scale hydro projects are much less expensive than the traditionally large hydro projects that have involved massive amounts of earth moving and the construction of large facilities.

Small-scale hydro can be a competitive source of clean, reliable energy. It is an especially attractive alternative to traditional high-cost diesel generation that currently provides electricity in most of Canada’s remote communities.

Two types of energy can be obtained from the earth: earth energy and geothermal energy. Geothermal energy uses steam or hot water in the earth's crust to power turbines or to heat buildings or water. If the local geography has the right features, geothermal facilities can be installed to capture steam as it escapes from cracks or holes underground. Geothermal energy requires a source temperature of more than 100°C to drive a generating turbine.

Earth energy uses the relatively constant temperature of the earth below ground or below a body of water to cool or heat air and water for buildings. For example, a heat pump can extract heat from underneath the ground to heat a building. In the summer, the pump can be reversed to provide air conditioning by moving hot air out of the building and down into the ground.

There are thousands of earth-energy installations in Canada that are used for residential, commercial, institutional and industrial applications. Depending on the source of electricity used to run the system’s components, an earth-energy system can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than two-thirds compared to similar systems that use fossil fuels.

Bioenergy is produced by the release of chemical energy contained in fuels made from biomass. Biomass is stored solar energy in plants and many common waste products such as wastes from agriculture, forestry, municipal landfills and food processing. Biomass can supply heat, electricity and vehicle fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

Achieving an increased contribution of these inexhaustible energy sources to Canada's grid is what the government's ecoenergy renewable initiative is about. In particular, the government's investment of $1.48 billion in one renewable program, ecoenergy for renewable power, aims to boost Canada's supply of renewable electricity by 4,000 megawatts.

We have discussed today the many opportunities provided by new technologies. Soon—in the short, medium or long term—Canada will have to intensify efforts in research and development to develop new sources of renewable energy so that future generations can benefit from new energy sources and supplies, allowing us to diversify. That is very important because all members of this House, including the Bloc members, I am sure, realize that fossil energies will become limited in years to come. It is very important to any seriously environment-minded government to pursue efforts to ensure that more Canadians have access to our stable and, more importantly, renewable energy resources.

If we want to rely on our environment and to have a clean and healthy environment for future generations—we can certainly not do without energy altogether—this government thinks that renewable energies are important, as one long term alternative to provide future generations with heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, lighting and a good life in our great and beautiful country.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his fine presentation. However, today, we have not dealt with the subject of the motion.

The motion says:

That, having recognized the principle of complying with the Kyoto targets, it is the opinion of this House that the government should provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

That is what we are debating today.

The member may have forgotten to outline the attitudes of the Liberal and Conservative governments of Canada with regard to achieving Kyoto protocol targets. The effort required was not made. Allowable limits were exceeded 30 times over.

Putting aside the member's lovely rhetoric on new energy sources—I will not go into that this morning, as it would make a good course for high school students—I believe this is a political issue.

We say that we are here to defend Quebeckers and 76% of them want the Kyoto targets to be met. The Conservative government's plan will not achieve that objective.

What does the member have to say about that? Does he believe that he is really listening to what Quebec wants? Environmental, political and economic stakeholders have asked for the $328 million—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

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

In my presentation, I believe that I clearly stated that renewable energy will be important to the future of our country. We are all aware that quantities of fossil fuels will diminish in the generations to come and that we must change the balance in our consumption of fossil fuels and renewable energy. I believe that Quebeckers are very aware of this major challenge and that they look forward to tackling the challenge with other Canadians in order to have a cleaner source of energy.

Furthermore, I would like to say to my colleague that renewable energy will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which will allow us, in the long term, to approach the targets we wish to attain for the well-being of Canadians.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears my honourable colleague from Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is very familiar with the information available all over the Internet about greenhouse gases.

But I wonder if he has taken the time to read the documentation out of Nairobi this summer, when it became clear that the only American plan receiving any praise was not the Conservatives' plan; it was Quebec's plan. Even so, his government is refusing to give Quebec the $328 million the province needs to put that plan into action.

Does my honourable colleague think that only his party has the right idea and that everyone else in the whole wide world is wrong?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

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

The Conservative government is responsible for ensuring the stability of future energy sources for future generations, unlike the Bloc Québécois, which will never be able to make any decisions to help Canadians in terms of environmental or energy issues. We have to be responsible and we will do our duty.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that global warming poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians.

The recent report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) raised the alarm yet again. The time has come to recognize that scientific support for fighting climate change has grown over the years.

I would like to make three points briefly: first, the scientific basis for mitigating climate change is well founded; second, we are already seeing the effects of climate change; third, we must be ready to deal with other effects in the years to come. Some of these effects are inevitable, and we will have to adapt.

When we look at the science of climate change, we cannot fail but notice that climate experts from the world over agree on a number of points. First, the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing. Since the start of the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased from 280 parts per million to nearly 380 parts per million—an increase of 35%. This figure is higher than any figure collected from ice cores, data which date back several hundreds of thousands of years. Scientists have concluded without a doubt that the increase in carbon dioxide is the result of human activity, primarily the consumption of fossil fuels, which releases annually thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxides, have also increased considerably over the same period. We also know that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will continue to climb. In the case of carbon dioxide—CO₂—the figure will be some 2 parts per million per year unless we do something to cut our emissions. This is why the new government intends to act. As the Prime Minister said on February 6, the government will regulate atmospheric pollution from the major industrial sectors for the first time. It will also regulate the energy efficiency of motor vehicles for the first time starting with 2011 models. Furthermore, for the very first time, the government will make regulations for the short, medium and long terms. These measures will benefit all the provinces in Canada, including Quebec.

Scientists also agree that the temperatures of the earth’s surface have increased by some 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century. Recent decades have been the hottest in several hundred years, and the 1990s were the hottest decade in the past one hundred years, with 1998 being the hottest year on record. This evidence indicates clearly the recent temperature increases are very unusual.

As my colleague from Simcoe—Grey pointed out last week, the increases in temperatures we are experiencing have resulted in changes, such as fewer icebergs; infestations of mountain pine beetles, which have had a disastrous impact on the BC forest industry; the drought in recent years on the Prairies, which has cost the farm economy billions of dollars; extreme weather conditions on the west coast in recent months and an early but exceptionally mild winter on the east coast. Although these phenomena cannot be attributed individually to climate change, they are however in keeping with scientists’ forecasts on the potential for other extreme weather phenomena.

What can we expect in the future, according to the scientific community? First, we can expect greenhouse gas concentrations to continue to rise, to double, even triple, before the end of the century. To avoid these increases, drastic measures will have to be taken to reduce our emissions. That is why Canada’s new government will see that greenhouse gas emissions are regulated in the main industrial sectors. The age of voluntary compliance is over: I would emphasize that fact.

Second, having applied sophisticated digital climate system models to a spectrum of possible future greenhouse gas trajectories, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that we can expect the temperature of the earth to increase several degrees by 2100.

That sort of temperature increase, at that sort of speed, has never been seen in the past 10,000 years. Note that this period is one of the most relevant to us, for this is the period when human civilization evolved.

As I was saying earlier, the concerns are not limited to changes in average temperature: there is also the greater frequency and severity of extreme meteorological conditions and phenomena, such as floods, droughts, heat waves and winter and summer storms.

Given the changes already observed and the changes we can foresee, it is clear that we have to take the necessary steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It is also imperative that we start preparing ourselves for the changes to come, start preparing to adapt. Since greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for many decades, even after emissions are reduced, we will have to face other changes of climate and we will have to put in place the measures necessary to adapt to those changes.

In summary, the Government of Canada is extremely concerned by climate change, and recognizes that there is sufficient evidence to justify the adoption of tough measures for confronting the problem and beginning to manage the risks posed by climate change.

The new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provides conclusive additional evidence that the climate has changed, that human activity is the cause, and that we can expect unprecedented changes in the future.

It is imperative that we take the necessary measures immediately, and that is what the new government is doing. The children of Canada, the children of Quebec, deserve to grow up in a world where they can breathe clean air and drink clean water. In short, as the Prime Minister said, Canadians and Quebeckers will be able to enjoy a country that is cleaner, greener and healthier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech, which came essentially from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is not the only kind of speech we expect from the member opposite. He does not have to convince us of the existence of climate change. We, on this side of the House, have long understood that climate change is important and that it is linked to human activity.

We want to know if the member intends to support the motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois calling for a $328 million transfer to the province of Quebec for the implementation of its plan to fight climate change. Quebec is prepared to finance 72% of the work. We are asking the federal government to make an effort, to stop giving tax incentives to the oil and gas industry, and to give the $328 million to Quebec, which truly wishes to fight climate change.

Can he answer our question?

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

Mr. Speaker, I always take great pleasure in answering questions.

That being said, we are talking about tax incentives for the oil industry. Perhaps my colleague has never worked in the private sector. Depreciation always has to be taken into account in any investment we make. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested and, as is the case in any other industry, depreciation has to be taken into account. I do not see why there would be a difference between depreciation in the oil industry, in the forest industry or in any other industry. This is the most basic business rule.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask him a simple question. That way he will stay on topic when answering.

Is he prepared to vote for the Bloc Québécois motion that calls on the federal government to provide $328 million enabling Quebec to implement its plan for meeting Kyoto protocol targets for greenhouse gas reductions? Yes or no?

That is straightforward. I have asked a simple question and I hope he will not go off on a tangent.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Kyoto protocol measures, my Bloc Québécois colleague on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development knows quite well that we heard from almost 30 witnesses and not 80%, not 90%, but 100% formally confirmed that Kyoto protocol targets cannot be met within the prescribed timeframes. My colleague was there and will be able to confirm this.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make the question even simpler. Will he vote for or against the Bloc Québécois motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, how my friends amuse me. We are talking about solving the fiscal imbalance in the next budget. It may be better to curb our zeal. If the matter was so urgent, why did our Bloc Québécois colleague vote against having additional meetings for the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Why did he vote to send Bill C-288 to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development? Was it an attempt to waste the government's time on the report on Bill C-30 that was to be tabled? Why did he invite a ton of witnesses? Again, was it to delay Bill C-30? My Bloc Québécois friends and colleagues make me laugh when they puff themselves up and turn on the dramatics because when it comes time to take action, they slam on the brakes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I am pleased to take part in this important debate on the environment. It is a wide-ranging subject, but with this motion, we have decided to focus on Quebec's specific request. The Government of Quebec has long been calling on the federal government to provide it with $328 million so that it can meet its Kyoto protocol targets.

To remind hon. members exactly what we are talking about, I will read the motion, because we were treated to 20 minutes of rather academic speeches. I could see that you were very interested in what was said, Mr. Speaker. I felt that, for two government members, they did not outline any very concrete measures, although they did tell us that climate change was very important. We already know this, but I would have expected them to answer the question that was just asked—are they going to vote for or against the motion?—especially since they are government members from Quebec. Will they vote for this motion to give the Government of Quebec the $328 million it is owed, to help it implement its plan to comply with Kyoto? The motion reads as follows:

That, having recognized the principle of complying with the Kyoto targets, it is the opinion of this House that the government should provide the Government of Quebec with the sum of $328 million to enable it to implement its plan to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

This motion is crucial to Quebec, which already has its own green plan, as hon. members know, but which lacks that sum of $328 million that will allow it to reach its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels.

I come from the Bois-Francs area, which has long been known as a cradle for sustainable development. It is the birthplace of Normand Maurice, who is the father of recycling and recovery. This region is where the Lemaire family is from; they set up the Industries Cascades. As you can see, I am acutely aware that I am representing a region and a population that have long understood the importance of the environment and, likewise, sustainable development.

As elsewhere in Quebec, the people in my region support the fight against climate change. I want to remind hon. members that a survey conducted just a few days ago, at the end of January, for The Globe and Mail and CTV, showed that nearly 80% of Quebeckers find that the government must make the necessary efforts to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. I imagine that the predecessors of the Conservative government who responded to the survey were not part of this 80%, but, in fact, a majority of Quebeckers understand the situation and want governments to take action.

While it has become fashionable to claim to want to protect the environment, I would like to remind hon. members of the work done by the Bloc Québécois, its environment critic in particular, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who I commend. While listening to him earlier, I realized how effective his educational work is. His explanations and actions spell out the situation quite clearly and show us why the Government of Quebec is making this request. He drives a hybrid car. I think it is important to point out that he may not put the pedal to the metal, but he can drive at a respectable enough speed while saving fuel and protecting the environment at the same time. Far from slamming on the brakes, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has done a tremendous amount of work in this House. Without him, we would be far from where we are today on a number of bills and measures. I wish to acknowledge the work he has done here.

I was a candidate in 2000 and, even then, the Bloc Québécois electoral platform emphasized the need to implement measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Again today, the Bloc Québécois is proposing tough greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles, discounts on the purchase of ecological vehicles, significant financial support for development of renewable energy sources—especially wind power—and an end to the tax system that favours the oil companies. The Conservative member from the Quebec region who spoke earlier seemed to be quite offended that we are calling for abolition of a tax system that favours the oil companies, as though those people could not survive these days. It is a little bit like saying that perhaps we should be helping the banks and giving them subsidies. It is the same principle. We also are proposing funding for organizations that contribute to the achievement of the Kyoto protocol targets.

That is what the Bloc Québécois is calling for in its platform. We are where we are today because of my colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who has worked for so long, and obviously the whole Bloc Québécois team and its members, meeting in convention, who have recognized for a long time how important the environment is for all of us.

Once again today, I am proud to carry the colours of a party that so ardently defends the need to take real measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve the Kyoto protocol targets through concrete actions, as I have said, such as putting forward this motion.

It is not enough to put on a green scarf at a leadership convention to suddenly become a great defender of the environment, as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada did. We all remember that image. We said that all of a sudden he was a “green” man. His scarf was green, but as for the rest, we must look at the actions that have been taken.

It was under his stewardship, while he was Minister of the Environment, that greenhouse gas emissions in Canada increased by 24%. I am talking about the time since 1993 because, earlier, my colleague spoke of an increase of 27% since 1990. It seems to me that to date, since the Liberals came to power, we have had a 24% increase in greenhouse gas emissions while the Kyoto target, as I recall, was a reduction of 6%. It is a disaster, a monumental failure. Yes, you can put on a green scarf. That might protect you against the cold; but that does not make you a great defender of the environment. The voluntary approach of the Liberals is a failure.

What is there to say about the Conservative government? Elected just over a year ago, it presented its five priorities—as we all recall—but the environment was not one of them.

As agriculture critic, I often speak with farmers about all the things that are going on in the House of Commons. I tell them often that this government has five priorities. The priorities of the entire population of Quebec people and the entire population of Canada are not necessarily the priorities of the Conservative government. It talks of law and order, and of all manner of things, but not of agriculture or the environment. In campaigning for election, I often tell the people of my riding “Your priorities are my priorities, and I will transmit those priorities on your behalf to the House of Commons.” I cannot understand how a government can be so insensitive as not to grasp that the priorities of the population must be its priorities, because its members represent the population. They were sent here for a reason: to represent the population.

As has been said, with reference to the supporting survey, the public has long been prepared and long been aware of how important it is to deal with climate change. That, however, was not a priority for the government in place, the self-proclaimed “new government”. The new aspect was that the environment is not a priority. If something like that were a new product on the market, I can tell you that it would not exactly be flying off the store shelves.

As a result of the polls just referred to, of public opinion, of the work of the Bloc Québécois and the work of the other opposition parties—also needing to be mentioned—the Prime Minister has just added the environment to his priorities. High time too, considering this government was sworn in a little over a year ago. All of a sudden, they are saying the environment is a priority. I do not know how sincere this is. It is a bit suspect, particularly when it comes to actions actually taken to make the environment a true priority.

We still need to act, as other industrial countries have done. Germany and the United Kingdom come to mind. My hon. colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is certainly in a better position than I am to talk about what is happening elsewhere, for example in Europe. I do know, however, even if I am less of an expert than he is in this area, that some industrialized countries have been able to meet the Kyoto targets after signing the protocol. So why not us? Often, one compares oneself to console oneself, but here in Canada, that is not at all the case. Political will is needed, to truly invest in the fight against climate change. That is what must be done. That is what certain countries have done.

Economically speaking, the recent report prepared by Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank chief economist, recommends that every country should immediately invest up to 1% of its GDP in the fight against climate change in order to avoid future economic losses that could exceed $7,000 billion world-wide. It is hard to even imagine such a figure. That is a sum 20 times higher than the cost needed to reverse the trends. So, let us reverse the trends, because that will cost a lot less than sitting here with our arms crossed and both feet on the brakes, as suggested earlier by a Conservative colleague, referring to us.

I think he was merely projecting. It is the Conservative government, rather, that is slamming on the brakes when it comes to the environment.

Why can other countries do it, but not ours? Yet, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002. As I was saying, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have failed. Their inaction is shaming us on the international stage. Quebec has a plan. It needs $328 million more, which the Liberals and Conservatives refuse to give.

Quebec wants to implement a plan that suits its situation. If the federal government is serious about its desire to reduce greenhouse gases, the Bloc Québécois calls on the government to take a simple but effective action: vote in favour of this motion and give $328 million to the Quebec government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech, both as an MP and also as Bloc Québécois agriculture and agri-food critic.

I have a few examples of how farmers are also prepared to take part in programs to fight climate change. We have approximately 44,000 farmers in Quebec. I know that, since 1990, they have used their own money to implement environmental protection programs . Since 2003, 11,000 of these 44,000 farmers have supported a greenhouse gas reduction program. This proves that all sectors of Quebec society are prepared to commit to the fight against climate change.

My second example is that of Cascades, which is in my colleague's riding. This company—together with the Desjardins movement, business people and the mayor of Montreal—sent a clear message to the federal government that it wants the Kyoto protocol targets to be met.

My question for my colleague is as follows: is it not obvious—as we are told daily by business—that fighting climate change and protecting the environment do not run counter to significant economic development in Quebec?

Can he tell us if he believes that environmental protection represents a constraint on economic development or, on the contrary, does it provide economic opportunities for Quebec's development? I believe this is important.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just summed up the situation very well. In Québec, we have trailblazers like the Cascades company and farmers. They realized non-sustainable development was not an option. Indeed, our society needs to develop, but we cannot use our resources needlessly just to make a profit. True enough, you can make money with a short- term vision. But as my colleague said, we realized in the agricultural industry that if you exhaust the land, if you use up all your products and everything from which you earn a living, it will some day come to an end, for generations to come.

We must take care of the environment. Farmers being on the land and working on the land are probably the first ones who realized it was important to preserve all we have, not only for environmental but also for economic reasons.

Obviously, not everybody in the business community resorts to reckless development, quite the contrary. And Cascades is a fine example.

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

Mr. Speaker, I read lately that China is considering the construction of 2,300 new coal-fired power plants, that is one new plant every 10 days. Carbon emissions would increase not by megatonnes, but by teratonnes.

One of the hon. member’s colleagues is whispering an answer to him, because he might not be able to find one by himself.

So, China is planning some 2,300 new power plants. China has ratified the Kyoto protocol, which my friends in the Bloc raise as a flag all the time. But China is going to release teratonnes of CO₂, something which will cancel out all the Canadian efforts in no time.

But this gentleman is nonetheless suggesting -—and repeating—that the Kyoto protocol is the only way to improve our environment.

How does he explain that? How are we supposed to counteract these Chinese CO₂ emissions that will have an impact in Canada and Quebec?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the twisted logic of the member who just asked a question, since other countries do not care for the environment and do not respect the Kyoto protocol and decided not to sign on, we should stay put, slam on the brakes and just say that China will send us its pollution anyway. As the member tried to say jokingly, there is no use in raising the Kyoto flag.

On the contrary, it is important for us to act. I have always seen that, in international negotiations, money talks. Because China is now a member of the WTO, it is important for us to make it understand that trading has a price in terms of environment protection and workers' rights. These are things that we must learn and we must convince our trading partners that they should too. Moreover, in our own country and in Quebec also, we must respect the Kyoto protocol to set an example. We should not say that nothing can be done just because some countries are polluters.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind my colleagues from Louis-Hébert and from Beauport—Limoilou that they ought perhaps to start by reading the wording of the motion. Even if my colleagues have repeated the motion, they still appear to be speaking about something else. Yet this motion is what we want to talk about today. We want to know whether respecting the objectives of the Kyoto protocol will include the $328 million that Quebec needs to implement that protocol. We are not asking whether or not they are in favour of the Kyoto protocol. We want the agreement respected, and we want the $328 million transferred to Quebec. That is the point.

Of course, one could go back in time and say that the Liberals are as blameworthy as the Conservatives in this situation. The nation of Quebec has made different choices than the rest of Canada, and these choices must be respected. They were made a very long time ago. We consider Quebec to be the nation that has always promoted the Kyoto protocol, right from the get go.

Now I will respond to the member for Louis-Hébert and his recent comments on China. Let us recall how the Kyoto protocol was reached. In order to come into effect, it needed to be ratified by 55 countries, or ones representing 55% of total greenhouse gas emissions according to 1990 levels.

There are, therefore, four categories of country as far as Kyoto protocol commitments are concerned. There are the ones that have done nothing, like the U.S. and Australia which have signed but never ratified. We will come back to the reasons for that later. Then there are those that have ratified and made commitments to reduce, like Canada, Germany, Japan, Europe and so on. Lastly, there are the countries that have ratified—I do mean to say ratified—but that are not required to take any measures for the first period only, from 2008 to 2010. These are China, India and Brazil, which have also ratified the Kyoto protocol and will make a commitment to it.

The power plants will not have been built by 2010 anyway. China will definitely be seeking and finding new technologies in order to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, because it is going to respect the agreements it has signed.

As I said, it was very hard for Canada to accept this Kyoto protocol agreement. Luckily Quebec has always been the nation to exert pressure on Canada. Otherwise we are convinced that we would not even be this far yet. But all the industrialized countries have implemented it.

In February 2003, Tony Blair said it was clear that Kyoto is not radical enough. Those were his words. And the Conservatives admire what England does. Its objective is a 60% reduction by 2050, but unlike the Conservatives, England began to take action as soon as this announcement was made. Consequently it will have to take significant measures in the areas of transportation, industry and building.

In 2004 Tony Blair returned to the charge, saying that reductions would be stepped up, that they were going further. That led to the elimination of non-sustainable policies. All the policies adopted by the government thought to be non-sustainable, inconsistent with sustainable development, were going to be eliminated starting in 2004.

The Prime Minister prefers to align himself with Bush rather than Quebec or Blair. In the summer of 2005, Bush won a very important vote to stop a decisive law, and he went on listening to the anti-Kyoto lobbyists. Bush sought support for his pro-oil designs. So we can see where the Prime Minister’s influence came from in 2006. In fact he was influenced by Mr. Bush in 2005.

The scientific uncertainty has not been an issue for a long time now. This is no longer something that people can use. We often hear the Conservatives say that it is not known for sure whether scientists agree on the subject. The detractors always use this argument, saying that we do not know exactly how long it will be before global temperatures rise. That is true, but only the detractors use this argument. One thing is certain, and it is that climate change has begun. Whether we are talking about global warming of 2^o, 3^o or 4^o does not matter. What matters is knowing that climate change will affect civilization, our way of living, and much more than terrorism. Quebeckers are convinced of this.

By dithering, the government is slowing us down. The hypothesis that warmer temperatures will bring benefits is a myth. That is what we heard, though, a while ago, from the members on the other side of the House. By going from 550 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere to 700 ppm of CO₂, the changes will be there in any case. Our way of living and our civilization will be affected. That is what Quebec believes.

The oil lobby is the great promoter of this myth, and it influences the Prime Minister and his cabinet. That influences even the Quebec members who are willing to vote with the rest of Canada in favour of oil development. This is where it becomes obvious that the Quebec Conservatives do not have any power. They only appear to be in power. In reality, they just vote the way the cabinet tells them. They do not vote how the vast majority of Quebeckers want them to. Quebeckers want the Kyoto protocol implemented. Even the federalist Liberal government in Quebec wants it. The Conservatives, though, will vote against it. Is that what being in power means for Quebec Conservatives? If so, it is pretty bad.

The oil industry started criticizing the Kyoto protocol in April 1998. The first Kyoto protocol agreement was signed in 1997. That was when oil industry lobbyists put their first ad in the New York Times. Millions of dollars were invested and new research institutes, such as the George C. Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute, the Friends of Science and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, sprang up and hired scientists to disparage Kyoto. Their influence was felt in Canada. Other scientists were trained here in Canada to persuade people that oil is very important for life on this planet. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources still welcomes these lobbyists, who say that oil is synonymous with Canada’s survival and greenhouse gases do not matter.

These institutes found scientists who were heavily paid to become detractors. They succeeded, because the Conservatives see in them a plot against Kyoto. The Liberals too did not transfer the necessary funds to Quebec. So they are kind of similar.

Last spring on May 3, 2006, the Washington Post rejoiced over the cuts Canada was making to its programs to reduce greenhouse gases, claiming that Canada was getting the message of the oil industry lobby and was going over the heads of its people. That is why we lost a year. Quebec lost a year in the implementation of its program because the $328 million did not flow. One year with nothing new in Quebec. One year without more energy efficiency. One year without promoting clean energy. One year in which Quebec had to be pulling back on the reins. The Bush lobby and the oil lobby lost Quebec a year. Will this government now be responsible to Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech on the opposition motion of the Bloc Québécois.

I know that the hon. member sits on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I would like him to explain to us how the development of the oil sands in Canada can directly contradict the commitments Canada made in Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6%.

I would like him to explain to us how Canada can encourage the oil sands industry by giving it tax presents, while saying out of the other side of its mouth on the international stage, as in Nairobi, that it intends to comply with the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. In his view, is there a contradiction between development of the oil sands and compliance with the Kyoto protocol?

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent question.

Indeed, people—even academics—have met with us to argue that the oil sands are something extraordinary for the Canadian economy. I am sure they were not talking about the Quebec economy, because it is something negative in Quebec. As they see it, the economy should take precedence over everything else, even the health of the planet. For them it was the most important thing in the world.

Certain people are in the process of forever ruining the land in Alberta. We are trying to see how it might be possible to plant again on this land, but we do not know how it can be done. Over the last three years, one third of the increase in greenhouse gases has been due to the oil sands. Where are we at? We are at one million gallons per day. We were not supposed to be reaching that level until 2015. We are at one million gallons per day. And the government is now entertaining the idea of going up to 5 million gallons per day. Imagine. Greenhouse gases will increase fivefold.

However, it is possible to capture greenhouse gases, or CO₂. Research is ongoing at the moment, and certain companies have told us that they are ready. However, the companies do not want to invest in this. They want the government to invest. We think it unfair that Quebeckers should pay 25% of their income tax to capture the greenhouse gases of the very rich western oil companies that are making phenomenal profits.

We know it, and it was said last week. We are talking about billions of dollars in profits. Even if from now until 2010 it would cost only $7.5 billion to capture all the CO₂, they want the government to pay. We hope that the government will find some backbone and say that the polluter has to pay, and the party doing the paying will have to be the oil companies.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi on his remarks, and to go back to the proposal before the House today. An important part of Canada, which is the Quebec nation, intends to abide by the Kyoto protocol. My colleague has very well explained the predicament this government is in. It is looking for all sorts of excuses to avoid respecting an agreement that has been signed by our government.

But the Quebec government, which represents Quebeckers, is ready to implement the Kyoto protocol, provided it gets the share of funding that should come from the federal government. This is the substance of what we are suggesting.

What does the hon. member think of the fact that the Canadian government is refusing to give this money, something which would be a gesture of good faith to make Canada work and help one of its component parts set a fine example for other provinces to follow?