Debates of June 11th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Pensions

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would like to remind the member that he should address himself to the Speaker rather than to members in the House directly.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, look at these bonuses for the CPP board executives. David Denison, the CEO, earned $2.3 million in bonuses. These are mind-boggling numbers for an average working person in Canada. Mark Wiseman earned $2.1 million, Donald Raymond earned $1.2 million and Graeme Eadie earned $1 million.

I can guarantee that average voters are not aware of this. They think that the government is managing their funds properly. If they were to find out that the government set up the board back in 1997, hired these private investment people to run it and then gave them $300,000 salaries with bonuses on top of that, they would be ready to vote the government out of office right away.

If the government does not do something about it, try to get this money back and at least make some effort here, I think that is going to happen. People are really going to be outraged when they get this information and they understand what it all means.

I am not sure how much time I have left. I want to mention that three or four years ago, a New York newspaper set up a contest. It had a number of stockbrokers picking out stocks against a monkey. This went on for a month or a month and a half. I think the stockbrokers won once or twice, but at the end of the day, they lost the contest to the monkey.

After three or four years, they decided to try this again. They thought they might get a smarter monkey the second time around. Guess what happened again? The stockbrokers lost a second time. That should say something about how predictable markets can be and how so-called expertise in markets does not always work out.

As a matter of fact, the whole system is set up for sales. It really does not have a lot to do with return on investments as much as it does with trying to sell a product. That is what we are dealing with here. The government has been taken in by this whole idea that private investments gurus were going to turn water into wine and produce excellent returns, which by the way is not hard to do when the market is coming up. All of us can do that.

I have some personal experience with a number of people who got caught up in buying equities over the last few years. I will not mention specifically which pension plan it is, but I did come from the Manitoba legislature, so one could probably figure it out. After about 10 years, I do not think there was a single person in that plan who had all the money he started with.

These are people who are supposed to know better. They are supposed to have an idea about investments, yet they are going to the high-priced help to make investments for them.

This is a mess. The government should do something about trying to get itself out of it. If it does not want to do that, fine—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the bonuses the member was talking about. There is a kind of greying happening in the debate here. I want to be very clear: these bonuses are not for one year. These bonuses are yearly, and they have set the amount of the bonus based on the previous four years.

Earlier, one speaker asked if one day is picked over another day. The reality is that they look at a four-year trend and that is how they assign the bonuses. However, they received more bonuses previously than what they have right now. People are outraged at what they are hearing today. Mr. Denison has received $7.4 million in bonuses in four years when they have lost money in that plan. How does one justify that?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, one absolutely cannot justify that. I think at a certain point and at a certain level, when people see information like this, they think it must be a misprint.

At the end of the day, we are going to have to get the message out, through our methods, to get people to understand what is actually going on with the government. I think when they do figure this all out, and they will, they are going to very upset with the government and the Conservatives will be paying a price. Their numbers are sliding as it is. I would think they would try to figure out how to get out of their mess rather than dig themselves in even deeper.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the member for Elmwood—Transcona is so bitter with the equity markets. The quarterly results for the CPPIB will come in at the end of June and the report will be out in the middle of August. Is the member prepared to come back in the fall and perhaps give some compliments to some of the members on the board? He seems to be pretty open and honest with his criticism in one of the worst economic downturns in our generation. Will he come back in the fall and provide some recognition to those same people?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, my thoughts on this have really nothing to do with the vagaries of the investment cycle. When we deal with a class of business like pensions, we need to have a very conservative approach to investment. It has really nothing to do with whether the market is down today or is up tomorrow. We need to have the money there when people retire. The people who are contributing to the pension plan today are counting on having that money available 20 or 30 years from now. We cannot be playing with that money.

If the Conservatives want to play with money, then they should play with their own money, invest money in equities. That is fair ball. However, they are responsible for the future welfare of the public of Canada and they should treat the money with more respect than has been done right now.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, has the hon. member ever invested in equity markets?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure members that I did not plant that question. I can tell members that coming out of this whole investment fiasco, I have not lost a cent so far. I have made money because I invest in long-term bonds and GICs, which I would highly recommend to members opposite. It might be boring and it might not be very exciting and they might not make as good a return for two or three years, but at the end of the day they will sleep better, they will feel better and they will have their principal and a bit of appreciated value over the long haul.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the NDP motion. In doing so, I am very cognizant of the importance of the motion, especially with respect to the elderly and our oldest seniors.

A few years ago, people would live to the age of 75 or 80. Few lived longer. In 2008, there were 91,277 people in Quebec who were 90 or older. Of these, 62,566 were women. It is very interesting to note that there are 4,779 people in Laval aged 90 or over, or almost 5,000. Of these, 3,260 are women. In Laval alone, 50,000 people are more than 70 years old. Obviously, women over 70 do not have the same opportunities that today's younger women will have once they reach retirement age.

Naturally, these people were unable to contribute to pension plans. They did not work because they stayed at home to raise their many children. There was a baby boom in Quebec. Some women raised 15, 16 or 17 children and there was no time to go out to work and earn money. Quite often, the fathers of these families had blue-collar jobs that did not have pension plans either. These people helped shape Quebec and make our country what it is today, educated and raised their children and helped them with their post-secondary studies so they could then find jobs. And yet, these people are often very poor because they were unable to contribute to any pension fund whatsoever.

This motion suggests that the living conditions of seniors and the old elderly could be improved. First of all, however, we need to ensure that women and men have the necessary tools for a decent retirement that will allow them to live out their remaining years in dignity and respect. If no action is taken beyond merely responding to the motion, only part of the problem will be solved, not all of it.

For some years now the Bloc Québécois has been insisting that people entitled to the guaranteed income supplement be assured access to it. This is one way. We also want those who were entitled to it but did not receive it and so were shortchanged to now receive their full arrears. Unfortunately, the government does not seem willing to do anything about this. On the very eve of the last election campaign, however, they voted along with us to ensure that those people would get the guaranteed income supplement with full retroactivity.

If we do not make sure that women get equal pay, they will reach retirement age without being able to benefit fully from the income they ought to have had. At the present time, women still are paid only 70% to 80% of what men are paid. So, all their working lives, they are carrying with them that 20% to 30% shortfall.

Then when they get to retirement age—since what people receive is approximately 42% of what they earned when working—they will be missing a large amount because they will not have benefited from pay equity, that is they will not have earned the same amount as their male partners or colleagues, even if they did the same work or work of similar value.

Then, of course, there is the matter of opportunities for women to work. If an older woman today does not have the opportunity of having an easy, happy and worthy retirement, it is because she did not have the opportunity to earn a living in the past. Proper child care services, like those we have in Quebec, are needed to enable women to enter the work force. If the government stubbornly insists on not putting proper child care services in place, while allowing Quebec to maintain its services and by contributing to those services, then it is certain that there will still be problems for the next 10, 20 or 30 years, even if this motion is passed.

Unfortunately, even if this motion is adopted, people who contribute or would contribute will still not have an easy or comfortable retirement because their rights will have been violated at the start. This has to be corrected. We have to deal with all the upstream problems before we deal with this one, although I agree with our colleagues' motion. First and foremost, we have to ensure that women have access to employment insurance. We know that only 30% of women currently have access to EI. That is not many. This is because women often have to work part-time because they have to look after children or an ill parent or spouse and this is not considered work. It is invisible work that is not taken into account in the benefits women receive. Once again, they are being shortchanged. If we do not solve this problem, women will become poorer and poorer and have a harder and harder time making ends meet.

Earlier, I heard my colleague from Nova Scotia say that seniors today have to make choices. That is true, but they have had to make choices for a long time. People were saying that when I arrived here nearly five years ago. And I am sure that my colleagues who were here before me said it as well. The cost of living is going way up. These people's fixed costs are going up. They are constantly being faced with new costs that are not taken into account when pension amounts and the amount of the guaranteed income supplement are set, so that people can enjoy a decent, dignified retirement.

It is very disturbing that a government that has made such bad decisions in recent years about inconsequential issues is not putting money where it is most needed. It is not putting money where it could help seniors, whom I suspect we all love, live out their remaining years much more comfortably.

When we say invisible work, we are talking about people who are forced to leave their employers because they cannot take care of a sick parent at the same time. I am 59 years old and am part of what is called the sandwich generation. In front of me, I have my mother, and until a few years ago, there was my grandmother. Behind me, I have my sons and grandchildren. The person who is best able to take care of all these people is the one in the middle because she has the best salary and the best job and can take a leave of absence to care for her children, grandchildren, mother and grandmother, do the shopping, and make sure that her parents have all they need.

If I were not able to do what I am doing for my parents, I would have to find someone and that would probably be very expensive. If I were not able to care for my grandchildren when my sons cannot do it, we would also have to hire someone, and that would be very expensive. However, because I am able to do it, or at least can arrange to do it, it is not considered real work because it is not paid.

For me, it is doable. For some other women or people who have a job, for example, in customer service, the restaurant industry, hotels, grocery stores and so forth, it is much more difficult. They are offered split shifts and part-time work because employers cannot be sure they will be available on a regular basis when they have to take care of their families. It has always been the women who are called upon to care for the family.

Even today, in 2009, it is women who are expected to take care of the family. When we get older, we realize all the sacrifices we made for our children. We find ourselves alone, abandoned, isolated and virtually ignored by society because we are 80, 85 or 90 years old. We realize we are not worth much anymore. We do not really know the older people around us.

A few years ago, I had a chance to do a really exciting exercise with high school students in grades 9 to 11 and some older people more than 75 years of age. I asked the students to interview the older people and make a video recording. The students were supposed to get the older people to tell their life stories and find out who they really were so that the students would learn that behind every old man or old woman is an interesting person who really accomplished something.

The young people were completely amazed at what they discovered. They met a woman who had been the first woman to work in radio at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. She was the first female producer one the French side of the CBC. They met another woman who was one of the pioneers at the École des beaux-arts in Montreal where women had not been admitted before that. They met one of the first women university graduates to become a lawyer. I watched the eyes of those young men and women as they interviewed the seniors and suddenly discovered that they were real people. They discovered that those people had a rich past and had made enormous contributions to our society.

And yet those people were living in a little room, in a bachelor or one-bedroom apartment with very little, because at that age they were destitute and had no money. They had no wealth and they had to pay constant attention to what they were buying.

I often walk around the places where the poorest people go because I think it is important to go there too. I often go to second-hand stores and places like the Salvation Army. Poor people go there to buy clothing and other things. I think it is important to go there and I often meet senior citizens in those places. They do not have the option of being able to buy new clothes. But they still go shopping for clothes, because they have their pride, they take pride in their appearance, and they still want to be well dressed. They want to look tidy and well put together. I am always very distressed to see how many seniors there are in those places.

Young people go there by choice, because they can find clothes that are a little different, sometimes from the 1960s. But senior citizens do not do it by choice.

When we fail to consider the rich history and heritage that senior citizens who are still living today represent, and we fail to show consideration for these people, it means we have very little consideration for ourselves. We do not have much consideration for ourselves or self-esteem or self-respect if we do not respect the people who came before us.

I want us to do our utmost to make sure that women and men, from their start in life, have access to a living wage, that women and men who are growing old have access to a decent pension, a decent income, and a guaranteed income supplement that means something.

I also hope to see an increase in the guaranteed income supplement to compensate for fixed costs, which are constantly rising, and also to see, as my colleague from Alfred-Pellan called for in a motion, that the spouses of senior citizens who die are not left by the wayside for the first six months and we continue to pay them the same pension. After all, those people lived in the same home or apartment and the costs they have to pay are still the same. And yet their pension is immediately cut because they are considered to be living as single people. We have to show more consideration and better judgment in how we treat our senior citizens.

Madam Speaker, I see that you are rising. I could say so much more, but I have so little time.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to have to interrupt debate on the business of supply, but it being 5:15 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at the end of government orders.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock as 5:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from May 6, 2009, consideration of the motion.

Renewable Energy

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise here today to speak to Motion No. 295 to support the renewable energy sector and Canada's participation within the International Renewable Energy Agency. The motion moved by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should increase its support of Canada’s renewable energy sector, allow our country to participate in the worldwide effort to develop renewable energy sources and enlist Canada as a full member of the International Renewable Energy Agency.

I am delighted to take part in this debate. First of all, I have always believed that any policy to fight climate change should be based on two things: reducing greenhouse gas emissions at the source, combined with an excellent policy based on energy efficiency. This motion primarily addresses the first aspect of this key issue.

We are saying we have to invest hugely in renewable energies because we must reduce our dependence on oil as quickly as possible in the coming years. We can do it first off by “decarbonizing” our economy. Reducing our dependence means investing massively in renewable energies. Hydroelectricity, geothermics and wind power are examples of measures available to the government. It could encourage them by using regulatory and fiscal instruments.

We must remember that, historically, the federal government has always use tax incentives to fund projects. It has done so through Natural Resources Canada programs. With the wind power production incentive program, for example, the federal government decided to fund kilowatt hours produced by wind power. It does so to make these renewable energies competitive and to lend a hand to the industries that need it and have demonstrated in recent years, that they can be a powerful springboard in revitalizing our economies, in shifting to green, in creating jobs and in repositioning Canada on the international stage.

This is what the UN said nearly a year ago, when it proposed to western countries that they create this green new deal and change our approach in these sectors in order to revive the world economy. The first part of this motion serves, therefore, to encourage the government to increase its support for the Canadian renewable energies sector.

But we have to look at the way this government operates. We had a fine demonstration today—the Minister of Natural Resources said in private that the government and the Minister of the Environment encouraged the tar sands industry, no less. As the minister indicated in private, they take financial resources that should be allocated to renewable energies, specifically to wind energy in this instance, and transfer them to the tar sands industry, which is making huge profits.

So, the issue is not that subsidies should be eliminated, since the oil industry does not necessarily receive subsidies, but such things as tax incentives given through accelerated write-offs must be quickly done away with.

The Government of Canada has to understand that it must stop providing this type of assistance, these tax incentives, and transfer them to renewable energy industries and the environmental industry. This is what should happen. The Bloc is not alone in saying this. Reports by the OECD have shown it. They aim to put in place what we call an environmental tax policy, one that will encourage these industries, so they can reposition themselves and be able to create jobs.

Second, it should allow our country to participate in the worldwide effort to develop renewable energy sources and enlist Canada as a full member of the International Renewable Energy Agency. This is important. In fact,historically, as far as energy is concerned, the Government of Canada has often had to reach decisions with regard to a variety of platforms, associations and agencies. But there is something quite incredible here. The International Renewable Energy Agency came into being on January 26, 2009. As of today, 78 nations have joined, 28 in Africa, 27 in Europe, 16 in Asia and 7 in Latin America. The Government of Canada is missing. How can it be that Canada is not a member, when in November 2007 it showed no hesitation in joining an initiative, known as the nuclear club, which is a world partnership for nuclear energy? Canadian opted instead for membership in a partnership for the development of an energy sector that reflects regional interests, no more and no less. Canada currently has 22 operating reactors. This energy repositioning need not involve the development of nuclear energy, instead, it must be based on the development of renewable forms of energy.

Canada needs to take part in these international bodies, these forums for technology exchanges and transfers to the developing world. On the North American front, we must not merely let our neighbours in the U.S. invest huge amounts per capita, four times more than the Canadian government's per capita investment, in renewable energies. Since the change of government in the U.S., we can see that there is an administration in place to the south that has understood that energy efficiency and investment in renewable energies are first and foremost an economic and environmental issue. This is what will help us build a sustainable economy.

But what has the government decided to do? It has decided to invest and continue funding and helping an industry that is contributing to the carbonization of our economy. This is not the right strategic choice for Canada, and we have strategic choices to make. We have a choice, because we know that demand will rise significantly in the coming years, not only in Canada, but also in the United States. What does that mean? It means that we have to curb our insatiable hunger for energy, but at the same time, we have to develop opportunities. That is clear. What choices do we have? Should we choose to triple or quadruple the number of barrels of oil produced per day by an industry in western Canada, or should we take advantage of the potential offered by the wind, the sun and underground heat? The answer is obvious.

When we look at the decisions the government has made on the international stage, we can see that it has decided to do two things with regard to energy: first, revive the nuclear industry and second, favour the oil sands industry.

In closing, we support this motion, not only because it is part of a policy to fight climate change, but because it is also a way to make a green shift.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. It reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should increase its support of Canada's renewable energy sector, allow our country to participate in the worldwide effort to develop renewable energy sources and enlist Canada as a full member of the International Renewable Energy Agency.

I am pleased that in this corner of the House we are supporting the motion, but I am doubly pleased, I suppose, because I had also tabled a motion on the order paper, dealing with the establishment of the International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA. I know that the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is very interested in that particular organization and its establishment.

My motion is a little bit different. It focuses more on IRENA itself. I will just read it into the record. The motion I had proposed says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) consider that the promotion of renewable energy sources requires new institutional measures in the field of international cooperation; (b) welcome the initiative by the International Parliamentary Forum on Renewable Energy and the German, Danish, and Spanish governments for the establishment and work of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA); and (c) support the establishment and work of the IRENA by becoming a member of that Agency.

In my motion I chose to focus specifically on the development of this new renewable energy agency, which would work to ensure that renewable energy was at the forefront of international co-operation and international work around energy issues.

The International Renewable Energy Agency was officially established in Bonn, Germany, on January 26 of this year. The mandate of IRENA is that it aspires to become the main driving force for promoting a rapid transition towards the widespread and sustainable use of renewable energy on a global scale. So there is a sense of urgency and speed in the mandate of this new agency.

It looks to provide practical advice and support for both industrialized and developing countries, thereby helping to improve frameworks and build capacity. It also intends to facilitate access to all relevant information on renewable energy issues.

When looking at the establishment of IRENA, the background issues that the organizers and the promoters of this agency elucidate in their materials are that they note we face monumental challenges, challenges of global warming, of the waning of natural resources, of explosions in population growth, of increasing energy demand, rising energy prices and unequal distribution of energy sources. All those factors, they note, contribute to the urgent need to transform the energy sector, which primarily relies on fossil fuels, to one that uses renewable energy and energy-efficient measures.

That is where they see the need for this new international agency, the International Renewable Energy Agency, and they would see that a major task of the agency is to develop comprehensive solutions to the challenges that I just noted, such as fostering all types of renewable energy and considering various renewable energy policies at the local, regional and national levels. They believe that IRENA, in fulfilling its work, should consider specific environmental, economic and socio-cultural conditions of its members.

The active involvement of stakeholders from the energy industry, academia, civil society and other institutions is very important to the success of this new agency to make sure that it is able to implement policies, and policies that are enduring and provide solutions.

The agency would intend to regularly consult and co-operate with organizations and networks already engaged in the field of renewable energy, in order to complement and pool their work resources, creating added value in that way.

So it is an ambitious agenda, but one that is certainly timely. I think in most corners of the House we appreciate the need to move away from fossil fuels, the fact that we have to and that needs to be done in an urgent way, and that looking more carefully at and implementing renewable energy alternatives is very important.

I heard about IRENA and the move to establish IRENA through the Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, or PNND. An active member of PNND is a German member of Parliament, and he has taken a very serious interest in promoting this alternative.

His name is Dr. Hermann Scheer. He is a member of the German parliament. He came to his concern about renewable energy through concerns that he had about the nuclear energy industry. Not all members of PNND are concerned about nuclear energy. Some members of that organization believe that nuclear energy has a place as one of our energy sources.

However, Dr. Scheer is someone who believed that promoting a renewable energy agency would have a positive effect in the world and have an effect that is related to the use of nuclear energy and the commitments to nuclear non-proliferation. So he became one of the key promoters of this idea.

The Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament was also involved in promoting and at least advertising his efforts in that regard. So that is where my interest in this as a member of the Canadian section of PNND began.

As I said, this organization had its founding meeting in January 2009, and a number of nations signed on at that time. If we look at its website today, we will see that 96 nations have signed on to IRENA, this International Renewable Energy Agency. I think when we first began debate on this motion, there were 78 nations. So that number has gone up since then.

Unfortunately, Canada is not one of the nations that has been involved. Canada did not become involved in any of the preparatory meetings. Canada was not at the founding meeting, and Canada has not become a signatory to the development of this new agency. I think that is rather tragic when we see the importance of promoting renewable energy and when we see the continuing failure of the government to appreciate the need for renewable energy and the need to ensure that renewable energy is developed here in Canada and around the world.

Canada should be part of this international effort. Canadians have something to contribute to this agency and to the goal of ensuring that renewable energy replaces fossil fuel as the source of our energy here in Canada and around the world. We do need to be part of that organization. It would be good for Canada to be in at the ground, at the beginnings of that organization, although that opportunity is quickly disappearing.

I think it is very important that Canada reconsider its position. I hope the government will do that and ensure that Canada signs on soon to this proposal and becomes one of the countries that helps chart the course of this new agency.

We have seen other international energy agencies. We know there is the International Atomic Energy Agency. We know there is the International Energy Agency, composed mainly of OECD countries, that has had a major interest in fossil fuels. But even there, the International Energy Agency is moving to consider renewable energy as an important feature of the current discussion.

Those agencies have been set up and functioning for many years, but there is, I think, an important space in that discussion in international co-operation to have an agency that looks to renewable energy specifically and has that as its particular mandate, and it certainly is a very timely issue.

We know the renewable energy sources of wind energy, solar energy, and geothermal energy have great potential here in Canada and around the world. We know retrofit programs have great potential here in Canada and around the world. We know renewable energy and retrofitting have immediate effects. We know they have been tested, they are effective and proven, and they have known results. This direction is certainly one that would be important for us to undertake and for our government to undertake.

We are concerned when we see the redirection of moneys away from wind energy and towards tar sands and old fossil fuel solutions and believe this is exactly the wrong direction to be taking.

Again, I am glad to be part of this discussion. I am glad to be able to support the motion before us and to say very clearly that support for renewable energy and for this new International Renewable Energy Agency is something that Canada should be involved in, and I look forward to voting in favour of this motion.

Royal Assent

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 11, 2009

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Rosalie Silberman Abella, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 11th day of June, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-2, An Act to amend the Customs Act; Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act; and Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Renewable Energy

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 6 when we held our first debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, he urged the House and the government to ensure that our country became a full member of the new International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). He also asked the government to increase its support for the renewable energy sector in Canada, starting with the expansion of the ecoENERGY program.

During the debate on May 6, my colleagues the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, presented the reasons why their respective parties would support the motion. I want to thank them for that. I also want to thank the hon. members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Burnaby—Douglas for their contributions today.

Two Conservatives, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour expressed the government’s view. They said that the government was not planning on joining IRENA and that it was satisfied with the efforts it was making in regard to renewable energy in Canada.

I want to thank my colleagues in the Conservative Party for expressing what the government’s view was last month. However, this view seems untenable to me and I still have some hope that the government will see the light and change its mind. Perhaps I can use my remaining minutes to try to persuade it

I am going to examine, one after the other, the arguments advanced by my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt on May 6.

First, our colleague across the way expressed the government's fear that IRENA might duplicate the work of other organizations to which Canada belongs and which it supports financially. As it happens, many countries that are also members of these organizations have joined IRENA. Here are a few examples.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt pointed out that countries such as Germany, Spain, Austria, Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands, as well as Canada, are members of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership. All these countries have also joined IRENA.

The member opposite also referred to the Global Bioenergy Partnership. As it happens, at least eight of the 25 international members of this partnership are already members of IRENA.

The member also mentioned the International Energy Agency. I am sure he will be happy to learn that of the International Energy Agency's 28 member countries, 14 of them, half of the member countries, have already joined IRENA. I would also remind him, as was said on May 6, that the IEA's mandate is to deal mainly with long-standing non-renewable technologies, with a strong focus on nuclear and fossil fuels. It currently spends only 2% of its budget on renewable energy activities.

The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt also mentioned other institutions such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, and the United Nations Environment Programme. I will point out that although they have recently increased their very modest involvement in this sector, thus recognizing its growing importance, these organizations only have a peripheral interest in renewable energy.

Overall, these different agencies welcome IRENA as a valuable addition for cohesion, focus, and for that matter, momentum. For example, Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, director general of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, stated:

IRENA will no doubt become a heavy-weight facilitator providing policy advice to governments and paving the way for technology transfer. This will complement REEEP's efforts in working with the private sector and governments to accelerate the market for both renewables and energy efficiency.

Consequently, the risk that the work done by IRENA will be duplicated by other organizations interested in renewable energy is minimal.

Quite to the contrary, IRENA is the only organization whose official role is to facilitate and assist with the planning, coordination and implementation of international activities to introduce renewable energies. Joint action is needed, now more than ever.

If the government really wants Canada to be part of the key role that IRENA will play and benefit as well, it must allow our country to become an active member, with all its technological expertise and international experience.

The government claims to support an integrated approach to energy issues. This is precisely what IRENA offers and purports to do, but at an international level. My point is that IRENA is more likely to succeed with Canada than without Canada, to help the world to benefit from the potential of the rapidly growing renewable energy sector, to provide, for example, climate change mitigation, energy security and thousands and thousands of jobs.

The government's other argument is that key countries such as the United States, Japan, Russia, Brazil and China have not yet joined IRENA.

That is very interesting. During our last debate on May 6, IRENA had 78 member countries. Since that time, 18 others have joined bringing membership to a total of 96. China is not a member of IRENA—at least not yet—but India is. The United States and Great Britain have expressed an interest in joining. The House of Representatives has even passed a resolution to that effect. What a difference with a democratic government.

As for Australia, its Prime Minister has announced that it plans on joining the agency. One thing is certain, IRENA is here to stay. It will survive and prosper. Developed and developing countries will join, whether they are minor or major players on the energy scene, producers or consumers of fossil fuels. Canada will also have to join. The question is when. Will it be long after other countries have joined, or as soon as possible? Too late to influence its orientation or in time to gain the maximum benefit?

I would now like to address the other aspect of the government's response to the motion on support for the renewable energy sector. The government claims to be doing enough to promote renewable energy in Canada. They are completely out of touch. It is as though they were from another planet. The expression “renewable energy” does not appear once in the 2009 Conservative budget. According to the Pembina Institute, only 5% of the stimulus funds for the next two years are earmarked for clean and renewable energy. Per capita allocations to renewable energy were 14 times greater in the last U.S. budget than the Conservative government's allocations.

To conclude, 14 times more money is being spent in the United States than in Canada on renewable energy. Talk about a risk of flight of capital to the United States from our already scarce venture capital funds that want to invest in green and clean technology. In fact, when compared to European nations and the U.S.A., the investment in renewable energy by the Conservative government is simply--there is no other word--ludicrous. It did the absolute minimum over the last three years.

On that note, I would like again to congratulate our former leader, my fine colleague from the fine riding of Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, for presenting such a well thought out motion which speaks to the very DNA of Canadian society, that is, our multilateral traditions in joining IRENA and leading the world toward a clean and green, lean and mean technological future where we all win.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Ottawa South would have thanked me, as he has his other colleagues, had I spoken before him.

It is a privilege to speak to this motion which was tabled by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

This Conservative government is a strong supporter of renewable energy, and we have been strategic and prudent in our decisions about how to invest effectively in the development of renewable energy both at home and abroad.

Canada's leadership in renewable energy is well known around the world. For example, Canada participates in many key initiatives, including the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, the Global Bioenergy Partnership, the Asia-Pacific Partnership, the APEC Energy Working Group, and the International Energy Agency, otherwise known as IEA.

In fact, among our activities under the IEA, Canada is currently participating in eight IEA implementation agreements involving a broad range of renewable energies, such as bioenergy, ocean energy, photovoltaics, renewable technologies, and solar, wind and hydro power.

There is no question that Canada has been extremely active and stands at the forefront of renewable energy. While our international commitments are strong, we have been careful and selective in making them. We have joined many international initiatives, but not all of them, mainly due to concerns about duplication and overlap, and ensuring that we make the best and most effective use of our resources, both human and financial.

Since the International Renewable Energy Agency, IRENA, was first proposed in 2004, many other initiatives have been launched, and Canada is a full participant in most of them. Currently, several key G8 partners--the U.S., Japan and Russia--have not joined IRENA, nor have the significant emerging economies of China and Brazil.

Our government has already accomplished much on this file. Since first elected, we have moved aggressively forward in advancing the use of renewable energy in Canada. As a result, Canada's electricity supply mix is one of the cleanest and most renewable in the world, and over the past 10 years we have seen exponential growth in renewable energy in Canada.

Our commitment remains unchanged. This government intends to see that 90% of Canada's electricity will be provided by non-emitting sources, such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power, by 2020. Renewable energy will play a key part in achieving this objective. For instance, wind energy has become the fastest growing source of electricity generation in Canada and it is expected to experience significant further growth during the next decade.

Another non-fossil fuel energy source, hydroelectricity, accounts for nearly 60% of Canada's total electricity generation making Canada the world's second largest hydro power producer. These and other clean renewable energy technologies, such as solar, biomass, and geothermal, will continue to contribute substantially to our economic growth and to our objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We owe it to future generations to take action on climate change now. Renewable energy is a large part of the Government of Canada's plan to address climate change. That is why to further support Canada's leadership in clean energy, budget 2009 provides $1 billion over five years to support clean energy technologies. This includes $150 million over five years for research, $850 million over five years for the development and demonstration of promising technologies, including large scale carbon capture and storage projects. This support is expected to generate a total investment in clean technologies of at least $2.5 billion over the next five years.

Energy production is the backbone of Canada's economy. It has long contributed significantly to the quality of life of all Canadians. Before the economic downturn, Canada's energy production was approaching $100 billion annually. However, the reality is that energy production and use are also the sources of most of Canada's air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The task at hand is twofold: to clean up the production in the use of fossil fuels; and to increase the use of clean energy by helping Canadians use more energy efficiently, boost renewable energy supplies and develop cleaner energy technologies.

Through our eco-energy for renewable heat program, we are supporting the uptake of renewable energy by industry, business and institutions. It is expanding the use of renewable energy for space heating and hot water. Our government is also encouraging Canadians to install renewable energy technologies in their homes by providing eco-energy grants to homeowners for the installation of solar hot water systems and ground or water source heat pumps.

Our recent economic action plan includes new measures totalling almost $2.4 billion that further increases our support for a cleaner and more sustainable environment that will help Canada meet our climate change objectives. The plan provides another $1 billion for a green infrastructure fund that will support modern energy transmission lines and sustainable energy projects.

Canada's economic action plan includes an additional $300 million for our eco-energy retrofit homes initiative to help an additional 200,000 homes increase their energy efficiency and reduce their energy costs.

This mix of initiatives is bold and strategic and positions us well as we move into the next decade and increase the use of renewable and clean electricity in Canada. As we look to the future, we will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders to discuss other ways to further advance renewable energy in Canada.

The record is clear. The Government of Canada has been instrumental in the success of advancing renewable energy. In the fight against climate change, Canada is not acting alone but in full co-operation and coordination with other industrialized countries.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There being no one further debate, we will go to the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his five minute right of reply.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the NDP member for Burnaby—Douglas, my colleague from Ottawa South and the member for Kenora for their contributions so far.

I thank the member for Kenora for his contribution, but he is only repeating what was said a month ago as if nobody has spoken in the House since then about this issue.

The government has two points against the motion. The government does not want to be part of IRENA, the new international renewable energy agency, because it claims it duplicates organizations that already exist. The government claims that it is doing enough about renewable energy and feels it does not need to add to that.

All colleagues who have spoken about these points have made it very clear how wrong the government is in its assertions. I do not want to repeat many of them, but it is clear that IRENA is welcomed by the very organizations that the government claims will be duplicated and overlapped. They are welcoming IRENA as an umbrella institution that will coordinate the booming file of the renewable energy sector. This argument does not hold.

More countries are coming to IRENA one after the other. Why would Canada be the last? Why is the government always a laggard instead of a leader?

Now I will focus on the point made by my hon. colleague that the government is doing enough about renewable energy. We need to add to what the government is doing.

Of the $3.6 billion eco-energy initiative that the Conservative government launched in 2007, most of it were programs brought in by previous Liberal governments that the Conservatives merely rebranded. The Conservatives are only riding on our coattails.

Moreover, most of the clean technology investments, which the government referred to in its 2009 budget, have nothing to do with renewable energy. The budget says that we will see $2.5 billion contributed to clean energy over the next five years. How much of this will be renewable? Most of the $850 million allocated to development and demonstration will be spent on large scale carbon capture and storage projects. This is not a renewable energy solution.

The government wants to reach a target of producing 90% of Canada's electricity from non-emitting sources by 2020. It is 73% today.

It seems that the government wants to increase non-emitting sources through nuclear and CCS for coal. That is why the bulk of federal energy investment in the 2009 federal budget went to nuclear power and CCS, not to renewables.

To reach the government's goal in the timeframe noted, 12 years, renewable energy has to be a much larger part of the mix. One cannot build a new nuclear power plant for 2020 and we do not know when CCS will be implemented on a large scale. It may not be before 2025, while a wind farm can be built in less than one year, and many wind projects are shovel ready.

The government is still refusing to extend the ecoENERGY program, its modest renewable energy support program, even though it is perfectly clear that the government has known for months that this program will run out of money by the fall. The government knows that. It must take action and renew its ecoENERGY program.

During our last debate in May, the price of a barrel of oil was $54 U.S. Now it is $72 U.S., and the global recession is still in full swing. Just imagine how much damage our fossil fuel dependency will cause once the recession has run its course. The time for renewable energy is at hand. But will Canada be in a position to benefit?

We cannot turn our backs on an industry ready to create jobs as well as clean energy. Since our last debate, the UN reported that renewable power investments overtook investments in power generation from coal and gas.

Canada must begin its green revolution. This is about our children's future.

I am counting on the government to change its mind and sign on to IRENA.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for debate has expired.

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