Debates of April 24th, 2007

Opposition Motion—Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue today. The need for action on climate change is now, which is why the New Democratic Party will support this motion that reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed 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.

This is a good motion and it does not preclude the free enterprise system in developing other carbon exchanges in this country. Interest has been expressed by other cities to have similar things. We may find, as time goes on, that these systems could be developed in a way that would be uniquely Canadian and may include other locations in the country. I know Winnipeg is interested. The motion does not tie our hands in this regard but does push forward with the need to set the targets for achieving Kyoto.

We have worked diligently in committee on Bill C-30 over the past six months in, what I have always considered, a nation-building exercise. We put the ideas from all the parties together and created Bill C-30, a bill that represents the majority view in the House of Commons. It represents a building of a consensus toward an issue that can only be solved through consensus, through the support of all parties, through the recognition that we are working for the betterment of Canada and the world, and that partisan political differences must be cast aside.

Last week the environment minister tried to scare Canadians from taking the needed action on climate change when he painted his doom and gloom scenario before members of the Senate. That, of course, raised everyone's hackles. Let us look at how realistic his nightmare on green street is.

He said that meeting Canada's greenhouse gas commitments would take a quarter of a million jobs out of the economy. This level of job loss in Canada, according to the minister, would result in economic chaos for Canada. How can he say this when the job loss from the North American Free Trade Agreement resulted in more than four times the number of Canadians who had lost jobs?

According to the Conservatives, NAFTA is good for Canada. Where was their concerns about job losses when the result was greater profit for their business pals? Where was the chaos in the Canadian economy? People worked, they recovered from the job losses and they moved ahead.

[An hon. member]

But there were job losses.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Some jobs will be lost in transit to an environmentally sustainable economy but many more will be created. However, even more than Canadians losing their jobs, they will lose their future and their grandchildren's future if we lose the intrinsic nature of the stability of our climate and our environment by doing nothing.

The environment minister claims that the cost of electricity will rise by 50%. I guess the minister does not realize just how many other opportunities there are for electricity across the country. Generating electricity with fossil fuels and with oil and coal has, if properly computed, more expensive results than many other forms of energy.

Having hard targets for greenhouse gas reduction will force investments into much more clean, useful, sustainable and long term forms of energy generation. It will improve the use of fossil fuels in terms of cogeneration. It will make a difference to Canada in wind power, hydro, solar, biomass, all those things. It will move them ahead as they can be moved ahead and as they have the opportunity to move ahead.

We were in a natural resources committee meeting last week and we heard people from the wind power sector say that we had the ability of 100,000 megawatts within the existing transmission system in Canada. We have that resource available to us. Solar energy is available everywhere in the country. As we use it, as we increase the volume of it, the price will come down and the long term impact on our economy will be very positive. Then we can talk about conservation in the short term.

I heard the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, in the Bill C-30 committee, say that he had a geographically challenged area in the country for energy. He said that people had to travel long distances and that they had to use lots of energy to heat and light their homes. Interestingly enough, we did that before 1990 as well. Before 1990, we were a very large energy user. Therefore, in comparison, when we talk about Kyoto, we talk about the reduction of energy in our homes and about the reduction in our transportation system. It is relative to 1990 where we did much the same as we do now.

Canadians are large energy users. Energy was cheap for many years. We use a lot of it. We have great opportunities. The least costly electrical energy right now is the megawatt. The reduction in use of that source of energy will not cost 50% more; it will cost 50% less for the consumer.

The energy minister said that the price of gasoline would rise by more than 60%. Over the last five years, we have seen the price of gasoline go up and down like a yo-yo. That has not stopped our economy. That has not stopped people from getting to and from work. Again, he assumes that average Canadians will not move to cars which use less gasoline or other fuels or increase their use of public transit if the price of gasoline goes up.

The minister must believe that no one will use the measures announced in the recent budget and last year's budget. I am sure the minister is familiar with the law of supply and demand. When the demand goes down, the cost of the supply will go down as well. As Canadians use less and less gasoline, demand will drop, resulting in a levelling of prices or a drop.

The minister wants to scare us into believing that a doubling of natural gas prices will throw the economy into a tailspin. In the last decade the price of natural gas has gone from $2 a gigajoule up to $8. That is a quadrupling of the price of natural gas in Canada. Has the Canadian economy suffered? Has it fallen into chaos? No, it has not. Canadians are extremely adaptable. Our industries are adaptable. They make the moves that are necessary to accommodate increased energy costs, and they have done that.

If the Canadian economy can grow when natural gas prices continue to climb, doubling in price, according to this incredible assumption of $195 a tonne for carbon tax, which we have to take because the minister has given it to us, the economy will not stop. The economy will continue to grow. We will continue to heat our homes. We may move to other forms of energy, whether it is biomass pellets, or geothermal or solar energy, but we will move ahead. We will continue to move ahead, even in the situation where the minister wants us to go with $195 a tonne carbon tax.

In Bill C-30, the carbon tax is $30 and 50% will be returned to the companies if they make the effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and 50% will go into retrofits for people in homes and businesses across the country.

The Conservatives have put forward a retrofit program and over four years it will deliver for about 1% of Canadian homes. It is a good idea, but it is not enough money. If we want to put money into retrofit in Canada, which we need to do and which will help every Canadian that invests in that sort of activity, then we need more money in the programs. Bill C-30 can provide that money. We know we can do better than 1% of Canadian homes over four years.

Finally, the minister would have us believe that every one of us would have to shell out an extra $1,000 a year to take action on climate change. As I have run through the other three conclusions that he drew from his report, this is as erroneous as those. People will adjust to what has to be done. The result may be the other way around, where Canadians will conserve and save themselves $1,000 a year in energy costs.

Will there be winners in an economy based on the Kyoto reduction principles of greenhouse gas emissions? There will be many winners, as there always are in our economy. Some people will take advantage of the opportunities to do the right thing, to make the right investment, to come up with the right industrial process and to put forward the correct ideas that can drive their municipalities, their provinces, their homes. Winners are always part of an economy in our country.

Who will take a hit then? Who are the people who will be hurt by the Kyoto compliance? Polluters who do not live up to what they have to do. The large multinational corporations, all friends of the Conservatives, will have to finally clean up their mess.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

American corporations too.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It could be American corporations. It could be any other company that invests in this country, or it could be Canadians as well. All corporations have the opportunity to either move forward or not move forward. We will see who has the moxie in their company and who has the wherewithal to do it.

My territory has many multinationals. Some of them come from Australia, from England and from South Africa. They all deal in diamonds. We did not set any standards for them for energy production. They all rely on good old oil to generate their electricity to heat their mines.

We have alternatives in the Northwest Territories. We have demonstrated that. We can provide them all the clean hydroelectric power they want for their facilities. When they are under some pressure to do this, they will do it. If they want the diamonds and the economic activity, they will invest in the clean energy that will make their businesses fit under the Kyoto requirements.

Years ago I had the opportunity, as a mayor in my community, to stand up against the development of the Alberta-Pacific pulp mill in northeastern Alberta. It had proposed a particular setup where it would pollute the river systems, create a lot of damage and affect my community. We fought that and proved our point. The companies were rejected at the environmental assessment. Within two or three months, they came with a solution that reduced the pollution by over 70%.

When I talked to those same companies years later, they said the best thing that happened to them in that process was they were forced to clean up their act. They said that they now had a product with an environmental tag on it. They had a facility that was the best in the world, they were selling their pulp and making money at it.

Sometimes the lesson should be that the fear of progress should never stop one from making progress. Fear does not drive a healthy economy. Fear does not drive nation building. Fear does not create a world of which our children would be proud. The environment minister should not try to scare us. We are not here to be scared. We are here to accomplish something for Canadians.

I hope the environment minister will join with us, bring forward Bill C-30, allow it to debated in the House and show Canadians that when the four parties in this House of Commons work together, we can produce results for Canadians.

The time now is not for timid actions. It is not time to try to scare working Canadians away from what needs to be done. Imagine, in the 1940s, if the minister said that the cost to Canada of fighting the second world war was too much and that it was better to let those fascists have their way. We made a choice to invest in our future.

Like almost 70 years ago, Canada is once again facing a serious threat, a threat to our coastal cities, to our agricultural industry, to the thing that sustains our life, the planet Earth. To deal with this threat, we need cooperative action. We need global action. We cannot turn our backs on the first global treaty that has been signed to initiate a process that will reduce the level of greenhouse gases around the world. We cannot allow the threat of climate change by putting one set of interests ahead of another. We cannot say that because we need to expand the oil and gas industry, we need to use dirtier products to add to our ability to expand. Just like in the second world war, we have to work together on this.

As part of our fight against climate change, we need a national energy strategy as well, which is based on renewable energy and uses an east-west electricity grid to transfer clean energy from one part of Canada to another. At our last convention, the NDP adopted a policy for the creation of a national energy strategy.

Only through cooperative effort and effective planning, such as the development of a national energy strategy, will we be able to successfully meet the challenge of climate change. We cannot simply put into place targets without planning, without telling everyone how are we going to move forward. We have to let them know what are going to invest in to make our future right.

We talk about investing in liquefied natural gas terminals. Choosing to export money and the problem of climate change and bring in another source of fossil fuels for Canadians, is not a solution that should fit for Canadians. We can look at our valuable resources in the tar sands and say that one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from these tar sands is to export the raw bitumen, export jobs, export economic opportunities and export pollution. That does not make sense either in a world in which we live. We need to work with our people in the tar sands to ensure the product they provide is clean, it works and it has the desirable attributes that we want from an energy product.

It is time for the environment minister and others in the House, who are not ready to face the challenge, to put away their scare tactics, to work with the rest of us, to work with Canadians and to come together, bring Bill C-30 forward, let us debate it in the House of Commons and let us move forward in that regard.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment recently tabled a report. It was not fearmongering. It was independently assessed and evaluated. There are job losses in the short term.

However, someone else also verified short term job loss, because of Kyoto, was Buzz Hargrove. He called himself a socialist without a home. After listening to the hon. member, I can see why. The NDP and the Liberals have declared war on the auto industry with a Kyoto target and timeline that Buzz Hargrove has said is “suicidal for the economy”.

I know the member opposite does not like industry saying there will be job losses, but why does he want to go after union jobs?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member's comments about the auto industry.

I have driven nothing but North American products most of my life. I invested in another one the other day, a GMC product and it gets 42 miles to the gallon. It is comfortable. It is a nice vehicle.

The auto industry can do a lot better in producing vehicles for us than it is right now. I listened to Mr. Hargrove talk on the radio the other day and explain why we are in the situation we are in with the auto industry right now and why we are making the vehicles that we are.

Yes, mistakes were made. If we consider that we are moving forward on Kyoto, putting our investment in the auto industry into vehicles that do not match up to that, then we have a problem. We need to work on that. We need to ensure that Canadians are building cars that can make the grade in the new economy.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the question that was raised by the member about the economic analysis performed last week. The interesting thing about it is that the economic analysis was based on a plan that no one in this country is proposing. It is a scenario that is pure science fiction.

The only thing missing from the scenario last week was the Conservative analysis omitting to tell us that there was a giant asteroid on a collision course with the planet.

There are two obscured assumptions that I want to put to the member if I could. First of all, anyone who is not tied to a table is proposing a carbon tax and a carbon tax of $195 a tonne. The only place this seems to have come from is the hon. minister's desk when he invented the number.

The second assumption is that Kyoto is not doable but excludes all the tools, like international emissions trading. That is like asking the founders of this city to dig the canal by using teaspoons.

Why does the member believe the Conservatives are trying to kill Kyoto by misleading Canadians on the costs and the opportunities inherent in our Kyoto obligations?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the concept that we are going to have a tax of $195 a tonne on carbon emissions is just frankly ridiculous. Anyone who is in the energy business, the retrofit business or the renewable energy business, businesses that I am very familiar with, would be jumping up and down at the thought that we would somehow get these kinds of dollars as a tax on carbon emissions.

Within Bill C-30 there are provisions for the $30 a tonne for carbon going into a bank fund. It is not a tax but it fixes a dollar amount around a particular substance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's discussions about how we need to start looking forward. As a member from the Arctic I think he would understand the complete failure we have seen over the years in terms of a government response to the need of finding alternative energy sources, particularly in our first nations communities.

Along the James Bay coast, my communities are dependent on diesel generators. We are sitting beside massive potential in terms of hydroelectric power and yet the federal government downsized the responsibility for paying for the diesel fuel that is being flown in at exorbitant rates to communities with 80% unemployment. In the community of Peawanuck, for example, hydro bills were as high as $1,200 and $1,600. I have visited families who bathe their children once a week because they cannot afford to turn on the hot water. These are unsustainable rates for power that are being utilized. Yet, we are sitting right beside massive resources that would create sustainable energy.

The communities have asked government to work with us. We could get these communities off the diesel costs and move to long term sustainability. Yet there never seems to be any movement from the bureaucrats at the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It is always put off until next year for another budget that never comes.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. Does he have recommendations on how we can start to build sustainable communities in the north which are not dependent on the cost of resources that we simply cannot pay for?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of experience in small, remote community energy systems. There are many opportunities there. I look at the community I visited two weeks ago in my own riding, Wha Ti, which is a small Tlicho community. The community wanted to put in a mini hydro system, a one megawatt system that would not only light its homes, but heat them too.

Once we make the move with Bill C-30, once we agree what we are going to accomplish here, these projects will move forward quickly. Once Canada knows the direction it has to move in, right across this country, we will see a flourishing of projects like we cannot believe.

I spent time on the Federation of Canadian Municipalities green fund. I have seen the projects that are available across this whole country. We have a great future ahead if we simply make some decisions here in this Parliament and get going with the new economy.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP talked about Bill C-30 and about Bill C-288. We are technically debating what the Bloc has put in front of us.

My issue is this. I have heard a number of times today about fearmongering about the numbers. I guess my colleague does not like the numbers. Those members are certainly capable of talking about what is going to happen to the environment if we do not do anything. We agree that we need to do something about it, but we do not call that fearmongering. When they get the facts on the financial side on Bill C-288, they like to call it fearmongering, which just does not make any coherent sense to me.

It would take a cut of about 30% a year to 2012 because we have to catch up from where we were to get to where we have to be in order to meet those targets in 2012. Based on Bill C-288, which is in front of the Senate, and based on the fact that we are so far behind because of Liberal inaction, does my colleague think it is actually feasible to cut greenhouse gases with no cost to the economy at a rate of 30% a year between now and 2012?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to say that Canada cannot accomplish something. I am not willing to stand here and say that we cannot accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish. I have more respect for Canadians.

There are many things to do in this country. The government just needs to give the signal and the direction. If we fail in accomplishing our goals in the next four or five years, that will be something. We need to try. We need to move ahead. We cannot simply sit on our butts here.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP suggested a plan for a transition fund for the thousands of employees who would now be unemployed because of the Liberal plan. What is the member's suggestion for the funding of this transition fund? How long would it take for this transition fund?

We are asking for facts. We had to do the Liberals' homework because they did not provide the costs. If he thinks that is not correct, then what does he think the real cost is?

With respect to the transition fund, which was the NDP proposal to take care of unemployed workers if the Liberal plan went ahead, what is his suggestion for how long that transition fund would last?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we can start to invest in energy efficiency today.

I was watching television last night and saw what the Chinese are proposing for 2010 in all their buildings. They propose to reduce 50% of their energy requirements in all of their buildings by 2010. They are pushing forward with a very ambitious program. This is the kind of thing that is reported in our national media. This is the kind of direction that we need to take.

Investing billions of dollars a year in retrofits in our homes and our businesses, where the largest greenhouse gas savings are available to the consumer, to small businesses, are things that are going to return right away. We need to invest in the opportunities that exist for carbon--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but there is a need to resume the debate.

The hon. Minister of Labour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in this House. I would like those who are watching us to know what is in the motion before us. It says:

That the House call on the government to set fixed 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 Montréal.

It was the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie who introduced this motion.

When we talk about the Kyoto protocol, what are we talking about? In short, in 1997, Canada and 160 other member states of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change met in Kyoto, Japan. Under the Kyoto protocol agreed to at the time, Canada made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels. It is now 2007 and we have to reduce the emissions by 6% of what they were 17 years ago, by 2008 and no later than 2012.

However, we have to consider the reality. After the inaction of the previous governments over the past 10 years, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have not stopped increasing, such that they now exceed 35% of our Kyoto protocol targets. In other words, to achieve our targets, starting next year Canada would have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 33% on average for every year of the Kyoto protocol reporting period. To achieve this draconian reduction in the next eight months, Canada would have to strictly impose severe measures that would have serious repercussions on the country's families, jobs and economy.

We wanted independent economists to analyze the situation. I would like to share with you the names of those who participated in the analysis. Don Drummond is the senior vice president and chief economist of the TD Bank Financial Group. Jean-Thomas Bernard is an economics professor at Université Laval. Christopher Green is an economics professor at McGill. Mark Jaccard is a professor at Simon Fraser University's School of Resource and Environmental Management. Carl Sonnen is the president of Informetrica Limited. These people analyzed the situation.

Before getting into what could happen, I would like to add that if this were easy, if this were not a problem for our economy, why would we not go ahead with the Kyoto protocol? Why would we not propose an even better Kyoto protocol plus? If this were easy, why would we not do it? We know it would be popular. Here are the reasons why we are not doing it.

The report considered repercussions on Canadian families. If I am not mistaken, 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs between now and 2009. That is the equivalent of the entire Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Electricity bills would go up by 50%. The price of gas would rise by 60%, and natural gas for home heating would double in price. Some say the Canadian economy would shrink by over 4.2%. That would mean a deep recession in Canada in 2008, that is, next year. That would mean a recession as bad as the one Canadians experienced in 1981 and 1982, the worst one we have had since the second world war. Canadians still remember that one.

If this were easy, if it were good for Canada, why would our government not go ahead with the Kyoto protocol? Why would we not go ahead with a Kyoto plus plan? Because the economy would be devastated.

However, we will not stand back and do nothing. We have said that we want to take action and move forward. In the coming days, the Minister of the Environment will set greenhouse gas reduction targets for industry.

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to add my remarks to those of my colleagues in response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, calling on the government to set targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

From the beginning, our government has made it abundantly clear that we are committed to creating a cleaner, healthier environment, an environment that will improve the lives of Canadians. In our economic statement last fall, “Advantage Canada”, our government told Canadians that we were seeking achievable results to create a healthier environment for our generation and future generations.

In the past, Canadians have heard a great deal of talk—as I said earlier—but have seen very little in terms of concrete measures. This has meant that we are a long way from reaching the targets set 17 years ago.

In this year's budget, our government took concrete action to preserve our environment and improve the air we all breathe. We have already begun setting this out in the budget. For the first time, the government's program on air quality will include Canada-wide regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution created by key sectors of industry.

Our air quality program moves away from voluntary approaches and the patchwork of regulatory processes that exists across the country. The voluntary approach, advocated by the previous Liberal government, would not allow us to achieve the results that Canadians expect.

Finally, I would like to quote the Leader of the Opposition who stated when he was Minister of the Environment, “We know that agreements can work when they are voluntary”. He did say “can” and not “will”. And now for the results: we know that we are far from the target of 6% below 1990 levels. Our government is focussed instead on a national framework that will be compulsory and will achieve concrete results, while respecting the Canadian economy and maintaining jobs for Canadians, and ensuring that our economy can continue to grow while meeting the objective of reducing greenhouse gases.

Furthermore, as part of the program, the government will soon announce short-term greenhouse gas and air pollutant reduction targets for the main industrial sectors. These targets will be reached through the concerted efforts of businesses in all sectors of the economy and all—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to adopt the amendment unanimously.