Debates of April 24th, 2007

Automobile Industry

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, what is true is that the government is committed to supporting our exporters, and to negotiating free trade agreements that will give our exporters fairer access to international markets, competitive access with respect to competitors in the United States, Australia, and many other countries that we are competing with. We need trade agreements.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, free trade with South Korea just cannot be on Korea's terms and the minister has already indicated how desperate he is. The minister claimed, “My reputation will live or die on it”. I am predicting an early demise of the minister's ego.

The minister has not consulted auto makers, has not consulted auto workers, and has not brought substantial changes to make sure non-tariff barriers are eliminated. That is the real problem.

I am glad to know that the minister understands his personal reputation is on the line, but what is he going to do to get it off life support now?

[David Emerson, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, through that smoke and partisan rhetoric I could not quite discern a real question.

The bottom line is our exporters need competitive access to the global marketplace. We need to be opening up markets. We need to open up the market in Korea. We need to open up the markets in Europe and Asia. That is what we are doing. We are putting our exporters back on a level playing field that they were knocked off of because of 10 years of neglect of the trade agenda.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Halton.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member for Halton has the floor. I am sure he appreciates all the suggestions for his question, but I think he probably has one prepared and we will hear it now.

Income Trusts

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian investors, many of them seniors, have asked the Minister of Finance repeatedly to reconsider his income trust bombshell and that shattered election promise. The minister is not listening. Instead, the minister decided on his website to run a poll asking Canadians to vote on the budget that contains that tax. The result: 93% said no way.

Will the minister now do what Canadians want and pull that unfair tax the same way he pulled his poll?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be amazed that the member for Halton shows up here in the House of Commons since he so profoundly believed that people who crossed the floor should have to submit to a byelection. We kept anticipating it.

In fact, this is what he said about people who cross the floor:

I have been asked to change. I refuse to change. I will stand for what I believe. I didn't knock on all those doors to sell out. It ain't going to happen.

Guess what, it happened, and we should not be surprised because he is the guy who wanted pension income splitting and then he sold out, crossed the floor, and voted against pension income splitting.

Public Safety

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Clermont Bégin is a dangerous offender who was sentenced to 11 years in prison for sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, attempted murder, kidnapping and forcible confinement. These offences were committed against a 16 year old young woman from the Lac-Mégantic area in Quebec. His sentence began on April 25, 1996. Yesterday, Mr. Bégin was released after serving his entire sentence.

What does the new government intend to do to ensure that these individuals are better supervised once they are released?

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an important question. Canadians across the country have asked us to take concrete measures against crime and that is what we have done.

Among other things, our government introduced legislation that will ensure heavier consequences on dangerous and high risk offenders at the time they are sentenced.

If Bill C-27 were currently in effect, a person found guilty would see their peace bond extended from 12 months to 24 months. They would have much harsher restrictions and conditions in terms of supervision, and they would be required to get treatment. But for that, we need support from the parties—

Armenia

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to commemorate the Armenian genocide.

I call on hon. members to rise to observe a moment of silence.

[A moment of silence observed ]

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion—Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first wish to inform you, very seriously, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Jeanne-Le Ber. I recognize how important it is to give that kind of information since I am now in a position to fully understand that your job is very demanding and that it requires wit and wisdom.

As far as the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion is concerned, I have to say that environmental issues are amongst the most important concerns on the planet. Without a clean and healthy environment, nothing would be possible and nothing would matter anymore. Inspired by the Earth Day celebrations, I had decided to talk about the little things that each of us can do individually. Simple but effective individual actions are often the key to solving major collective problems. I changed my mind though when I received some very disturbing correspondence from a group of students in my riding who expressed concerns regarding their environment.

I am not an expert on the environment. I yield that role to my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I am the critic for labour. Astonishingly—if I may be permitted an aside—I notice that the Conservative strategy is the same for almost all issues. When their arguments are weak and they do not agree with our proposals, they launch into a fear campaign and they project total disaster. They are not believable in terms of the effects of the anti-scab legislation and the fear campaign against the Kyoto protocol.

However, as I stated earlier, I am sensitive to the concerns of my fellow citizens. The young children in my riding reminded me recently that this Earth was not handed down to us by our ancestors, but is borrowed from our children. Two teachers of the grade five and six classes of the Courtland Park International School in Saint-Bruno, Laura Sollecito and Madeleine Farrah, sent me letters from some 30 students in their school. Those students want me to be aware of their concerns, in particular, oil spills and their effect on the quality of their environment. They also raised other environmental issues.

It is interesting that they took the time to present their ideas and their solutions to their federal member. They obviously went “outside the box” of their normal school assignments. I want to thank their teachers for their initiative and for sending me these letters. In my opinion, the best response to the entreaties of these students who are concerned about oil spills—the best service that I can render them today is to echo their concerns here in this House, in front of the Minister of the Environment and the Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic Party members.

It makes me feel I am doing my work as a member, by acting to represent the residents of my riding and to defend the interests of Quebec and also these young men and women of my riding, by bringing to your attention some extracts from the 30 hand-written letters from these young citizens who are extremely aware of their environment. The intelligence and clarity of vision of these young people is astonishing. They are concerned about the environment, as I said earlier. They have the intelligence to reflect on it, to read, to analyze and develop various situations. They are anxious to find solutions. They are also worried to see the deterioration of the planet. They want to see political leaders intervening to stop that deterioration. They also have the intelligence to alert political leaders to their concerns and to share their thoughts. Some of them clearly call on the government and the Minister of the Environment to take action.

One of the letters I received was especially touching. Young Sara Moreau wrote:

Take the time to consider our future and think of what it will be like.

I will have to tell her that her request has been heard by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, if no one else, who is taking the time to consider our future and to think of what it will be like.

I also received a heartfelt plea from Annie Foisy, who wrote:

I would like you to take a look outside and tell me what you see. I see a horrible world filled with one thing: pollution.

These children are just 10 years old. Others are very anxious, sad, worried and concerned. Laura La Rocque wrote to me, and in so doing, wrote to us all:

We may have tornadoes or even hurricanes if we are not careful enough.

Andrew Goill said:

I am writing to you because the earth is dying. There are oil spills every day, which means that every day, we pollute.

Christian Poirier said:

I want to help prevent oil spills because I like nature and oil spills kill wild animals.

Jean-Sébastien Fontaine asked for action:

I am writing because I find it alarming that there is so much pollution and that it is increasing. Also, it seems as though people are not doing anything about this problem.

There is also a personal request from Émilie Rose Fuoco-Laflamme to the Minister of the Environment.

The Minister of the Environment is responsible for the environment, so he should try something before saying that this cannot be stopped.

Now, in response to their requests for action, I am taking action. I am relaying their requests and asking the minister questions. He boasts about representing a new government and claims that he is taking action instead of just talking, so I am asking him to intervene.

Young people in my riding are very candid about asking us to intervene. It is our duty and responsibility to do so. Like 76% of Quebeckers, these young people believe that the government must do whatever is necessary to reach the Kyoto protocol targets. The Bloc Québécois has proposed implementing the polluter-pay principle, setting absolute reduction targets that comply with the Kyoto protocol and enabling Quebec and other provinces that wish to do so to adopt a territorial approach.

The Conservative government must realize that, with its partisan politics, it is denying the reality of climate change. What the government is doing is twisting the facts and numbers to make them say what it wants them to say. It is waging a campaign of fear by changing the premises on which the analysis of the situation is made.

For example, why is the government saying that the elimination of one tonne of greenhouse gases costs $195, when international experts said, in their report to the UN on April 7, 2007, that it would cost between $25 and $50 a tonne? Is it because the Conservative government has its base in Alberta that it is always trying to protect oil companies by penalizing them as little as possible and by refusing to admit the harm that oil companies can cause to the environment?

But in the real world, for people and children who are aware of their environment, it is clear that the minister simply must act. I would add that he must stop saying that the previous government did nothing. I remind him that the Liberals were too often stopped in their efforts—sometimes rather timid, I must admit—by the fierce actions of the Conservatives who then were the official opposition.

The young people who wrote to me asked what the Bloc Québécois was doing to make the environment better. As I said earlier, their concern began with oil spills. I answered that, in the Bloc Québécois, we were well aware of the problems with oil and thought that one of the ways out was to reduce our dependency on oil through applying six principles.

First, we should become more energy efficient, for example by using less energy to heat our homes. Second, we should promote the use of clean energy like that from water, wind and the sun, instead of oil. We would need to replace trucks by trains and ships, which use less oil and gas. We also need to make it easier to buy hybrid vehicles, which generate less pollution, and to make public transit more accessible. And we should also make sure our gasoline contains less oil products and more biofuels. Finally, we should invent other means of transportation and energies that pollute less, like electric cars.

With these six principles Quebeckers would use less oil, they would need to move less petroleum products and thus the risk of spills would be reduced. I would add that these six principles would also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is the subject of the motion before us today.

I should add for their information that the Bloc Québécois brought this debate to the House to make this government change its mind and is suggesting concrete ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve the environment and impose some discipline on the oil industry.

It is really quite motivating to know that these young people are concerned with the well-being of our planet, and that they are ready to do something personally to make it better. I encourage them very much to keep their interest in their environment—in all meanings of the word—and to demand policies that will change things.

The actions and efforts of the Bloc in this House are far from useless, and they have shown that they are to the point and efficient.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her very clear and moving plea, which illustrated how alike children are in a world that is forgetting them.

Currently, the selfishness of business and government, that only think about the economy, is a real tragedy. I am aware that children must find this increasingly difficult.

I would like to ask my colleague whether she can relay to these children a fact that I found very interesting. Currently, 30% of the animals on the planet will disappear within a century because of climate changes. Of course, I am not talking about flies or that type of bugs, but about birds and large animals such as mammals.

In a magazine entitled Mother Earth, a museum of animals that will likely disappear has already been created. These are animals that we are familiar with and that we see all the time.

Does my colleague think that it would be interesting for these children to realize how their own environment and animals will soon disappear? Even with changes, some things are already no longer acceptable.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question.

First, I would say that the young people who wrote to me have looked closely into the situation, the degradation of the planet, particularly as a result of oil spills. In addition, they are aware of the climate changes and their effect on the planet. They are very concerned and very troubled. Many children said to me that they are very sad about animals changing, dying or disappearing from their environment.

Above all, we must understand that they are extremely aware of their environment. They also know, to my great surprise, that things can be changed with policies. They are asking us to act.

Today, on this opposition day, the Bloc Québécois is showing its interest in taking action. We are interested in taking action and we believe it is necessary for the government to change tactics. The Conservatives must change tactics and tackle the environmental problems. They must take real action to fight real environmental problems and they must stop pretending that climate changes do not exist.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her presentation to the House.

In fact, she was talking to students of 10 and 11 years. I was talking to grade 11 students at Sands Secondary School and they have the same concerns about climate change. They want to take action and in fact they took action. I celebrated Earth Day with the DRS Earthwise Society and people in my riding of Newton--North Delta.

The Conservative government is not getting the point. In fact it is playing politics with the environment and with our future generations. I would request that the member tell the House how the minister could take action. People at the ages of 10 and 11 are asking why the minister is not thinking about our future generations.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Liberal member for his question. If I understand correctly, he is asking me what concrete measures the Bloc Québécois would suggest that the Conservative government take.

I can only refer him to the Bloc Québécois motion, which asks this House to “call on the government to set absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”.

I do not want to repeat everything my colleagues have said about this motion, but I do want to say that it is quite clear. The motion asks the Conservative government to take action, particularly by setting absolute targets and implementing the Kyoto protocol, as 76% of Quebeckers want the government to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today in this House. To begin, I would like to digress a bit and talk about sugar bushes. You will see why. I am sure you enjoy going to the sugar bush. I love it. And I would like to thank young Félix-Antoine, who, on my last visit to a sugar bush, helped me find my BlackBerry, which I had lost. A member of Parliament feels quite isolated without a BlackBerry. So I want to thank Félix-Antoine, who saved the government money and prevented any pollution that might have resulted.

I am talking about sugar bushes because a few years ago, a battle was waged against acid rain, which required a major effort not only in Canada, but in the United States as well. At the time, we were told that plunging immediately into the fight against acid rain would mean economic disaster. We were told that it was impossible to solve this problem quickly, it was impossible to reduce our acid emissions. Yet we succeeded in making so much progress on this issue that today, the sugar bushes in Quebec and Canada are in much better shape than they were a decade ago.

There was also the fight against chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which caused holes in the ozone layer. We were told at the time—you will guess what—that it would be an economic disaster, that we could not do this kind of transition, that we would never find alternatives and that it made no sense at all. Nevertheless, we have made great progress in that area.

So when the environment minister presented his so-called report, I told myself that it was impossible. I could not believe it. How could he use this old tactic of scaring people by leading them to believe that they will lose their jobs when the opposite is true? In fact, inaction is what threatens our economy more than anything else.

The so-called government report on the impacts of Kyoto was so biased and distorted that there was nobody to support it. I was surprised. I paid close attention to the news wire and I thought that at some point the petroleum producers association would support the government, but I have not seen anything yet. I can only conclude that oil companies are not bothering to support the government on this issue, which proves how isolated the government is and how bogus its study is.

On the contrary, earlier today, during question period, we were wondering if a sensible person could claim that there would be no economic impact following the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. I am convinced that there will be such an impact and I believe it will be positive. I also think that this is another good reason to support the Kyoto protocol. Above and beyond all the environmental considerations and the importance of saving our planet, it is indeed an incredible opportunity for Quebec and for all of Canada to develop economically.

The economic cost of inaction would be very considerable indeed. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will recall Mr. Stern's report, which advised the British Prime Minister on issues related to the Kyoto protocol. Mr. Stern might be considered somewhat of an expert in economics, being a former president of the World Bank. Mr. Stern warned that inaction when it comes to Kyoto would cost billions in economic losses. This is the real threat. The United States can certainly attest to this, considering the hurricanes that are becoming increasingly frequent, violent and severe. Obviously, this has a very negative effect on our economy. We are all aware of the changes this could cause in terms of occupancy and cultivation of the land and access to drinking water. Throughout the world, inaction will be extremely costly.

If there is any catastrophic scenario to discuss, it is what will happen to our planet if the Kyoto targets are not met. That is the real catastrophic scenario. It has nothing to do with the economic problems presented by the government.

Above and beyond the costs we would avoid by implementing Kyoto, our industry and our economy would enjoy a competitive advantage by reducing their dependency on petroleum. The oil that companies purchase and must burn, and the gas that people must buy to fuel their cars; these are expenses. This all has a cost. If, as a society, we give ourselves a kick-start and convince ourselves that we have to follow through, and if our government supports our efforts and gives us tools and clear benchmarks, and if the government contributes to the plan, we will then be able to reduce our oil dependency. This would mean lower costs for our businesses, which would then be more productive and could be more competitive on the global market.

If Canada and the United States continue to be the only two countries in the western world to refuse to implement Kyoto and to fail to reach minimum greenhouse gas reduction targets, this would mean that, of all industrialized countries, we would be the ones to consume more and more petroleum for the same units of production. Thus, we would be less and less productive. From an economic standpoint, that is what would be catastrophic.

At a time when markets are globalizing, it is totally incomprehensible that our country would content itself with failing to achieve the Kyoto targets. While the Germans, French and English manufacture vehicles that burn much less fuel than ours and their factories become more and more productive and able to produce ever more with less energy, we will content ourselves with falling productivity in comparison with theirs. That seems completely irrational to me.

The other disadvantage of failing to proceed with our commitments under the Kyoto protocol is all the opportunities we will lose. First, we will not be able to access the market for greenhouse gas emission credits, usually called carbon exchanges. We already have some in Montreal. There is the carbon exchange that the Montreal Stock Exchange wants to create. We are prepared. This is an attractive economic activity, but we will not have access to it because of the government’s refusal to adopt absolute targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Companies will be able to purchase these credits when they need them to meet their fixed targets and will also be able to sell credits when they exceed their targets. These credits will increase in value over time. The government says that we are asking it to spend a lot of money to buy these credits. In actual fact, this is an investment because production increases over time and the credits will become increasingly sought after as companies strive to achieve their fixed targets. This is therefore a lost opportunity.

I am concerned about something else as well. People around the world are talking increasingly about levying taxes on imports from countries that fail to comply with Kyoto. Companies here in Quebec and Canada will be relatively less productive than foreign companies in countries that signed the Kyoto protocol because they will not have reduced their dependence on oil as much as companies elsewhere. In addition, when our companies try to export, they will have a tax levied on them because they are from a country that has not complied with Kyoto.

Finally, there is obviously an entire technology market to develop, one that will be constantly growing. People are talking about billions of dollars worldwide. If Canada fails to adopt the targets in the Kyoto protocol now, we will be excluded from this market. People who want to invest will not do so in places where there is no market and no interest in achieving the targets. We absolutely must proceed, therefore, and implement the Kyoto protocol. I have deliberately not mentioned the environmental aspect because my colleagues have already said a lot about it.

It is for basically economic reasons that we must proceed and adopt absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets, and the Kyoto protocol is the minimum.

Anything less would be both an environmental and an economic mistake.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is only a little difference between what my friend from the Bloc is saying and what we are actually doing. We are saying as soon as possible and he wants things done immediately, which might be physically impossible.

I certainly am committed to the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. We on this side of the House wholeheartedly agree that there is an urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases and pollution and we have been working on that. Since the member is on the finance committee, he knows that we put $4.5 billion in the recent budget to deal with those issues.

My question for the member concerns part the motion in front of us. The motion reads, “as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal”. The Bloc has been very clear that it is interested in the establishment of a carbon exchange. I am not sure whether it means all government money, all private money, all international or all national, but that is not the issue here.

If the Government of Canada decides to proceed with a carbon exchange, could the member tell me why it needs to be in Montreal? Since we are a national government for the country of Canada, could it be in another part of this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Exchange has already signalled its intention to establish a carbon exchange as soon as absolute greenhouse gas reduction targets have been set. Interest is greatest in Quebec. The National Assembly, businesses, labour, all have expressed support for the Kyoto protocol. It seems self-evident to me, especially since Montreal is home to the entire derivatives market.

When day-to-day market capitalization, the stocks exchanged on a daily basis on the trading floor, was moved to Toronto, which remains Canada's top trade exchange, it was agreed between the two trade exchanges that Montreal would look after derivatives. It seems only natural to me that this agreement be honoured and that any new derivative on the market be directed to the Montreal Exchange, with all the other derivatives.

As for the first part, with respect to the so-called action, while the government has been in office for over a year, tangible results have yet to be delivered. It is amazing and rather unusual for a government to use its own incompetence to justify what it does, for a government to come and tell the House that it can do nothing.

The main difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives know that they are incompetent. Over the course of 13 years, the Liberals pretended to be doing something, but did nothing. The Conservatives are not doing anything, but at least they realize it. That is better than nothing, but it is not enough for future generations.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc talked very passionately about the need to get off oil and to move society in that direction. However, in Quebec right now an environmental assessment is going on in the development of a liquefied natural gas terminal.

I would like to know whether this imagery of Quebec importing more fossil fuels from the rest of the world fits with his imagery of a Quebec that is moving off oil and becoming more responsible for greenhouse gas emission reductions in this world.

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, it must be realized that, when we talk about greenhouse gas reductions, we talk about reducing oil consumption and, by extension, oil production.

The hon. member is right when he says that transporting oil is also, in and of itself, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, as is transporting any good, whether it is lettuce, tomatoes, oranges, etc. In this regard, it would interesting if our society would consider buying more local products, because this would be one way to reduce transport activities and, consequently, greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

I am pleased to rise today to reiterate our government's firm and unequivocal commitment to fight climate change and to protect our environment.

Our government shares the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians regarding the environment and, particularly, the quality of the air that we breathe.

We are taking significant, concrete and realistic measures to reduce harmful air pollutants. These pollutants that we all breathe are a threat to our health, our economy and our quality of life.

We on this side of the House are very upset by the impact of smog on the lives of our fellow Canadians who suffer from respiratory diseases.

We simply do not accept that a child suffering from asthma cannot go outside to play with his friends during those nice summer days, because there is too much smog. The most vulnerable members of our society—our children and the elderly—deserve better.

We are also very concerned by the increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Despite all the nice speeches of the Liberals and of the Bloc Québécois, the fact remains that, from the moment that the previous government signed the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse gas levels have constantly been increasing in Canada.

We all know now— the Liberals knew as soon as the Kyoto protocol was signed—that we will never reach the targets set for Canada. The Liberals accepted the targets without even carrying out an impact study to support them and without taking into account the specific characteristics of our country.

The Liberals knew that the only way to meet the targets would be to buy carbon credits abroad with taxpayers' money.

As for the Bloc, as usual it was powerless to deal with the Liberal negligence. The Bloc members try to justify their powerless existence in Ottawa by shouting. On the issue of climate change, the Bloc knows very well that it will never be able to do anything other than criticize.

For our part, we are not just talking about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, we are taking concrete and effective measures to do just that.

With regard to targets, the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment have been very clear. In the near future, our government will propose short-term targets. Canadians and Quebeckers know full well that we are determined to improve our environment.

Since October 2006, we have introduced a multitude of initiatives totalling more than $9 billion. I am referring to the ecoenergy initiative and the ecotransport strategy. I am also thinking of the ecotrust which will allow Quebec to fulfill its ambitions and to implement its climate change plan.

The Bloc Québécois demanded $328 million for Quebec, an amount we did not agree with. The Conservative government did not give Quebec the $328 million demanded by the Bloc Québécois but rather transferred $350 million. That is a good example of the Bloc's failure to meet Quebec's needs.

For real results, Quebeckers know that they can count on only one party, the Conservative Party.

I would also like to talk about biofuels. Just yesterday, I announced the ecoAgriculture Biofuels Capital Initiative in Laval. Not only will this initiative help reduce vehicle emissions, but it will also allow farmers to reap the maximum benefits from this new market.

With this initiative, we are guaranteeing a promising future for farmers and regions and at the same time protecting the environment for future generations.

I would also like to spend a few minutes on another very important aspect of the fight against climate change, and that is international cooperation.

No country can tackle climate change on its own. This is a long-term challenge that cannot be met without effective international cooperation. In order for international cooperation on climate change to be effective, it must meet a number of criteria.

First, it must be effective in environmental terms, and lead to the reductions that are needed in order to combat climate change.

Second, it will need broad participation, including the major emitting countries that are not currently committed to reducing emissions. While Canada is the source of about 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the United States emits about 20% and the developing countries nearly 50%.

Third, dealing with climate change even though global demand for energy is rising will call for effective development and implementation of clean technologies, both in the developed world and in developing countries.

Fourth, it will have to address the question of adaptation meaningfully.

Fifth, it will have to include flexible measures that will enable countries to meet their commitments to reducing emissions.

And sixth, global action on climate change must recognize a country's internal and unique circumstances.

Upcoming discussions about international cooperation are gaining momentum in many international forums, both inside and outside the United Nations. Canada is actively participating in those discussions.

Our government is very clear: Canada continues to be bound by the principles and objectives in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and by the Kyoto protocol.

The Kyoto protocol offers ways in which all countries can share information about their greenhouse gas emissions and the measures they are taking to deal with them. It also provides a framework to support developing countries as they adapt to the consequences of climate change. The protocol provides the industrialized and developing countries with an opportunity to cooperate, through the Clean Development Mechanism and projects that reduce greenhouse gases.

We accept our international obligations and we will do everything we can in this regard. We are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is appropriate to Canada's domestic circumstances and that will meet the criteria that apply to international cooperation referred to earlier. We need more cooperation and leadership at the international level and from the major emitting countries.

I am thinking in particular of the G-8 + 5 countries which, in addition to the major developed economies, include economies that are growing in importance, such as China and India.

Discussions regarding the future are going on at the United Nations at present under three separate processes.

The first is the "Dialogue on Long-term Cooperative Action" and is open to all 189 countries, including the United States and China, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was set up to share experiences and examine innovative new future approaches to address climate change.

The Dialogue process is important because it can examine better approaches that will enable all countries to join in cooperative actions on climate change.

The second United Nations discussion process is called the "Ad Hoc Working Group on further commitments for developed countries beyond 2012". Its aim is to consider further commitments under the Kyoto protocol.

Discussions in the working group should be broad enough to allow for consideration of alternative approaches to international cooperation. They will also allow for consideration of opportunities for countries that do not have targets under the Kyoto protocol to participate in the future. In 2000, the group of countries that met the current Kyoto targets accounted for only 28% of global emissions.

The third United Nations process is a review of the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, as article 9 requires.

Based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol, a number of other supplementary initiatives have been created to fight climate change.

Canada actively participates in the Gleneagles Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Development and other G-8 discussions on climate change. The Gleneagles dialogue brings together the top 20 energy users to discuss the challenges related to climate change, clean energy and sustainable development.

Canada also participates in a certain number of technology cooperation and partnership initiatives, namely the Methane to Markets partnership, the Carbon sequestration leadership forum, the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, and the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership.

Taking part in these initiatives allows Canada to make progress on implementing Canadian technologies in developing countries.

In addition to the UN efforts, Canada is actively exploring ways to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Change.

The Asia-Pacific Partnership is a voluntary initiative that addresses challenges related to sustainable development, clean energy and climate change. It addresses these issues by developing, deploying and transferring clean, efficient technology, free of risks of climate change.

We participate in all these discussions to promote our points of view and to help guide the process. In our opinion, we should examine how governments and the private sector could work together to stimulate technological innovation and move the world consistently toward a low carbon economy.

Countries from around the world should share experiences and discuss what can be done well within the convention process. Market based approaches will continue to be important.

The international community should continue to engage with corporations, multilateral development banks, and export credit agencies. Canada is looking closely at existing carbon exchange mechanisms and our approach will be based on the pros and cons observed.

Major progress has been made on the issue of adaptation in the UN process, but there is still a long way to go.

The Government of Canada supports the importance of an open information exchange between the processes, whether within the UN framework or outside it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable that I find it rather strange that he is talking about people who shout here, when the person who always shouts the loudest among the wolves is the Minister of the Environment. He yells the loudest. Thus, I did not understand the allusion made by the hon. member regarding people who yell on this side of the House. In our view, it is the members opposite who shout the loudest.

Nor did I understand why they say they have done so many things, when we feel that they have not achieved anything in the past year and a half, apart from eliminating programs and reinstating them under new names. Thus, someone will have to explain to me what they have actually done during this time. I would also like to point out to the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable that, if the Bloc were not here at this time, the member would also be elsewhere, namely, on an election campaign. In other words, we have our place here.

I would like the hon. member to explain something. How can he say that the money that would be used to pay for carbon exchanges would come from people, from the population, when we all know very well that this is a private sector matter? The stock exchange is always paid for by private enterprise and not by the people. Thus, I would like him to explain, clearly and explicitly, how this money would come from the people?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question. I had the pleasure of sitting with him on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which I miss by the way.

We must go much further than the idle talk of the Bloc and the Liberals. There was no action on this issue for 13 years. It is important to understand, and I have a good quote to show it, that the Bloc's rhetoric on this issue, as on all the others, will never be worth more than the paper it is written on. Although, for this to be true, the paper would probably have to be discounted. What I mean is that it is always all talk and no action.

Now there are initiatives. Nine billion dollars have been announced since October 2006. There will be targets that will place limits on all the sectors and all of industry. This has never been seen before, and my colleague knows that.