Debates of Feb. 8th, 2007

Opposition Motion— Kyoto Protocol

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are suggestions such as the one that has been put forward by my colleague as well as others that have been put forward by his political party which we believe sincerely are very conducive to diminishing greenhouse gases and diminishing the atmospheric particles that we breathe.

Surely my hon. colleague is aware that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has been working on that file. If I am not mistaken, I believe the Government of Canada has invested in that area and is continuing to invest in that area. The member is correct that there is a way of doing things and we should be looking at that.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that is clouding the transportation environment is the issue around ground rents. Of course we want very efficient ground rents.

We want to have a very efficient air transportation system. The Greater Toronto Airport Authority is being charged ground rents that are unfair. It is being charged ground rents comprising 50% of the ground rents to the federal government, when the amount of traffic through GTA and Toronto was around 30% to 35%. The reason for that is the heavy debt load. The GTAA has had to recapitalize, invest huge amounts in capital. Will the minister deal with this inequity right away?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is interesting. I have heard many representations on that specific issue. I will remind my hon. colleague, though, that my predecessor, who is now a radio host, did in effect--

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

And a good one.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, I agree with my colleague that he probably is an excellent radio announcer. However, he did not do enough to help the GTAA. He did put a proposal forward which a lot of the airports, indeed 99%, bought into.

The problem is that the Greater Toronto Airport Authority has not bought into that proposal that was there. So there is an opportunity for the folks in Toronto to bring down the costs of their rent if they sign on to the proposal that was put forward by my hon. colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to speak to the government's commitment to the environment in Canada and Quebec. Canada's new government understands Canadians' concerns about the environment and the quality of the air that we all breathe, and has made this a priority.

What this means to us is that we will take meaningful action, action that is concrete and realistic, to reduce harmful pollutants in the air that Canadians breathe, pollutants that are a constant threat to our health, our economy and our quality of life.

The previous government embarked on a plan that did nothing to solve the problem of the smog that threatens Canadians' health. It is wholly unacceptable for Canadians who suffer from asthma to be getting regular warnings to stay inside on a summer afternoon because of smog. The most vulnerable people in our society, our children and the elderly, deserve better.

That is why Canada's new government is taking unprecedented action to reduce both air pollution and greenhouse gases. Despite all the rhetoric spouted by the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, the fact remains that since the previous government signed the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse gas levels have been rising constantly in Canada.

This government has not been content to talk about the need to reduce greenhouse gases; we have taken steps to do it.

Our government will tackle all sources of atmospheric emissions, but today I would like to focus on the concrete measures that we are proposing to Canadians to fight emissions generated by transportation.

Transportation is one of the biggest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. It will play a key role in efforts to improve air quality for all Canadians.

Total greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation rose by 25% between 1990 and 2003, and the situation is even worst in Quebec, where transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gases, accounting for nearly 40% of emissions.

That is why I am so proud of the many achievements of our government in significantly reducing emissions from that source, as my colleague said earlier.

I am thinking, in particular, of the amendments we are proposing to the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act, which will, for the first time, allow the government of Canada to establish mandatory standards for motor vehicle energy efficiency.

I am also proud of the series of measures we included in our 2006 budget, only a few months after being elected. We have for example allocated $1.3 billion to public transit in order to ease traffic congestion in urban areas, reduce carbon dioxide emissions and improve the quality of life in our cities. We have also invested $900 million in a trust that will support capital investments in public transit infrastructure, as well as $400 million in funding to be provided through agreements with the provinces and territories.

Since September 2006, all appropriate authorities have had access to this public transit trust, and most of the agreements have been signed. We have also maintained part of the federal gas tax transfer to the provinces and territories, which will amount to $5 billion over five years. The funding coming from the gas tax fund should help the creation of ecologically viable municipal infrastructures, including public transit.

We also want to encourage people to leave their cars at home and use public transit systems. This is why we have created a new tax credit for those who buy transit passes valid for at least one month. An individual who buys an $80 pass every month will save up to $150 in taxes over a year.

Believe it or not, even though these accomplishments are impressive, they are not all. Our government has also made a firm promise to ensure that a rising proportion of the gasoline consumed in Canada consists of renewable fuel. For starters we have proposed a regulation that will require an annual average of at least 5% renewable fuel calculated on the basis of gasoline volume beginning in 2010.

Canada’s new government also intends to require an average 2% content of renewable fuel in diesel and fuel oil, after having reviewed the use of renewable diesel fuel in Canadian conditions. This requirement should take effect by 2012.

These new requirements will make it possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about four megatonnes a year, which is the equivalent of about a million vehicles taken out of circulation insofar as greenhouse gases are concerned.

In December, we announced $345 million to finance two agricultural programs supporting the development of biofuels and other bioproducts. The $145-million agricultural bioproducts innovation program and the $200-million capital formation assistance program for renewable fuels production will help strengthen Canada’s position in the realm of biofuels. These programs will provide farmers with the capital they need to build or expand biofuel and biomass production facilities.

These programs are important steps forward toward achieving the government’s 2010 and 2012 targets, while at the same time creating new economic opportunities for our farmers here in Canada. The more farmers help to produce biofuels, the faster we will achieve our cleaner air targets for 2010 and 2012.

Canada’s new government also believes that it is important for farmers to have a role in making biofuels enhance rural prosperity by investing in their farms and enhancing their contribution to the value chain. This is not just idle talk. We will provide all of Canada’s regions with real opportunities to take a green route.

Canada will not be satisfied with empty rhetoric. After 13 years of Liberal inaction and neglect, Canada’s new government has made the environment one of its priorities. As for the Bloc Québécois, it can keep on making fine speeches that will never amount to anything.

I am proud as a Quebecker of the leadership Quebec has shown on climate change. We have a shining reputation for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I firmly believe that the road chosen by our government will allow Quebeckers and other Canadians to benefit from a healthy environment in years to come, and that is what counts above all.

Our success will depend on the concerted effort of all levels of government, the private sector and all Canadians. I am convinced that, as in the past, we will be up to the challenge and we will deliver.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments and it occurred to me as I listened to him and other members of the government speak on climate change, in particular the Kyoto protocol, that if one is trying to rally a group of people around a cause, for example, a coach of a football team which is a few points behind and the coach wants to win that game, the coach talks to the team about winning.

I am confused by the government's words to the effect that it will not accept the Kyoto protocol and the obligations that come with it. Is it not better for government to aim high, to rally the nation around a goal which is an international goal, rather than to speak in terms which are defeatist? The Conservatives say it is impossible to reach these objectives and why should we even try.

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would not agree with me that aiming high is a call to the nation that the public will readily receive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for his comments.

I will use his metaphor. Let us be clear and honest. When the previous government signed the Kyoto protocol, it was the beginning of the season. The government said: "If you feel like winning, go ahead. If not, there is nothing to worry about. It will all be voluntary action".

So, when we took over, a year ago, we had to pick up the pieces. Even the leader of the official opposition now says that the targets cannot be attained in the short term.

This government came and said that there needed to be a change of culture. The lack of discipline needed to stop. Now we say: "If you do not win, you will not make the playoffs". This is somewhat the metaphor my colleague was using.

For the first time, a government will impose mandatory targets, and industries will have to comply. Canada will become a world leader, and we will have the credibility to convince large emitters, such as China and the United States, to join us because the problem has now become severe.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I stood up and almost fell back into my chair when I heard the Conservative member say that the problem was serious. We really do not get the impression that such is the general perception in the Conservative Party.

Earlier, the Minister of Transport mentioned that there was nothing on air quality in the Bloc Québécois program. I did a quick search on the Internet. I would like to point out that there is nothing on Kyoto in the Conservative program. If they thought this was a serious problem they would have taken the time to include something about Kyoto and global warming on their site. That is the least we could expect.

They also talked about wanting to restrict companies. And yet, there are still no objectives or absolute targets.

My question is the following. Can we envisage something other than Kyoto as a minimal acceptable target to protect our planet and to protect Quebec industry and Quebec society? Does the hon. member not think that the Kyoto targets are a starting point and that we have to do more, not less?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. When we have a serious problem, what do we do? We set mandatory standards. That has never been done. Never has a government dared to do that before us. Never will the Bloc Québécois have the audacity to say it will regulate.

I currently sit on the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-30. We have heard experts such as Claude Villeneuve say yesterday that, in the current state of affairs and since nothing happened in the past 10 years, we cannot meet our obligations in the very short term.

We have to set mandatory targets and that is what we are trying to do. We are introducing a bill. We are asking the Bloc Québécois to help pass this bill so that we can finally set restrictive targets. However, as long as this bill is blocked, we will not be able to do anything. People need to realize that this government is determined to act in a clear, compelling and concrete manner.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

For more than a decade, the international scientific community has pointed out the urgent need to do something about climate change before it is too late. It is now one minute to midnight.

All members of this House have surely noted that nature is showing obvious and worrisome signs of climate disturbance. The number of abrupt and severe weather events such as tropical storms, hurricanes, droughts, forest fires and so forth, is on the rise.

The accelerated melting of the ice cap at the North Pole is so severe and rapid that, along with raising sea levels, it is endangering all polar fauna and upsetting all geostrategies in this sector. We are not dealing with a time span of one or two centuries, but rather one of only 50 years.

Smog episodes last longer and occur more frequently in our major cities. Smog advisories are often issued in the Greater Montreal area in which my riding is found.

These are but a few examples and they do not adequately express the extent of the problem or the need to take action. The list of repercussions arising from global warming is long and quite overwhelming. I refuse to be an alarmist. However, it is disturbing to observe these events and to realize that the impact of these changes will be even greater for my children.

Scientists from around the world unequivocally sounded the alarm recently in the conclusion to the report drafted by 550 experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, held in Paris on January 26. They revealed, to no one's surprise, that our planet earth is warming faster than anticipated. What is the cause? No doubt about it—human beings and their activities that generate greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, there are still naysayers who hide behind biased arguments to justify a laissez-faire approach. It is sad to see individuals trying to use economic arguments to circumvent Kyoto. Even the recent report from Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, recommends that every country invest up to one per cent of GDP in the fight against climate change to avoid economic losses of up to $7,500 billion globally. These losses are equal to 20 times the amount needed at present to counter this phenomenon.

But some will still try to deny the facts. Unlike those who see the Kyoto protocol as a “socialist scheme”, I am proud to see that Quebec wants to do its share for the whole planet and for all the future generations that will live on it. The Quebec nation wants to be part of the progressive movement that Kyoto represents and join the concert of nations in fighting climate change.

We in Quebec believe that the Kyoto targets are achievable. We believe that climate change is an inescapable reality. Quebec's achievements on this issue are unequivocal: in 2004, it had the best record in Canada for greenhouse gas emissions, at 12 tonnes per capita. This is clearly below the Canadian average of 23.7 tonnes per capita.

Moreover, between 1990 and 2004, while greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec increased by 6.1%, they increased by 39.4% in Alberta and by 61.7% in Saskatchewan. And I must point out that the increase recorded in Quebec was largely due to the transportation sector, which is a major problem in all industrialized countries.

Far from letting the situation get worse, and avoiding the kind of lethargy shown by the federal government, Quebec developed its own plan to fight climate change, but it is still missing $328 million to meet its reduction target of 6% below 1990 levels. I remind members that this is a target that was negotiated by the federal government and that is important to a vast majority of Quebeckers.

That is why I join my party in asking that the federal government give immediately to Quebec the $328 million it needs to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. I find it deplorable that Quebec's efforts in fighting climate change are hindered by the current federal government. In refusing to give that money to Quebec, the Canadian government is sending a clear signal that it is not willing to encourage those provinces that truly want to make an effort to meet the Kyoto targets and that have developed plans that differ from the ones proposed by the federal government.

I was mentioning earlier the observable trends in climate disturbances and the concerns that they raise. I was saying how these changes were drastic and sudden. It is sad to see that even though Quebec is making every effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and limit environmental damage, it remains stuck in a situation where the federal government is taking very little concrete action to reduce greenhouse gases and other provinces are reluctant to hurt their corporate polluters. Does Quebec need to prove that had it been sovereign, it would have achieved its goals many years ago?

Indeed, the federal government’s inaction in dealing with greenhouse gases needs no scientific proof; the facts speak for themselves. During the 13 years they were in power, the Liberals dragged their feet to the point that they forgot the Protocol targets. They increased the number of voluntary-based programs, which were not very successful, instead of opting for real solutions such as the territorial approach that we are proposing, or the implementation of a carbon exchange. In the end, greenhouse gas emissions increased by a third on their watch. Moreover, at that time, the Liberals refused to give Quebec the $328 million needed to meet the Kyoto protocol targets.

The then environment minister insisted on imposing funding conditions, which derailed the negotiations, even though the Government of Quebec was the only one to clearly indicate its intention to meet the Kyoto targets. While his own plan was far from effective, as evidenced by the close to 30% increase in greenhouse gas emissions under the Liberal reign, the leader of the Liberal Party preferred to lecture Quebec.

Since the Conservatives have taken office, the situation has become chaotic. Having eliminated programs introduced by the Liberals, they then turned around and revived them in order to look green. Moreover, this government completely stopped using the word “Kyoto”, because it was becoming synonymous with “unattainable”, if not suggestive of a vile “socialist scheme” that would ruin Canada sooner or later.

Certainly, we should not expect change anytime soon. The Prime Minister himself, in an address delivered on Tuesday, February 6, before the Ottawa Canadian Club, again contrasted environmental action with economic development, whereas Quebec has everything to gain by setting large reduction targets. I remind the House that Quebec's industries are already world leaders, with processes and technologies based on clean transport and energy.

I emphasize once again that it is this government, in which the ministers directly concerned do not believe in the Kyoto protocol, that is now trying to look green, although it is unable to meet its own deadlines for the determination of targets. In this regard, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities said on October 15, 2006, that the $328 million was a promise of the previous government. He noted that there had been negotiations, but that they derailed and that the Conservative approach was different. He even added that there would be no negotiations other than those he had had with the Quebec Minister of Finance on the whole infrastructure program.

The intransigence of the federal government has to be compared with my party's proposal for a territorial approach, which is a flexible solution. In fact, the federal government should abide by some basic principles, namely, honouring our international commitments, fairness in the level of effort imposed and full respect for Quebec's jurisdiction. These are three principles that Ottawa has consistently ignored in the climate change file.

That is why my party demands that the federal plan include a mechanism that would allow a bilateral agreement with Quebec based on a territorial approach. Such an agreement should give Quebec the financial tools it needs to implement the most effective measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions on its territory.

We have proposals for respecting the Kyoto protocol, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990. We are proposing that the federal government impose strict greenhouse gas emission standards on motor vehicles, give allowances to those who buy ecological vehicles, provide major financial support for renewable energy development, eliminate tax breaks for oil companies, and give subsidies to organizations which help reach the Kyoto targets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant for her wonderful speech.

In my opinion, greenhouse gases are every Canadian's business. I will share my own experience with my colleague. I have had a hybrid car since early in 2003. I will brag a little and say that I was the first member of Parliament on the Hill to buy such a car. Now that I am through promoting myself, I have a question for my friend.

I would like her to share her comments. What does she think of the polluter pay principle?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague for his question on polluter pay.

Obviously, for years now, Quebec has been making enormous efforts to meet the targets, while other provinces are making I would say incredible efforts to pollute more. We could mention, for example, the tar sands and all the pollution already produced and yet to be produced.

The problem is, who will pay now and later to clean all this up?

As we know, Quebec is sharing costs up to 25%. So, we are making enormous efforts to try and have clean energy and reach our targets. On the other hand, we have the polluters. I think they should pay more and certainly not have any tax benefits. They should also be cleaning up the mess they are creating right now.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for my colleague in reaction to the speech made earlier by the parliamentary secretary, who spoke about the clean air bill. He boasted that there would be targets and restrictive measures.

The problem is, I believe, that he is mixing up two things. He confuses air pollution, which causes smog and respiratory ailments, with greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming. It is not the same thing at all.

As for air pollutants, we can deal with them by, for example, putting filters on our vehicles. Of course, the greenhouse gases are not collected by these filters, and the only way to reduce these emissions is to reduce our use of oil to start with. That will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and also, consequently, air pollutants.

It is surprising to see that the Conservatives do not differentiate between the two or refuse to do so. It could be that they are attempting to confuse Canadians. Nonetheless, there are no targets and no restrictive measures in terms of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, even in the clear air bill.

Does my colleague think that the Conservatives would be well advised to invite a scientific advisor who could explain to them the difference between the two?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

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

I have to say that I agree with him when he says that we should ask experts to do the math. It seems to me that it is very difficult for the governing party to properly assess the costs and the many problems that we have with greenhouse gases.

I agree with my colleague. We really need experts to help the government, otherwise we will never see the end of it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the subject of the motion tabled this morning by the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I feel it is important to reread the motion, because the Bloc Québécois is not asking the House for the moon. 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.

Reality is sometimes harsh for the Conservatives members of this House. Even though they gave in to pressure from the Bloc Québécois and agreed to recognize Quebec as a nation, they are still not really doing anything to acknowledge Quebec's nationhood. The environment file is a flagrant example of this.

Quebec's National Assembly is the only legislative body in Canada that has chosen to comply with the Kyoto protocol targets. I would like to say to the citizens who are listening to us now that if Quebec were a country, it would have signed the Kyoto protocol; if it had full control over taxation, it would have reached those targets.

The problem is that we are part of the Canadian federation. To meet the targets, Quebec has to ask for money. Once again, Quebec has asked the federal government to turn over $328 million so the province can meet the Kyoto protocol targets. I should mention that the federal government collects over 50% of all taxes and income taxes in Quebec. That is the reality we are facing.

It is important to note that this is not about partisan politics; the request came from a Liberal government. This was a unanimous resolution in Quebec's National Assembly, which requested that the federal government contribute $328 million toward achieving the Government of Quebec's targets.

This plan is not illusory or virtual; it is a written plan that environmentalists have recognized as being the best in Canada and the most likely to reach the Kyoto protocol targets. I hope that all members of this House will recognize that. If not, I would invite them to visit the Government of Quebec's website to learn more about what it is doing and what it intends to do.

It is simple. Quebec has always been much closer to reaching the Kyoto targets, because Quebeckers made a choice in the past, the choice to invest in clean energy. We are specialists and leaders in the field of clean energy, hydroelectricity, now wind energy, and so on. Quebeckers made that choice. Canadians, however, have not made that choice.

I will illustrate this in figures. Between 1970 and 1999, Canada gave $66 billion in direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry—coal, natural gas and oil. Here are some more examples: Canada spent $13.6 billion on the oil import compensation program; $11.1 billion on the national energy program; $7.7 billion on the petroleum incentives program, for oil and gas exploration; and $1.22 billion on Hibernia in Newfoundland and Labrador.

While this $66 billion was being invested, there was nothing for hydroelectricity in Quebec. Quebeckers paid one quarter of this $66 billion, through income tax and other taxes sent to Ottawa, representing more than 50%. Ottawa used some of that money to invest in fossil fuels. Of course, even though Quebec paid one quarter of it, not a cent came back to Quebec. Zero minus zero equals zero, no matter how many times you multiply. No one in this House would dare to rise and say that any money was invested in hydroelectricity in Quebec. No.

Quebeckers decided to invest in hydroelectricity, through their taxes, their income tax, and the fees they pay. Quebeckers made this choice as a society. Now, all countries have recognized that urgent action is needed.

Last week, the Minister of the Environment was very surprised to learn that experts agree that humans are to blame for greenhouse gases. He learned that. Quebeckers, however, learned that a long time ago and chose to invest in clean energy such as hydroelectricity and wind power.

Admittedly, it is not true that the federal government did not invest a cent in Canada during this time—it just did not invest a cent in Quebec. And although it invested $66 billion in fossil fuels, it invested $329 million in renewable energies between 1970 and 1999.

Canada chose to invest in fossil fuels, while Quebec decided to invest in clean energy. That is a fact.

The problem today is that no one wants to help Quebec. Why does the government not want to pay the $328 million? It is just a drop in the bucket, compared to the $66 billion invested in fossil fuels. In fact, there is a Liberal member who knows this. The problem is that when she was in power, she did not do anything about it. Once again, the Liberals and the Conservatives make all kinds of excuses, but in the end, not a single cent will go to Quebec. Quebec is still waiting anxiously to see whether the federal government will pay it $328 million. I repeat: this is a portion of the taxes we send to Ottawa.

You will understand that Quebeckers are gradually going to wake up to what is happening. It is all well and good to recognize Quebec as a nation, but the problem is that those are just words and that the government is never willing to help improve that nation. One day, Quebeckers will take charge of their own destiny. They will make that choice.

Obviously it does not end there because that $66 billion was just for direct investments in the fossil fuel industry. On top of that there were improvements to the tax system. In 2003, the Liberals, with the support of the Conservatives, improved the oil companies’ tax situation, as if they were not rich enough. For 2003-2004 they were granted $55 million in tax credits. In 2004-2005 it was $100 million and in 2007-2008 $260 million. So the oil companies’ tax credits go on increasing because the Liberals and Conservatives decided that they felt sorry for them. On top of being given money to invest and do research, they are given tax credits to encourage them to make more money and pay out more quarterly dividends to their shareholders. In the end, that is what is done to make the shareholders, who are probably friends of the Liberals and Conservatives, happy. Probably they are the oil companies’ biggest shareholders. Personally I do not have any oil company shares.

After that they were also granted tax reductions of 65% between 2005 and 2008. So, in addition to being given credits, they are given tax reductions. In 2005 it was $5.1 billion and in 2006, $4.6 billion. It will be $3.2 billion in 2007 and $2.35 billion in 2008. That is in addition to all the funds granted by the federal government. So when the oil companies are granted tax reductions, these are revenues that are not available to invest elsewhere, such as $328 million in Quebec.

When I say that Canada and Quebec are really two different worlds, I would just like to mention a few differences. We have to understand that the realities are different.

Oil is enriching Canada, but it is impoverishing Quebec. Obviously, since petroleum development takes place outside Quebec, for those places the economy is going great guns. Furthermore, on account of all the money invested by the federal government in this sector, Canada has become the third largest oil producer in the world.

When the price of gas goes up, the economy takes an upturn, as does the Canadian dollar. Quebec has no oil and gas industry. It does not even have an auto industry, once again because of a choice made by the federal government. The auto industry is in Ontario. There ought to be an aerospace industry in Quebec, but as we have seen from the Boeing C-17 contract, there will be virtually no more aerospace investments in Quebec, once again, the choice of the Conservatives.

So we are faced with a reality. Ontario has its auto industry and the West its oil patch. They want us to keep using gas to drive our cars, when Quebec is manufacturing public transport equipment, buses, trains and so on. This is a choice Quebec made.

Quebec and Norway are the two countries with the highest green energy production in the world. Again, a choice. The question we are still asking, as are Quebecers and the excellent members of the Bloc Québécois, is why is the federal government refusing Quebec's request to invest $328 million in its plan to meet the Kyoto targets?

Is it because the rest of Canada is a little jealous of Quebec's position? Is it out of a desire to be harder on Quebec?

I hope my Conservative, Liberal and NDP colleagues will vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion. Quebecers must have a portion of their past and present taxes returned to them, taxes they have paid, and will pay, on fossil fuels, by allowing them to recover $328 million. Quebec could be the first Canadian province, and likely also the first area of North America, to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. We all hope that this will be the case.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on his presentation.

I would just like to have his opinion on a statement I found in a Department of Transport report that is a few years old. It would be a good idea for our minister to reactivate this report. Experts hired by the Department of Transport were saying that the 10¢ excise tax that the federal government is collecting on gasoline is accumulating substantial funds, funds totalling billions of dollars. The report said that most of the proceeds of this 10¢ tax should be reinvested in Quebec and Canadian infrastructures suffering from underfunding, such as municipal infrastructures, roads and bridges.

Does my colleague have any figures that might tell us how much of this 10¢ is going back into Quebec or municipal infrastructures?

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of my colleague’s question is quite simple. We are facing an infrastructure deficit because in the 1990s the federal government decided to cut transfers to the provinces. I know that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is aware of this, because at the time he was in municipal government, as I was. He was affected by the savage cuts in federal-provincial transfers. Afterward, the provinces cut the budgets of the municipalities and school boards. Then, the municipalities and provincial governments invested less in their infrastructures, and today we have a record deficit in terms of infrastructures in bad condition.

Indeed, what all organizations concerned directly or indirectly with infrastructure are recommending to the federal government is that all of the 10¢ tax be invested in infrastructure programs, in compensation for the savage cuts in the 1990s.

Let there be no doubt. The infrastructure problem, including public transit, is only one part of what the Kyoto protocol represents. I think that the federal government will try to tell us that by solving public transit they will solve the problem, and the Kyoto targets can be achieved. However the reality is completely different.

The Government of Quebec is already further along than that. As I said earlier, we are producing public transit equipment. We need money to purchase this and provide our communities and our cities with this equipment. However we must also encourage the government of Quebec to continue investing in clean energy, in hydroelectricity and wind power. It must enter into partnerships with all the other countries of the world so that Quebec can achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Once again, these targets will be achieved in part through investment in infrastructures and public transit, and in part through other projects. That is why the federal government must not put limitations on Quebec. Quebec knows where it is going, unlike the federal government which does not know where it is going. There is the tragedy and the danger.

The federal government must be told to invest in infrastructure programs, but that is not how the Kyoto targets are going to be met. It is part of the answer, but Quebec has to be given the money it needs, because it has a real plan. It is the only province that has a plan, and it will be the first territory in North America to achieve the targets of the Kyoto protocol.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak once again on this very important issue and to take advantage of the cosmic vacuum left on this issue by the Conservatives who do not dare comment on the Bloc motion.

The government has told us that it could take action and change things. It told us that it was not the government that had given the incentives and the fiscal gifts to the oil and gas companies. What can be said, however, is that the government has still not done anything to cancel any of those gifts the oil and gas companies benefit from.

Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, I tabled a motion that the committee study the money and the fiscal incentives given to the oil and gas companies. I also asked that the committee comment on the possibility of transferring those incentives to the renewable energy sector. The committee members voted in favour of this motion, except for the Conservative members of course.

Does my colleague not think that all this is in fact proof that the only interests the Conservatives are protecting are those of the oil and gas companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is entirely correct, and I repeat it for anyone who will listen: I would rather be a member from Quebec who stands up for the values of Quebeckers who are pro-environment, who support the Kyoto protocol, than a Conservative member from Quebec who can do nothing, who sits in cabinet, who will not stand up to tell this government straight out that it is moving ahead, but not in the right direction.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to the Bloc Québécois motion on the need to restore the funding promised by the previous government to the province of Quebec. With the amendments that have been accepted from our party, we have a very interesting opportunity to discuss this issue.

I agree with the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie on most of the points he makes. However, my experience in federal-provincial energy relations stems back to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In early 2000 I was appointed to the council that dealt with the fund. Early on we received numerous applications from municipalities in the province of Quebec. They wished to use innovation to develop new ways to deal with energy and to improve the systems that ran their communities.

It was not long before the provincial government at that time shut that whole opportunity down for the municipalities of Quebec. Those great ideas, which we saw in applications for the first six months, were shelved. It was an inter-jurisdictional dispute about who could receive resources to apply them to good work. We have to be careful with territorial aspects to dealing with international and global problems and not recognizing the importance of local participation and local ability to share with other similar concerns across the country and perhaps even across the world.

When we look territorially, we limit our scope. The types of projects that were presented in Quebec could well have been replicated across the country. The types of projects that we received in western Canada from municipalities could well have been used quite comfortably in Quebec. An arena in Weyburn, Saskatchewan is the same as an arena in Trois Rivières, Quebec. The problems are the same and the solutions are likely to be similar.

When we try to break things down into smaller parts, sometimes we find that the solutions, the opportunities and the results are not as good. Therefore, I want to be careful about this. That is my experience in the federal-provincial arena with energy related projects.

As well, at the federal-provincial level, we need cooperation on larger projects. When we talk about an east-west power grid, we need cooperation from Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Labrador and Newfoundland. We need to think together about the ways to solve the issues that come with providing the transportation links for renewable energy across the country. It is not good enough that we operate in isolation.

In fact, there is no doubt we even have to think with countries outside our borders. We cannot ignore the elephant to the south. We cannot ignore it as a reality in our energy picture in North America. If we ignore it, we are not doing our job for Canada, for the globe or for our province. In the end that will not work.

We have to be cognizant of the nature of the problem and the ways that we can look for solutions. We have to work together cooperatively at all levels, regardless of our aspirations on the political side. This is not a political issue. It is an environmental issue and a global catastrophe on the way.

The leader of the Bloc says that Canada must respect its international agreements on the environment. There are not too many ordinary Canadians who would argue with this.

The NDP has been fighting with the Conservatives and the Liberals to live up to Kyoto for years. We all voted in favour of such a motion only last week. It is so very good to see the House respecting and honouring that agreement. Unfortunately, we still have not seen action on it which can even come close to making our way toward Kyoto.

The member called for the introduction of a market for carbon, along with hard emissions caps and a policy of polluter pays. Those have long been the NDP's plans for a greener Canada.

In fact, last June when we put forward a plan which would save average Canadians money, create jobs and clean up the air, the NDP's plan said that a New Democratic Party would give fair notice to large emitters. Starting in 2008, permissible emissions would be capped and the cap would be annually reduced, with an eventual goal of 50% reduction in emissions by 2030.

This is the kind of thing we want to see happen in the House of Commons today. This is the kind of action that can deliver Canada a Kyoto strategy. This is what can make it work for all of us.

We also want to introduce a market based auction for available emissions credits in 2009, with credits divided among sectors. At the outset, the auction would cover less than 10% of available credits, with a goal of all emissions credits sold by auction by 2030. Proceeds from the sale of emissions credits would go to sustainability projects across the country.

That is real action, and it is good to see other parties coming around to the NDP's thinking.

The Bloc's third point is that Canada must stop the government assistance to the oil industry. The NDP has been long calling for an end to this corporate welfare, started under the Liberals and continued under the Conservatives.

Last year Imperial Oil posted the largest profits in its history, $3 billion. Its parent company's, Exxon, was considerably larger, at $40 billion. Even the senators in the United States could not take that and swallow it. It was too much for them. It was outlandish, in the words of the senators from the country to the south of us. They want to brag about how much of that amount was made in the oil sands, and no doubt. The tax and royalty regimes in place for the oil sands are the biggest giveaway we have seen in a long time in the oil industry. It truly is remarkable that this continues today.

With record profits like this, do the oil companies really need these tax breaks? I think Chavez proved it in Venezuela when he upped the royalties by over 30%. There was only one oil company that walked out of the country, and that was Exxon. The rest stayed and made money.

In reality, things can happen in this country, as well.

I am not sure about the last two points made by the leader of the Bloc. I feel that a territorial approach to dealing with climate change, as I pointed out, would lead to lost opportunities, duplication of efforts and an inefficient use of the limited resources of all of us in the House and across the country.

Climate change is a problem faced by all the peoples of the planet. We have to work together, collectively. While there is room for individual action, I believe much more could be achieved by working together.

On the last point made by the leader, I agree that Canada must be prepared to offer financial help, but to all jurisdictions. I am glad to see that the Bloc has accepted the amendment. I really think the provision of $320 million to Quebec and commensurate amounts to other jurisdictions is a useful gesture at this point in time. However, the past commitment of that sum of money will not bring any of our provinces to Kyoto. That will not happen.

When we look at the Natural Resources Canada outlook we see that in 1990, Quebec produced 87 megatons of carbon dioxide. The projection is that by 2020 it will be at 110 megatons. That increase includes the increase in generating capacity from wind by 8%, the refurbishing of a nuclear plant, and La Romaine hydro plant would be in service by that time.

In Quebec as well there are issues with reaching Kyoto targets. When so much of our energy is provided by hydroelectric power, then the solutions that we are looking for to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be focused more on space heating, residential, commercial and transportation. By 2020, the Quebec energy mix will be well over 50% fossil fuels.

Those are not easy problems that can be solved overnight by an infusion of $320 million into a provincial budget. Those are problems that are solved by long term action that plans for the energy future of this country, of North America and of the world.

Quebec's energy wealth is in hydroelectric power, one of the cleanest forms of energy available. With its vast hydroelectric potential, Quebec is well-suited to develop other forms of clean energy, such as wind or tidal power. Nothing is better than a reservoir full of water to match up to large expanses of wind farms across the very strong wind areas of the northern St. Lawrence.

It is anticipated that Quebec's demand for electricity will increase by about 10% between now and 2020. Support by hydroelectric alternative sources of energy could meet the increasing demand and provide residents of Quebec with clean and secure energy in the future. Investments in types of space heating that are above thermal energy from electricity would be very useful.

Geothermal is a natural match for Quebec. It is a natural thing to happen in that province which has such an abundance of good, clean hydroelectric power. The investment in geothermal in Quebec is a great investment and it should be made. It is an investment that has great potential for that province.

However, this is not the only energy that Quebec uses and needs. As I pointed out earlier, by 2020 over 50% of the energy in Quebec will be provided by fossil fuels. Quite clearly, in Canada we have a very secure supply of natural gas and oil. Those things are in a world of increasing turmoil and, in a world where we know that energy is an issue in almost every other place in the world, Canada can be a haven for its own citizens for those kinds of energy.

However, if that is the case, why does the Bloc support the development of liquefied natural gas entering into the Quebec market? Despite the overwhelming opposition from local residents, the Liberal government of Quebec is supporting the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal at Lévis, across the river from Quebec City. Liquefied natural gas uses four times as much energy in its production and transportation as natural gas in a pipeline from western Canada.

Liquefied natural gas has a CO₂ profile equivalent to crude oil. It is not the product that will provide clean energy to Quebec. It is, of course, transferring that CO₂ to another country, whether it be Russia, Indonesia or Qatar, one of those countries where the greenhouse gases will be emitted into the atmosphere and add to the problem that we have globally with energy.

LNG creates an unacceptable safety hazard to those who live close by, including the residents of Quebec City's old town near the St. Lawrence River. They are still in the danger zone. This fact was recently supported by the area's public health officials.

As well, LNG would further increase Canada's and Quebec's energy insecurity because of where it comes from. Russia and the OPEC states have played energy politics in the past and are most likely to do it again. There is no question that the international market for LNG will grow and that the price will go up to match other mobile fuels that are available in the world, which will cause dislocation to those who invest in this type of technology.

What plan do we have for the gas that is going into Quebec now? A proponent outlines that it will increase the flow of gas from western Canada into the United States. The gas that we are now providing to Quebec will go down to the United States. When we sell more gas to the United States the proportionality clause of NAFTA comes into play and we are stuck with that. We are locked in.

Does that make sense in the world today? We know we are in a difficult situation with natural gas in Canada. We could maintain our own supply and do what we need to do for our own citizens but the exports of natural gas to the United States are beggaring our supply. We do have problems with natural gas and this type of activity in Quebec will just make them worse.

It seems unlikely to me that Quebeckers are in favour of trading clean, secure, domestic sources of energy for insecure foreign sources that release huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

I must ask my colleagues from the Bloc what their is position on this. Have the Bloc members had the time to take a position on this? Do we understand all the ramifications of what is happening in Quebec, in Nova Scotia and, potentially, in British Columbia with this product? No, we do not.

If we do not have an energy strategy for this country we are putting our country at risk as it moves along. This is unacceptable in a civilized country.

Tomorrow I will be making a presentation at the hearings concerning a terminal in Quebec City. Perhaps my Bloc colleagues would like to join me and talk about the nature of energy in this country and the importance of thinking ahead about energy and planning ahead. We cannot allow the world forces to run Canada.

For too many years we have allowed a laissez-faire system when it comes to energy. Every other exporting country in the world has taken hold of its energy resources and has said that it will work for them. What are we doing in Canada? We are holding North American Energy Working Group meetings where we are not truly having a debate among Canadians about what we should do with our energy. We are listening to what the United States wants us to do with our energy to help it out.

I think it is time we put Canada and Quebec first and it is time that we worked together to make a good future for people in Canada. It is up to us to save our grandchildren from a future where energy is coming from other countries, where we are at the vagaries of the world market and we have not put it together for ourselves.This is the time that we need to put it together for ourselves and we should.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, Manitoba Economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the beginning of the speech by my NDP colleague, I was finally able to understand why he is opposed to what the Government of Quebec is asking for.

The colonialist position taken by the federal government is present in all things, at all times. At the outset, he said that he did not understand why the cities of Quebec had been prevented from negotiating directly.

Municipalities are creatures of the provincial governments. The problem in Canada is that six provinces have smaller populations than the former city of Montreal, before it merged with its neighbours. Three provinces have populations smaller than the city of Laval. It is to be expected that some cities in Canada will look to the federal government for money, because the province does not have enough money to give them.

That is not our problem in Quebec. That is what we have been telling parliamentarians from the very beginning. They agree to discuss and to vote in favour of a motion saying that Quebec is a nation, but when it comes time to recognize that, by investing $328 million, because this is the only province in Canada and the only jurisdiction in North America that can achieve the Kyoto targets, parliamentarians say no. They say what the NDP has said: this must not be done, there must be action at the national level. There will never be action at the national level. The NDP will never be in power. And when the Liberals and Conservatives are in power, they have no development plan for achieving the Kyoto targets. That is the reality.

Is it not time for the NDP to support the unanimous request by the National Assembly of Quebec, which is a Liberal government, not a PQ government, not a Bloc government, which has made a request to the federal government stating that it is time that the federal government invest $328 million so that Quebec can achieve the Kyoto targets, a plan that has been recognized by environmentalists themselves?

We have not assessed that plan ourselves, and it is not the job of parliamentarians to assess it. Environmentalists are familiar with it and know that it is the best plan in North America. It is therefore time for the federal government to provide some return on the income taxes and the other taxes that Quebec has paid out of the $66 billion invested in fossil fuels in the other Canadian provinces.

I think it is time for the NDP to wake up and vote for the Bloc Québécois motion.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I truly trust and hope Quebec is successful in achieving its plans to move ahead in making itself Kyoto compliant.

As I said in my speech, the $320 million may be part of what needs to be done in Canada but the effort that has to go into this across this country is much larger. When I look at a commensurate amount of money that would perhaps go into my jurisdiction in the Northwest Territories, it would not be too much money. I know what the result of that kind of investment would be there. It would not be enough.

We need to mobilize vast sums of money across this country and invest it in correct fashion to achieve the results that we are looking for in Kyoto. I personally feel that there is such a good return to the economy in the end that this will work for us.

Our party supports the amendment. We are pleased the Bloc is supporting the amendment and we look forward to the vote on the motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Western Arctic for a very thorough and interesting speech. We can tell how comprehensive his background and knowledge is on this issue.

However, I must remind my colleague from Quebec, who says that Quebec is the only province that has a plan to implement Kyoto and that the NDP will never form government anyway, the NDP has formed 20 provincial governments in four provinces and one territory.

In fact, in the province of Manitoba, the NDP government has a Kyoto plan and could achieve Kyoto targets with the generous support, I would hope, of the federal government, which our motion, which we will vote on hopefully later today, does clearly state. While we support the initiatives of the province of Quebec and wish them well in their initiative, there are NDP governments in this country that are just as anxious to get going in meeting our Kyoto commitments.

One of the ways we hope to do this, with direct federal involvement, as was mentioned by my colleague, who I hope will talk more about it, is the east-west grid, building the new national dream. Just as building the railway was the national dream, we need that kind of energy and enthusiasm to tackle the greatest problem we have ever faced as a nation, climate change, by allowing the province of Manitoba and even the province of Quebec to sell their excess hydroelectricity east-west to help our neighbours, our fellow Canadians, to meet their challenges, such as those in the province of Ontario.

Why do we have coal-fired generating plants in Thunder Bay when the province of Manitoba has a ton of excess clean electricity that we can only sell to the United States? We cannot get it east-west. Would that not be a logical place for the federal government to put its energies?