Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the government actions over the past three and a half years and their results.
The government was very big on ethanol production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It invested billions of dollars of Canadians' money. There was a real boondoggle when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is a nice subsidy for farmers, but it should not be called greenhouse gas reductions. That has been clearly outlined. The use of corn ethanol is simply not viable as a greenhouse gas reduction technique.
The next boondoggle of the government was its choice to take the path and direction of carbon capture and storage in greenhouse gas reductions. Once again, it is a nice subsidy for oil and gas. Perhaps it will be used for enhanced oil recovery, but it is not a solution in the short, medium or long term for proper greenhouse gas reductions.
We can look at the budget that came out in January and its home renovation tax credit. There was money available for all measure of things. It was great for the home renovation business, but it was not directed toward any reductions of greenhouse gases or any improvements in energy efficiency for homes. People may have used it for those reasons, but it was certainly not directed toward those purposes.
There was no consideration for green projects within the infrastructure program. There was no consideration for greenhouse gas reductions in the direction of the investment of billions of dollars in this year's budget.
Where is the hon. member's analysis of the work the government has done so far to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Canadian taxpayers' dollars were spent ostensibly for that purpose and very little has been accomplished.