Debates of May 6th, 2009

Energy Efficiency Act

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax West said that the Conservatives did not have an energy policy. Although it is not a Bill S-3 matter, we have a $1 billion green energy program and the strictest mandated green house gas emission standards in Canadian history, a 20% reduction by 2020.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say that they will have this 20% reduction as part of their so-called “Turning the Corner” plan, but they have not brought in any regulations to make it happen. They have done nothing to make this come into reality.

I encourage the member to speak to the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources and get the Prime Minister working on this so they actually have some real effective measures. I take it from the member's comments that he must be concerned about this, at least I hope he is.

I want to mention this. He is the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I was just in Vancouver and the name of his riding describes the area very well. It is certainly a beautiful city and it was a pleasure to be there this weekend.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to again debate Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act, which is intended to expand the regulatory parameters of the present act. The essence of the bill is laudable, but as the ad well-known to Quebeckers says, it will not change the world.

The present act dates from 1992. and a number of technological innovations since have forced us to take another look at this act to determine whether it is “in step” with those technological advances. The amendments proposed in this energy efficiency bill are going in the right direction, for they target non-regulated products and raise the standards for other products.

However, we have to determine whether this bill is not simply an update of the standards of the Office of Energy Efficiency, as this is of some concern to us. We need to show a real willingness to improve the energy efficiency of certain energy-using products with the aim of improving our energy efficiency and not with the aim of permitting the federal government to say that it is looking after the environment.We are afraid this may just be a bit of a smoke screen. We must admit, moreover, that the government's unwillingness to take action to protect the environment makes us a bit leery. But this bill is a start, and that is why we are in agreement with it.

The amendments made by this bill are thus intended to consider the advancement of knowledge about energy efficiency, to broaden the minister's regulatory authority, to introduce the concept of classes instead of considering each product individually. As well, they are intended to strengthen the minister's powers over the labelling of energy-using products, to standardize procedures, and to increase responsibilities for reporting to the House of Commons. That is a good thing. These objectives, I repeat, are entirely laudable. The extent to which they will be implemented remains to be seen.

For example, the amendments proposed in this bill would permit the establishment of strict vehicle emission standards and improve the energy efficiency of vehicles, since they have an impact on energy consumption. The bill would also permit, as proposed many times by the Bloc Québécois, the standardization of energy efficiency regulations in classes of products, thereby introducing mandatory vehicle eco-labelling, a measure implemented by Switzerland in 2002.

In this way we could send a clear message to consumers who wish to use energy more responsibly, by directing them to a class of vehicles classified as “green”, instead of certain very specific vehicles.

It is deplorable that the government has abolished the grants for fuel efficient vehicles. It is talking out of both sides of its mouth.

There are several interesting amendments to this bill, especially classifying energy-using products based on a single, common energy-consuming characteristic and the intended use of the products. Another interesting point is the power of the governor in council, which will cover a class of products and not just one product. Extending the regulatory power will mean that the act provides better coverage of a whole range of products in terms of energy efficiency.

This bill also provides for new or additional standards for industrial and consumer products and goods, such as commercial washing machines, dishwashers, fluorescent and incandescent light bulbs, and battery chargers.

This bill will impact the daily lives of citizens. As we mentioned earlier, use of standby mode must be retained. Many consumer products continue to consume energy even though we may not think so because the television set, DVD player or household appliances are turned off. These products nevertheless continue to draw energy. Therefore, we must make changes by equipping these appliances with an internal memory, which will save energy when they are turned off.

In this regard, the Office of Energy Efficiency estimates that if all of these products used minimum energy in standby mode, a typical household would save $35 a year in electricity. That does not seem like much, but an energy saving like that all across Canada amounts to the energy used by about 300,000 households in a year, so what this bill does in terms of the environment is really very important. The number and variety of appliances that use standby mode will undoubtedly continue to grow in the years to come. That is why it is important to think about regulating energy use in standby mode for these kinds of items.

Requiring that the minister table reports in the House of Commons is an important amendment, and one that I think is desirable. Once every three years, the Minister of Natural Resources will have to compare the standards here with those in the United States and Mexico, to determine whether they are in step. That was a major concern of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Many household appliances, such as ovens and refrigerators, come from the United States and Mexico, so it is important to have common standards and to adjust them. As we heard, this bill has not been changed since 1992. Accordingly, revisiting it is crucial.

This approach, by standardizing labelling and energy efficiency criteria, may eventually facilitate the creation of a carbon market in the future. Obviously, that must be done willingly and competently. On these two points, allow me to question whether the Conservative government really wants to protect the environment. The Conservative record does not lead us to believe that the environment is a priority for this government.

I will explain. This bill has a number of qualities, including that of considering the standby mode, essential to the operation of a number of devices today, in setting energy efficiency standards. However, the government is bragging that, with these amendments proposed for the Energy Efficiency Act, it is implementing its nebulous green plan. I think this green plan is turning brown.

I realize that strengthening laws on the energy efficiency of televisions, DVD players, household appliances and other energy-using consumer products is a good thing. However, strong and integrated measures are needed to achieve real results. The government's regulatory framework to fight greenhouse gases is biased at its source. It is based on reductions in emission intensity for individual product units instead of on an absolute greenhouse gas emission target. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly said that there is a consensus in Quebec and elsewhere in the world advocating the absolute reduction approach, which will lead to the establishment of a carbon market and a carbon exchange in Montreal.

This government's approach is unfair to Quebec, which has made a huge effort since 1990 to genuinely and absolutely reduce its GHG emissions. However, businesses in Quebec cannot benefit from nearly 20 years' efforts. It is our duty to prevent these efforts from being swept under the carpet because of the Conservative ideology that goes to any length to put the environment and the economy at odds.

For example, a Quebec aluminum company that has already reduced its GHG emissions by 15% in 1990 terms will have to agree to the same reduction in emission intensity as a company operating in the oil sands in Alberta, whose GHG emissions have doubled since 1990. Our manufacturing industry, which has suffered a great deal, will be penalized once again because it will not benefit financially from its efforts as it could have under an absolute target reduction plan.

In Quebec, we reject this outdated view. The economy and the environment work in tandem, and our businesses are often among the most productive in the world in environmental terms. Quebec's economy is separate from Canada's.

By applying this standard approach to all businesses, the government is leaving no room for a real territorial approach that would allow Quebec to act according to its own interests and peculiarities.

This is why we are saying that the government's green plan, which gave rise to this bill, is ineffective. Climate change represents one of the biggest challenges we have to deal with. As scientific evidence piles up and we see just how staggering the extent of the consequences is, it becomes imperative to act without delay, and in an efficient and, above all, fair manner.

This bill represents a step in the right direction, but there is still a very long way to go, and this government totally lacks the desire to go the rest of the way with Quebec. The Bloc Québécois is calling for a Kyoto implementation plan, namely an average greenhouse gas reduction of 6% below the 1990 level for the period 2008-12. The inaction of the Liberals and the ideological pig-headedness of the Conservatives are doing nothing to help us deal with the problem

The plan proposed by the Bloc Québécois is based on establishing reduction targets in the short and medium term, with 1990 as the reference year; the use of a territorial approach; establishing a carbon exchange in Montreal; and federal measures that the government can implement in its own areas of jurisdiction.

In closing, Bill S-3 is, as I have said, a step in the right direction but there is still a very long way to go. We agree with the essence of this bill. It will enable consumer to have a clearer picture of products and of their energy consumption.

Nonetheless, we are calling upon the Conservative government to stop handing over millions of dollars to the oil industry and stop encouraging tar sands development. Instead it ought to be decreasing our oil dependency, allowing the development of renewable energies, and encouraging environmental research and the growth of the green economy, which is the economy of the future. We believe it is very important to get to work on this immediately, given how very far we are lagging behind already.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member opposite if she would clear up a bit of confusion between her presentation and the position of one of her colleagues.

Her colleague had said that this bill only affected gadgets, and he was fairly emphatic about that, but she talked at the beginning of her speech about the possible extensive application of this bill.

I wonder if she could address the inconsistencies in those two positions and talk about how she feels that this bill will actually be applied and what kinds of things it will actually affect.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that what my colleague said is any different from what I said. There is no doubt that this is a very technical bill designed to set energy standards for all sorts of products. As I indicated in my presentation, in terms of government action to effect greenhouse gas reductions, to set building standards for example—we know that 47% of the energy is used by buildings, but there is no real effort to address the problem—there is no real action with respect to putting forward any major environmental plan. That is what my colleague condemned, and I think he was right.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Trois-Rivières for her speech.

I am a rookie here and there are two things that puzzle me. Perhaps it is because I am a new member in this House. I have heard that the measures had to be efficient and fair. But if this is efficient and fair for the country as a whole, I am struck by the fact that it does not satisfy the member opposite. I have heard a number of times that efficient and fair measures are required for Quebec, but it seems to me that she is ignoring the rest of the country. That is my first question.

My second question is this. She said that she supports Kyoto. We know, however, that Eddie Goldenberg and other Liberals have made it clear that they were not planning to implement Kyoto, nor did they have the ability to do so. Those are my two questions.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for his question and I commend him on the quality of his French.

I do find this fight against greenhouse gas unfair. For the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that what is needed in terms of greenhouse gas reduction is not intensity targets, but absolute targets to create a real carbon market.

Take for example the Kruger paper manufacturing company, in my riding of Trois-Rivières, which has made huge efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%. The efforts made by such companies since 1990 have not been recognized. Had they been recognized, these companies could have obtained carbon credits as part of a true carbon exchange.

This would have been financially attractive for the companies and would have done a lot for the forestry industry, which has been going through tough times in recent years. That is why I said that, Quebec being ahead of the curve in terms of greenhouse gas reduction, it was unfair to Quebec not to use absolute targets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on her very clear presentation on Bill S-3. She clearly stated the position of the Bloc Québécois and Quebec.

Does she think that Bill S-3 will really make a difference with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, or rather that it does not take into account the real energy savings that could have been made possible in our world?

The member also mentioned that the manufacturing industry in her riding was already making efforts that are not being recognized.

While we support the bill—let me emphasize that—does the member think that it is a major piece of legislation with respect to greenhouse gas reduction?

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

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

It is obvious that we are not dealing with a major bill to reduce greenhouse gases. However, we cannot oppose virtue, and consumers will receive more information on the energy efficiency of many products and we find that positive. That is why we support the bill.

On the other hand, if the government thinks it can avoid having a real green plan because it introduced Bill S-3, it is mistaken and we will be there to remind it at every turn.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I actually want to talk about another aspect of the bill that we have not really touched on today. One of the things that this government is famous for is its commitment to accountability and that started right from the very first bill that we introduced in the first Parliament when our government came to power.

There are a couple of sections in the bill that deal with accountability and I would like the member's opinion. One of them reads:

Once every three years...the Minister shall demonstrate the extent to which the energy efficiency standards prescribed under this Act are as stringent as comparable standards established--

There are a number of jurisdictions listed such as provinces, the United States, Mexico and others. There is a second accountability provision as well that reads:

Within four years after the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister shall...demonstrate the extent to which energy efficiency standards have been prescribed under this Act for all energy-using products--

I wonder if the member is satisfied with the energy reporting requirements in the bill. She seemed to be at committee, but I would like her to talk about that a little.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

As I said in my speech, I think it is wise to have the minister report primarily to the House of Commons, in what he calls accountability. I think that that is an improvement provided by the bill. It is particularly important because in many areas, technological changes are so rapid that it is crucial to remain up to date.

Since the act had not been reviewed since 1992, we are correcting a major oversight. I think that the requirement to table reports in the House of Commons will guarantee updates. I remain convinced that, unfortunately, our acts often lag behind reality but we will be in a position to make adjustments according to the evolution of things.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising in support of the bill. It is commendable that the government has come forward with at least part of the provisions, as one of the previous members mentioned, which were included in the much more broader-based clean energy and climate change act.

It is regrettable that the government has decided, as some of the other members have mentioned, to cherry-pick measures, when in fact we need the full sweep to come forward and expeditiously to attack not only the issue of climate change but the issue of air pollution, which the government itself several years ago identified as a serious problem and promised to come forward with a package to address it.

So yes, we need to be coming forward with measures to improve the energy efficiency of appliances that are used by householders, but it is also incumbent upon the House to recognize that the largest user of energy in this country is not the householder. It is industry.

If we are actually going to get serious about tackling climate change and air pollution in a timely fashion, which has not happened in the last 15 years, we have to move forward more expeditiously with larger measures.

Personally, I find it very disappointing that the government has decided to move forward in such a narrow fashion. We had been informed over and over again by the Minister of the Environment that he is working in a bilateral dialogue with the United States of America, moving forward on energy security and climate change measures. Yet, day after day we see measures, binding laws, tabled in the United States going much further and much faster than in this country. It leaves me very puzzled.

The one thing that really troubles me is the way that we are making law and policy today in Canada. Back in the mid-1980s, when we first came forward with one of the major environmental statutes in this country's history, the first Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government showed leadership. That was a Conservative government under Prime Minister Mulroney. It showed leadership and actually provide a white paper on exactly what that federal environmental statute would say and consulted extensively with industry, the public, municipalities and provincial governments.

Now we have moved into a mode where we simply come forward with measures that catch people off guard, or put in a reactive mode. This is not the way that I would prefer that we develop law and policy at the federal level.

It is for this very reason that I ran for office. I have undertaken with my constituents that I will try to enter into a constructive discourse with the government of the day on moving forward on these important agendas.

So yes, I applaud the government for moving forward with essentially a bill that came from the Senate and I look forward to the government actually tabling measures itself.

We have been promised that we would get new air pollution measures, particularly ones for the big industrial sectors, the very sources that are polluting the air, for example, the coal-fired industry. The Minister of the Environment mentioned to us last week that he is planning to come down heavy on the coal-fired industry in Canada.

I have to ask the government this. By what power? The main power that the federal government has to actually make our electricity cleaner in this country is environmental law. Therefore, I ask the government, where are those long promised laws to reduce and control pollution from the main dirty energy sources and from the energy guzzlers?

The tar sands are another example that consume vast amounts of our resources of clean gas that could be used to heat our homes. Where are the measures that were long promised to come forward?

I am presuming that in the United States-Canada dialogue that has been ongoing for some months, the public and Canada's energy sector so far as I am aware have been excluded. It is just like the security and prosperity agenda where the public was excluded. Let us open up this dialogue with the United States. We should not have to go to access to information, or go to our own federal counterpart and American counterparts to find out about their innovations.

The United States has brought forward and tabled a discussion draft of its law so that the public, industry, municipalities, states and so forth that are impacted have time well in advance to provide input and make sure that the law makes sense.

One of the critical laws that was tabled is the American clean energy and security act of 2009, a very ambitious and comprehensive reform for U.S. climate and energy policy. That law, which I would presume the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources are well briefed on, has specific provisions, binding laws, which establish energy efficiency resource standards and impose energy efficiency requirements on electricity distributors that must reduce by 2020 15% of their energy use.

These are the kinds of measures that I would have anticipated the government would have come forward with. We have already seen our European trade partners moving forward with these kinds of measures. We have seen that the Americans have already tabled provisions similar to the provisions that we are debating today. Yes, they are moving toward making more appliances energy efficient but with a much longer, more comprehensive list of appliances. Why are we doing this in such a limited way?

As I mentioned in my previous question, I am wondering why we are not moving forward more expeditiously with a national building code. It is good that the government has decided to put some limited funds into moving forward the retrofit program. It is very sad that the government has not at least, as has the United States, committed to retrofit all of its own buildings. Information was provided to me by the government about a month ago that out of the more than 20,000 buildings the government has control over, only 10 of those buildings are in the process of being retrofitted.

Yes, maybe it is laudable that we are doing this one small measure, but why are we nickel-and-diming improvement in energy efficiency? Why are we nickel-and-diming the protection of Canadians' health and environment? Why is the government not bringing forward a comprehensive package, long awaited, to address air pollution?

There has been a round table going on in Canada for the last two years that was initiated by the energy sector and environmental organizations, not the government, that were desperate to move forward co-operatively on an agenda to actually clean up our industry and make it more efficient and cleaner running. To this day, that report sits gathering dust. There has been no action by the government.

Let us bring forward that initiative which the energy sector and public interests groups have agreed on. Let us bring it forward in binding legislation before the House. I welcome the opportunity to support that initiative. I welcome the opportunity to support our clean energy sector in Canada.

We have a government that is bringing forward this minuscule measure, when it has cut entirely out of its budget any support to the renewable energy sector. At the same time, in Europe and the United States there is a massive infusion of dollars in support so that they are becoming competitive. We are now learning that European investors are going to the United States and investing in its renewable energy sector while ours is languishing.

This is another sector that could help us out when we are losing jobs from the fossil fuel industry that is shutting down in my own province because of the crashing economy, when in fact we could have another sector move in that would make us more energy efficient, provide cleaner energy, and help us move forward and show leadership worldwide.

Yes, I support this bill, but I am very saddened that it is such a small measure. I encourage the government from the depth of my heart to please listen to what the citizens of Canada are saying. Poll after poll is saying that Canadians desperately want their governments to support initiatives, provide incentives and move forward, so that they can access to cleaner electricity and energy. We want to do our part in addressing climate change and making sure that our children and grandchildren are going to have a healthier future, and not have to rely on the fossil fuel industry.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona quite well, because we work together in committee. I like her attitude regarding energy in general and I fully appreciate the comments she just made.

I have a question for her. Earlier, we put a question to the parliamentary secretary, which he could not answer, as to how this bill would fit into his plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 without putting numbers on energy savings or greenhouse gas emission reductions.

How can he propose such a bill when the Conservatives refuse to study Bill C-311, an NDP bill, as long as that bill's proponents have not presented cost estimates?

Could the NDP member tell me what is her interpretation of the government's different attitude from one bill to the next?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I, too, believe that in this House we should be consistent in how we deal with all proposals that come forward, regardless which member of Parliament raises them, regardless which side of the House they are on.

One of the things that troubles me is there seems to be a denial of the value of science on the other side of the House and a denial of the fact that the world is moving at a rapid pace towards cleaner technologies. There seems to be a failure of appreciation of the fact that the world is embracing cleaner technologies. It is very important that there is equal effort in calculating not only the cost of moving forward with these cleaner technologies, but what the cost would be if we do not act expeditiously. That is what Sir Nicholas Stern is telling us very clearly.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, I think we and the opposition need to recognize and acknowledge that this is going to have a significant impact on emissions. The 1992 act regulated products. This goes much further than that. It would allow us to put products into classes so that we can regulate them as groups, not individually.

There are a number of other amendments in there. I read one out earlier that would give the government broad authority to regulate basically any product that uses, affects or controls energy consumption.

Certainly, as I mentioned earlier, Canadians are the ones who are going to determine the true impact of this bill. As they make their decisions about the products they purchase, that is going to have an impact on how much this affects our environment in a positive way.

However, I want the member's opinion. Does she not believe, and I think the NDP does because it is supporting the bill, that this would have a significant impact on emissions and on the environment across the country?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course we think there is value in the bill or we would not be voting in favour of it. That is not to say that we agree that it will have a significant effect.

Obviously it is important for everybody to contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gases and to cleaner air. However, the government has the power to move forward on those sources that are the major causes of the problem in climate change and in air pollution, and it continues to stall on bringing forward the regulations to put the binding standards on the industrial sector and setting the binding targets. The energy sector itself is begging the government to come forward so that it can know where it is at and so that it can enter the cap and trade system.

Yes, they are laudable. I am glad they are being passed, and I look forward to actual enforcement of the bill. However, what is more important is that we move forward an entire plan. Let us bring forward a comprehensive bill, as they are doing in the United States. Let us learn from those dialogues if we are involved in them. Let us open up the dialogue so that we can all know what is being discussed and can all learn from those lessons.

I have benefited from discussions with American scientists and American lawmakers. I think it is incumbent upon this House to be sharing those dialogues widely with everybody in Canada so that we can know what measures are possible, so that we can expect that our government will move forward and adopt those as well.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member give her presentation. She made some comments on the Alberta oil sands. Those comments were very negative towards the oil sands.

I do not think she has recognized the really significant improvement in the environmental record of the companies involved in the oil sands, the significant restoration that has already been done on some of the land that has been mined in the past.

Clearly the member either does not recognize or is not particularly concerned about the fact that in her constituency live thousands of workers who depend on the oil sands for their jobs.

She cannot have it both ways. Either she wants the oil sands to continue to develop and therefore for those constituents of hers to continue to have their jobs, or she wants the oil sands to be stopped and is willing to see those jobs lost.

It cannot be both ways. Progress in the oil sands cannot be stopped while still maintaining jobs. It simply does not work.

I wonder how the member responds to her constituents whose livelihoods depend upon development in the oil sands, and as I have said, development that has become more and more environmentally friendly as time goes on?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question, although it does not seem to have relevance to what I said. Today we are speaking about energy efficiency, not about reclamation. Truth be told, in fact, a very minuscule percentage of the oil sands or mine lands have been certified as reclaimed. It is an ongoing problem.

It is precisely because of the downturn in the oil sands that I am speaking so vociferously in favour of the government finally taking action to provide other employment opportunities in my province.

There has been 100% reliance on the oil sands filling the coffers of the federal government. The workers of Alberta deserve better attention and protection for sustainability of their employment. If we could have had a genuine major retrofit program supported by the federal government and a major program and a budget to support the development of the renewable energy sector, there could be jobs to fall back on.

The government dropped the ball. They put all the money into fossil fuels and yanked all the money out of all the alternative job creation prospects. So shame on the government.

I am the one who is standing up. The majority of people in Alberta have been asking for a pacing of the tar sands. I have never in this House said that I am opposed to the tar sands. I stand firm on the position that the tar sands should proceed within the full ambit and enforcement of strong federal and provincial environmental laws. That is simply what the people of Alberta are asking for. That is what the first nations who are impacted downstream and downwind are asking for. It is the responsibility of the government to stand up, particularly for first nations people.

Absolutely, that is why I am taking the position I am. We need to make sure that, like the United States, Europe and the Asian countries, we are moving towards a sustainable economy, which, as the International Energy Agency has said, is fossil fuel-based, but it is time to move forward with a new green energy economy.

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

Madam Speaker, my question for the member is in regard to the fuel efficiency or energy efficiency program being proposed by the Liberals as the job-killing carbon tax.

In the past, the NDP supported that carbon tax. Does she support a job-killing carbon tax?

I know the NDP in B.C. does not. Does her federal party support the carbon tax?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That question has absolutely nothing to do with Bill S-3. I am sorry, but it has nothing to do with it.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I shall be flexible, considering we are dealing with energy and energy efficiency. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona will give a relevant answer.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the intervention on my behalf. I have no problem answering the question.

From my personal perspective as the member of Parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona and for my party, we do not care what measure is taken as long as it sets the appropriate value on carbon so we actually start driving change.

This debate over cap and trade versus carbon tax has to end, and it has to end here today. Everybody worldwide has admitted that we must have the right value on carbon and we must put that in place now to drive the change as expeditiously as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today on this bill because we expect a lot from energy efficiency. It should be the norm by now. The first energy efficiency bill was introduced in 1992. Then nothing was done to improve energy efficiency for 17 years, even though the technology was changing.

Today the government has laboured mightily and given birth to a mouse. There may be headlines about energy efficiency but the results are tiny. We believe in energy efficiency and will therefore vote for the bill, but not because we think it is a major step forward that could be considered part of the government’s plan to reduce emissions by 20%. It is really puny. This is a very small bill. We will vote for it because we have nothing against mice. But is this something that will make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gases and our energy usage, as real energy efficiency could?

My colleague asked a question a little while ago about whether the hon. member from the NDP was opposed to using oil sands to produce fuel oil. That is not the question. If we were really serious about energy efficiency, the amount of fuel oil needed on earth and in Canada as a whole could be reduced. In that case, energy efficiency would have a major effect.

However, they are not talking here about changing our windows and insulation or making better foundations. They are not talking about changing the way heat is generated. They are talking about little things, the kitchen appliances and gadgets people have around their houses. They even talk about standby power. We agree in principle about standby power. However, that should be just one paragraph among fifty indicating where to save energy.

They say this will save 10% of the energy used in homes. As one of our colleagues just said, this applies only if people buy new equipment. It does not change the old equipment at all and will not change the situation very much. We know that homes built before 1940 can save as much as 65% of the energy they use. That is huge. It is not 10% but 65%. The amount of energy used in houses built in the 1960s and 1970s could easily be reduced by 50% to 55%. The amount of energy used by houses built in the last 10 years could easily be reduced by 40% to 45% because small improvements to prevent air exchanges have been made to these kinds of buildings. But the government talks proudly about a 10% energy reduction. That is what I call a mouse.

As I said earlier, beginning in 1992, energy efficiency improvements have been made in all areas, especially in factories, large buildings and high-rises. That is something we could do again. I am talking about buildings like those that belong to the government. They have been in power for three years, and the building next to the Confederation building still has single-glazed windows. Is that what they call energy efficiency? Honestly! All Government of Canada buildings are at about the same level: poorly renovated or not renovated at all.

The energy efficiency renovation industry creates as many jobs as the oil sands—maybe even more. Moreover, these jobs are located all over Canada, including in rural communities.

This would be an incredibly effective measure in this time of crisis, but they do not seem to get it.

I think that this bill, which makes grand claims to be about energy efficiency, is just a smokescreen. It does not really have anything to do with an action plan for a new green economy. We need an action plan for better living, an action plan that helps people waste less energy and reduces Canada's debt. Right now, our debt is huge because we use so much energy that comes from outside Canada. Even if we were to use our own energy from Alberta in eastern Canada, we would have to build pipelines, which would be very expensive.

If we reduce our electricity consumption through energy efficiency measures, our economic health will improve. They keep talking about taxes. I am not talking about taxes; I am talking about saving money. If we had more efficient cars, which we could have had for the past three years, we would save money and the planet by emitting fewer and fewer greenhouse gases, and—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. He will have an opportunity to continue his interesting comments when we resume debate.