House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was organs.

Topics

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Ruth Ellen Brosseau NDP Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her questions.

Indeed, young people are really involved. They know that climate change is a big problem and they are getting involved in the issue at their schools. When I make my son's lunch every morning, I put it in small recyclable boxes because we do not want to generate any waste. We have to think about the future. Schools are talking a lot about respect for the environment and the importance of adopting a leadership role on this. Children, the citizens of the future, are really involved. That is why we are here and that is why it is truly important to take a leadership role.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak about the Government of Canada's leadership on clean energy. It is truly a very good news story. Not only do we possess substantial reserves of conventional energy, but Canada is making a big name for itself in the clean energy sector. We have been leaders for some time, producing about 77% of our electricity from non-emitting sources like hydro generation and nuclear power.

Our government has moved aggressively in recent years with billions of dollars' worth of investments in clean energy, balancing our need for economic growth with our need to protect the environment.

Since 2006, the government has delivered over $10 billion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This funding has leveraged an additional $25 billion in private investment, creating over 5,000 new jobs, many in the growing clean tech sector.

We are fighting emissions through innovation in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy and renewables. We are positioning Canada to lead in the clean tech sector and creating jobs for the future.

Our overall goal is to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This is a target that aligns with U.S. plans. Canada has significant opportunities to expand its share of the global market for energy and energy-related products, creating prosperity across this great country.

Here are just a few of the activities our government has put into play.

Our newest program, the eco-energy innovation initiative, was just launched in August of this year. It is a two-year $97 million investment to support a wide range of collaboration among industry, colleges, universities and government. These projects will focus on research, development and demonstration in five key areas: energy efficiency in buildings, communities, industry and transportation; clean electricity and renewables; bio-energy; research and development of electric vehicles; and unconventional oil and gas.

The demonstration component will focus on clean electricity and the integration of renewables into the grid and the built environment. Then there is the $78 million eco-energy efficiency initiative that will improve energy efficiency at home, at work and on the road, saving Canadians money while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The eco-energy efficiency initiative will make the housing, building and transportation industries more energy efficient. Improving energy efficiency is one of the fastest, greenest and most cost-effective ways for Canadians to reduce greenhouse gases and to save energy.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan is also advancing the clean energy sector on several fronts by delivering a number of strategic investments. For example, we have renewed the highly popular eco-energy retrofit homes program. This helps Canadians make energy efficient home renovations.

The renewed retrofit homes program could help up to a quarter of a million homeowners across Canada improve their home's energy efficiency, and also generate up to $4 billion in economic activity.

We have also delivered another $40 million to Sustainable Development Technology Canada for the commercialization of clean technologies. This is a fantastic organization.

The 2010 energy efficiency regulations minimum energy performance standards have resulted in an annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 26 megatonnes. Once the minimum energy performance standards are fully in place, products that consume 80% of the energy used in Canadian homes, institutions and businesses will become regulated.

These are significant achievements in our efforts to reduce emissions. What is more, the benefits of these and other eco-energy investments will continue for years and years to come. For example, the eco-energy for renewable power program will deliver $1.5 billion in investments over the next 10 years to support our renewable energy industry.

The eco-energy for biofuels program will provide production incentives to producers of cleaner renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel until 2017. Our investments in carbon capture and storage projects will help position Canada as a producer of reliable clean electricity for decades to come.

For example, one project that is under construction is the fully integrated carbon capture and sequestration, CCS, unit at SaskPower's Boundary Dam coal-fired power generation unit in Estevan, Saskatchewan. Our government delivered $240 million of investment which will leverage $1 billion from the provincial utility and will transform Unit 3 at Boundary Dam Power Station into a reliable long-term producer of 100 megawatts of clean base-load electricity while enhancing oil production and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by capturing one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

We have many examples of clean energy success stories across Canada.

Drake Landing Solar Community south of Calgary recently received the prestigious 2011 Energy Globe World Award for Sustainability. Drake Landing comprises 52 homes that are part of North America's very first large-scale seasonal storage solar heating system. This is the first such project in the world to provide nearly 90% of domestic space heating requirements from solar energy.

B.C. Hydro's smart grid technology project is installing large-scale batteries in two remote communities. These will provide clean power to the entire community during any outage. They will also help manage peak electricity demand periods with a lower environmental footprint.

We are helping four maritime utilities led by New Brunswick Power Corporation as it integrates smart grid technologies, load management and intermittent renewables. Also on the east coast, the Fundy Ocean Research Centre for Energy is working to harness power from the most energy-rich tides in the world.

Our government's support for the lower Churchill River projects in Newfoundland and Labrador will boost clean energy production in Atlantic Canada. The production potential of the lower Churchill project is enormous. Muskrat Falls alone will have a generating capacity of 824 megawatts. That is enough to produce an estimated 4.9 million megawatt hours per year. That is equivalent to powering almost half a million Canadian homes.

This clean renewable energy provides an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to meet their own needs in an environmentally sustainable way. Once completed, Newfoundland and Labrador will obtain up to 98% of its electricity from non-emitting sources, reducing carbon dioxide emissions by up to 4.5 megatonnes.

As all members can see, the Government of Canada is delivering real emission reductions while still maintaining Canada's economic advantage. In this way, our government is helping the energy sector to become more competitive, create new greener jobs for Canadians, and further protect our environment.

Canada's energy sector, including clean tech, has an extremely positive impact on our national economy. Energy represents roughly 7% of our gross domestic product. It supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. It is a major contributor to Canada's economic stability and quality of life. The positive impact of our energy sector is found throughout Canada's economy in manufacturing, support services, construction, engineering and the financial sector.

We need to continue delivering major investments in our infrastructure so that we can diversify Canada's energy markets. We need to continue our progress in developing our vast resources in an environmentally responsible way.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.

He said that, as all members can see, Canada is making a significant effort, but I do not think that is the case. I do not see it. I listened to him and I heard all kinds of stories about the efforts being made, but the reality is that, around the globe, Canada is being singled out for how it is developing the oil sands. I wonder if my colleague could tell us what action the government plans to take to improve both the perception and the reality of how we are exploiting this resource.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard in the translation the term “tar sands”. The scientific and accurate term is oil sands. Is that a mistake--

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

I am not aware of the translation, but that is a point of debate rather than a point of order.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know that the members opposite highly respect CBC and its commentators, so I will respond to the question regarding the oil sands with a quote from Rex Murphy of the CBC. He said:

One of the first orders of business over there in Durban-land, as it was in Copenhagen, is how bad Canada is...[particularly] the Canadian oil sands. This one project, more perhaps than any other in Canada, has kept us out of the worst of the recession.

And is it not then bizarre that at Durban whole countries, like China and India, with massive populations and absolutely huge industrial and manufacturing enterprises, developing more and more electricity plants and coal generating stations--are let off the hook by the campaigners. The production of those countries dwarfs into nearly total insignificance whatever the oil sands may represent.

I endorse what Mr. Murphy had to say about that.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has said, “We will continue to do what we have to do to meet our Kyoto obligations”. However, the Minister of the Environment has now said that formally pulling out of Kyoto is an option for Canada. However, when questioned repeatedly by reporters, he declined to confirm or deny a CTV news report that cabinet decided to withdraw from the agreement right after the Durban conference during the holiday season.

Will the government formally pull out of Kyoto? If it is the intention of the Government of Canada to renege on a treaty that was ratified by the Parliament of Canada, why would the government not say so now? Why not bring it forward for debate in Parliament? I have asked for an emergency debate. We have asked for a take note debate before the charade of participating in Durban. Why such a double standard?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Woodworth Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Minister of the Environment speak for himself on that issue.

I do want to express my own opinion regarding Kyoto. If members opposite cannot see that Kyoto has been a massive failure, not only in terms of what the Liberal government did with it in Canada but what countries around the world are not doing with it, then they are out of touch. I think every Canadian knows that Kyoto has been a massive failure.

Although I am gratified that the member opposite mentioned CTV, I would like to quote again from CBC commentator, Rex Murphy, who said:

Kyoto has been for the majority of countries that signed on to it a mere pantomime. Emissions continue to rise, carbon markets floundered or were beset with graft, but everyone kept up the pretence.

The real charade is not what my colleague across the way is mentioning. The real charade is Kyoto.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this important issue and our government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the air quality for all Canadians.

We are approaching the sixth anniversary of the successful clean air regulatory agenda. Our government developed this program in 2006 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve air quality. We want this good work to continue, so we have announced that over the next five years we will invest $600.8 million to continue the clean air regulatory agenda. This funding will sustain the clean air agenda's considerable momentum, providing the scientific research, monitoring, modelling, regulation and enforcement required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. In short, it will ensure that Canadians will literally breathe much easier.

We are also taking strong action to address climate change. Our government has committed to reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Given the highly integrated nature of the Canadian and American economies, we have aligned our target with that of the United States of America. We also have stated policy to align our greenhouse gas mitigation approaches with those of the U.S., as appropriate in the Canadian context.

We are pursuing a sector by sector approach by developing regulated performance standards for the major emitting sectors in Canada in tandem with the United States. We have also put in place a number of measures to reduce emissions from our key greenhouse gas sources. Together with existing provincial measures, we are already about a quarter of the way toward meeting our 2020 target. We started by developing regulations for transportation and coal-fired electricity, two of the largest GHG emitting sectors.

In the transportation sector, we have been working with the U.S. for some time to put in place harmonized greenhouse gas regulations. As members know, the North American automotive industry is highly integrated. Therefore, a harmonized approach is critical. We have established progressively tighter GHG emission standards for new cars and light trucks over the 2011-16 model years in alignment with U.S. national standards. We are now working with the U.S. on developing harmonized and progressively more stringent targets and standards for 2017 and later model years. In fact, we just released a consultation document on the development of the proposed regulations.

The government is also developing regulations to establish greenhouse gas emission requirements for new heavy-duty vehicles harmonized with that of the United States.

In the electricity sector, we published proposed regulations for coal-fired electricity generating units. These proposed regulations would help enhance Canada's position as a world leader in clean electricity generation and would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality for all Canadians. They would promote a transition toward lower or non-emitting types of generation.

The government's recent announcement for funding for clear air will allow us to continue to implement and enforce these regulations to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions from these key sectors.

In addition to supporting the government's climate change agenda, the clean air regulatory agenda also supports the government's equally important efforts to improve the air that Canadians breathe. We have been working with the provinces, industry and non-governmental organizations to finalize and implement a new national air quality management system, a system that will include new ambient air quality standards for key pollutants, new emissions requirements for major industrial sectors and equipment groups, and the management of air quality at the local and regional level. The funding that we have just announced will allow us to carry this work forward and to address air quality in a very comprehensive manner.

Three additional components of air quality management will also be addressed or continued: one, strengthen commitments to reduce transboundary air pollution under the Canada–U.S. Air Quality Agreement given that air pollution does not respect national borders; two, measures to improve indoor air quality, an important component as Canadians spend approximately 90% of their time indoors; and three, nationwide implementation of the air quality health index, known as AQHI, to help Canadians make informed decisions to protect their health.

These important efforts to improve air quality will have a very real, everyday impact on Canadians across this country from coast to coast to coast.

At the same time, we are continuing to develop and implement further measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other major sectors, including the oil and gas sector, complemented by additional provincial and territorial actions in the respective jurisdictions.

Canadians expect and deserve real action on climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving the quality of air. This government is taking those actions. Together, these measures I have outlined on climate change and air quality will continue to contribute to improving the environment, the air that we breathe and the health of all Canadians.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and I would like to ask her a question.

Does she believe, as I do, that our current economy can no longer be separated from environmental protection?

We need to put an end to the disconnect that exists between the economy and the environment. We can no longer separate them. We absolutely must start seeing the economy in relation to the environment. We must make a shift towards renewable energy sources, towards another way of seeing the economy. And we must do so now; it is urgent. We are already losing jobs. The current approach will kill the Canadian economy.

Would the member agree that it is time to integrate the economy and the environment?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, yes, the member is absolutely correct. The government will always take into consideration both the environment and balancing the economy, unlike the opposition parties. Unlike the NDP, we will never sacrifice jobs, the economy and growth in this country by killing jobs and stalling the economy with taxation on different things for the environment.

I am very proud of the commitment that our government has taken with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to air quality improvements. As I mentioned in my speech, along with respective programs in place, we have actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions by almost one-quarter per cent toward our targets of 2020.

When Canadians expect to see real action on the environment, they can count on the Conservatives to deliver that, while balancing the economy and ensuring that we continue with our low tax plan for jobs and growth.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member may not be aware that the government has cut its targets by 90% and can only get us 25% of the way to its 2020 target.

The Minister of the Environment has said many times in Parliament that Kyoto is the past and that Copenhagen and Cancun are the future. Does this mean that the government will finish the task from Cancun, that it will translate policy into concrete action? Will the government support the launch of the adaptation committee, approving the guidelines for national adaptation plans and progress on approaches to address loss and damage? This seems unlikely as the government is cutting the climate impacts and adaptations research group at Environment Canada which studies the impacts of climate change on agriculture, fisheries, forest, health, water quality, and many of them share part of the 2007 Nobel prize.

Will the government support the launch of the adaptation committee?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member talks about the environment and yet it was her party that signed on to the Kyoto agreement, an agreement that saw less than 20% of the world's emitters participating in that agreement. In fact, some of the largest emitters in the world were excluded from that agreement, including China, India and the United States.

Canadians want real action on the environment and this government is committed to that real action. That is why I am so very proud that we recently announced $600.8 million in funding to achieve the real target that Conservatives will get to.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

I would like to address my comments to the Prime Minister, who will maybe hear them. I would like to tell the Prime Minister that Durban may be far from Canada, but Alberta is right next door.

We are big producers of hydrocarbons and energy of all types, and we mistakenly believe that our power is renewable. Today we may be masters of the world—the industrial world, of course—but our power does not go beyond the scope of our resources. We have worked for centuries to develop this country—which is as big as a continent—and there have been successes and failures. We have seen development and underdevelopment.

We all share this land imbued with the spirit of the Odawa, Assiniboine, Saulteaux, Dene, Cree and Algonquin peoples. I am mentioning all of these peoples of the Alberta plains so that the Prime Minister does not forget we borrow this land for as long as we are here. I have seen this land, the badlands and the plains. I have seen the beauty of the west and the endless forests in the east. Our country did not inherit all of these resources so that we could squander them. We have invented new ways of doing things: “precautionary principle”, “sustainable development”, “biomass” and “ecology” are all words that reflect both our know-how and our concern.

It is hard to believe that the plains of western Canada will be forever tainted by the waste water discarded by the oil industry working in the oil sands. It is hard to believe that the Prime Minister is rejecting the Kyoto protocol in the name of economic growth and at the expense of the quality of life of Canadians. It is hard to believe that temporary businesses are abusing the sacred land of our ancestors in the name of materialistic greed. I remind members that we are all here temporarily.

The Kyoto protocol will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, the protocol is not perfect. So we have a choice. We can either be part of a new consensus based on the precepts of this protocol, or we can give up and be condemned to paying for the consequences of our actions.

Although Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol, our greenhouse gas emissions are steadily increasing. We all understand that the global economic crisis requires us to be cautious and that we cannot halt production of hydrocarbons overnight. We do not want to put Canadians out of work. Our economic development and growth are supported in part by the production of raw materials.

The energy needs of emerging countries are pushing us toward oil production that far exceeds our ability to regulate the industry. How can we balance our environmental regulations, whether they be domestic or international, with our obligation to meet our economic needs and our responsibility to ensure the health of Canadians?

The debate that is getting under way in Durban is a global one that concerns all members of the House. The decisions that the Prime Minister makes about reducing greenhouse gas emissions cannot be made in a vacuum. Tomorrow, everyone's children will have to live with the consequences of his decisions. I am now hearing comments from people in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and the Maritimes, who are asking questions about energy development over which we no longer have any control.

The Prime Minister, like all of us, inherited a nation that was built in adversity. We put aside our differences and worked together for the common good of Canada. Perhaps it is the sum of our differences that made us a strong, prosperous and creative nation.

Balancing the needs of eastern and western Canada allowed us to develop original policies full of wisdom and compromise. We have had successive political regimes in Ottawa for over a century. At one time or another in our history, the prosperity of every region has benefited the people of this country. Eastern Canada's industries, the Maritimes' fisheries, Quebec's hydro, western Canada's wheat and British Columbia's forests are all resources that have built our democracy.

But let us remember the mistakes of the past. Let us remember that there was a time when we did not have the scientific knowledge to really understand how to protect our environment.

An exceptional Canadian died a few months ago. Pierre Dansereau, the father of modern ecology, was a great humanitarian with an inalienable faith in humanity. Today, like Pierre Dansereau, I want to believe in humanity, and I want to say that a prime minister's duty is to be the guardian of the democracy of our institutions.

The debate in Canada on global warming is bigger than him or me. As the spokesperson for the nation, he must act responsibly and accept that there must be a real debate in this precinct because, unfortunately, part of the population seems to be neglected by his good offices. No one will make me believe that the future of this nation does not concern the Prime Minister. He has an obligation to listen to all those who wish to speak and be heard by him. First and foremost, he is the Prime Minister of all Canadians, of all parties. He does not have the right to squander our common heritage.

In this regard, I would like to remind him of a few statistics about our thirst for oil, statistics that everyone has gone over. Canada should be increasing its production of oil by almost 70% in the next 15 years. According to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, we should surpass 3.4 million barrels per day in 2015 and reach 4.7 million barrels per day in 2025. There is no real agreement about Canada's actual reserves. However, Industry Canada estimates that we have more than 179 billion barrels.

These statistics speak for themselves and Canada, as a major exporter of CO2, must take part in the international negotiations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our production capacity and collective wealth also require us to act locally in order to balance productivity, prosperity and environmental conscience.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Francine Raynault NDP Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech.

She said earlier that the Kyoto protocol was not perfect. But should we give up and let pollution continue unchecked until we die from it and suffocate from all the pollution that we, our children and grandchildren will have to endure? I would like to hear her comments on that.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the South African High Commissioner told us that Canada withdrawing from Kyoto would be tragic for both emerging and industrialized nations alike, and that the latter have a significant responsibility, for they are the ones that produced the pollution that led to the Kyoto protocol. Canada must take that responsibility into account and make every effort to participate and help the global society.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

NDP

Pierre Dionne Labelle NDP Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member. I think she has elevated the level of debate after all the meaningless comments I have heard today—the lies and half-truths uttered by the lackeys and cowards speaking on behalf of developers.

I have a question for my colleague. We have heard that China might sign on to the second phase of the Kyoto protocol. For some time now, Canada has been using the excuse that other countries have not signed on. In my colleague's opinion, what would it take for the Conservative government to get involved in the negotiations?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada must adopt a positive attitude. We do not want to stop all oil sands development and everything that creates jobs. We do not want to put all Canadians out of work. I want to be very clear about that. That is not what we want to do. However, we also need to take emerging nations into account. If there comes a time when everyone is sick or dead, we will be no further ahead for having created jobs and for having recovered from the economic crisis while ignoring the various environmental protocols.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I heard dates such as 2017 and 2020 and that we have to align with the United States. It is true that the economies are very interconnected. The United States uses our primary resources and our energy to manufacture vehicles and we drive those vehicles and put fuel in them. The real question has to do with the urgency of the situation: how many years do we have left to react? When we signed the Kyoto protocol, everyone said that it was the last chance for humanity. That was a quite a while ago. How much longer will we be able to continue like this? It is like people leaving their SUVs running in their garages. Eventually, they will get carbon monoxide poisoning. The attitude here is no different. I wonder how much time we have left.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Lise St-Denis NDP Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to say how much time we have left. I think it is urgent. We have already started to see the effects of climate change. We have to deal with it immediately and accept the Kyoto protocol and improve it, so that our children—we may not be affected so much ourselves—can enjoy a planet that is not a real disaster. I think it is urgent. That is why international conferences are held. We want things to be dealt with as quickly as possible. Concluding agreements with other countries takes time and the emerging countries have to be on board. China is starting to be more open. That is already a big step in the right direction, but we have to go even further.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to the motion but, frankly, I find it really sad that the hon. member for Halifax has to, again, bring this matter before the House because nothing is happening.

Over the last year, the religious leaders of this country have been meeting on Parliament Hill because they are so frustrated with the lack of action by the government on what they see as a matter that will greatly impact the planet.

Mardi Tindal, the moderator of Canada's largest Protestant denomination, the United Church, has called on us to consider climate change a crisis of conscience. She has urged Canadians to choose hope and action over despair and paralysis in addressing what she calls one of the most urgent, moral challenges in human history.

The government has, only at the 11th hour, after being in power for six years, revealed that it intends to pull out of Kyoto. It could have revealed that six years ago and been honest. But instead, it has held this country out for potential penalties because of its complete inaction. It is absolutely reprehensible.

The government has failed to deliver even on its own commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. It has failed to deliver on the commitments that the Government of Canada made at the conference of the parties in Bali, Copenhagen, and Cancun.

What have some of those commitments been?

In Copenhagen, it actually committed to reduce greenhouse gases. What has it done, instead? Nothing. It has allowed our emissions to rise continuously.

At Cancun, it committed, and I know this because I was in the room when it signed and sealed on this, that it would issue a national low carbon energy strategy. Where is that low carbon energy strategy?

We have a government that likes to accuse previous governments. It likes to pick on the Liberals, who did not take a lot of action either. It has been in power for six years, it has gone to many international conferences on this important matter, and it has delivered nothing on its commitments.

Now we are hearing that the government is appearing at the conference and, shamefully, suggesting it may not even provide the funding to lesser developed countries that are already suffering the impacts of climate change.

The Commissioner for Sustainable Development, who works in the Office of the Auditor General, has done a series of audit reports. The Auditor General issued a report just this year, castigating the government for the absolute failure to deliver on its promised reductions. Instead of requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it has significant lowered its targets by 90%.

Apparently, according to the Commissioner for Sustainable Development, who did an audit, between the years 2007 and 2010, Canadian emissions rose by 31% above the 2006 committed targets. He reported there was inconsistent reporting on climate measures and no clear measurable way to measure its programs, despite allocating over $9.2 billion. Where did that $9.2 billion go? We will get to that in a moment.

The commissioner also said that there was a stop and start pattern, and that it sent an inconsistent message to industry, to other levels of government, and to Canadians. Even the fossil fuel industry, we have noticed over the last year, is fed up. It is expressing concern that there is no legal certainty and that in order to move forward in its sector, it needs clear and legally binding targets.

The government then accused the Commissioner for Sustainable Development for not being up to date and so, its own department issued a report. That report found even more problems, that it was missing meeting even its own meagre targets.

The government ran on a platform of openness and transparency. Whatever happened to that party?

These government members, every one of them, voted against the New Democrat bill which was tabled twice in this House, passed twice in this House, simply calling for accountability on actions on climate change. It was not enough that the Conservatives could not win because the majority of elected officials were in favour of this bill, they called upon the Senate to kill that bill. We now have before us absolutely no real binding measure to control greenhouse gases.

To make matters worse, the government has been clear that it will oppose any binding treaty out of the meetings that are going on now in the conference of the parties. Why not just be honest? Why do the Conservatives not just tell us that they will not agree to any binding treaty? They have lobbied against every binding treaty that has been proposed in the last six years of the conference of the parties.

Where are we at now? What does the International Energy Agency, to which Canada belongs and which consists of the major fossil fuel industries of the world, have to say:

Every further delay comes with costs. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned that any delay in coming to a global agreement will lead to significant “lock-in” of carbon intensive infrastructure...Thus, “every year of delay of introduction of a global framework with the sufficiently powerful economic incentives to direct investment to follow the path of the [2°C scenario] has two consequences: It increases the amount of capital stock that will need to be retired early, mostly in the power and industry sectors; [and] it limits dramatically the amount of more carbon-intensive infrastructure that can be added in the future.” Delaying action to 2015 will increase the costs of action by $4.3 for every $1 saved--

The Conservatives are the party that supposedly believes in a strong economy. It does not sound like it.

We need simply look to Alberta. The government intentionally issued regulations for the coal-fired sector which will exempt coal-fired power plants that have not even started being built. The government has taken no action on the single largest source of greenhouse gases being emitted in Canada right now and no regulations at all for the oil sands sector.

In the meantime, Alberta taxpayers are being called upon to pay the costs of massive transmission lines from our expanding coal-fired sector to the United States. How is that for a good economic plan?

The majority of Canadian greenhouse gases, as reported by Environment Canada, are in the energy sector, 82%; transport, 28%. In the last decade, fossil fuels have represented 54% of the growth in greenhouse gases and transport 45%.

The key issue is cost. The national round table that was appointed by the government and reports to the government reported that the imminent costs to Canada for climate warming will be in the order of $20 to $40 billion a year by 2050. That is 5% to 25% of the GDP and this is the government that claims it is fiscally responsible.

The sad thing is there are a myriad of solutions that will save Canadians money. The technologies already exist. We have heard it in many committees. We have university researchers and technology is being tested in the field, but absent are the regulatory triggers that nobody wants to invest in. We need action, but we are waiting for federal leadership.

We are waiting for federal leadership on revising the national building code. The government of Alberta has been clear that it will not upgrade its building code until the federal government upgrades its building code to ensure that we have more energy efficient buildings.

We are waiting for leadership on energy retrofits. After a massive campaign by Canadians, the government finally relented to return the program for one year yet we had a burgeoning energy efficiency sector, including in my riding. Many young people want to get into the sector but they have essentially given up on this area of work.

Where is the leadership on training? There are incredible opportunities for youth, aboriginal communities, and immigrants, to be trained in the new energy economy. Where is the leadership?

Where is the leadership on the smart grid? The government lauded the agreement that it signed, the U.S.-Canada energy dialogue. Where is the leadership? Where is the smart grid?

The government yanked all of the money for renewables. Meanwhile around the world, other countries are profiting and soon we will have to buy their technologies. Where is the level playing field?

Billions of dollars have been spent to merely test carbon capture sequestration for the coal industry and the oil sands, and mere millions for the renewable sector.

As my time is running out, I will speak of other matters during questions.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Christine Moore NDP Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member is from Alberta, I imagine her province's economy is very important to her.

In her opinion, is there a way to develop the oil sands in an ecologically sound manner, without harming the economy in her province?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and the answer is, absolutely, yes.

I participated in committee hearings over a two year period and issued my own report. Why was that important? We heard testimony from many parties, including major researchers in this country.

I also attended an oil sands fair, and I went around to all of these new technologies and asked what the key barrier was to their not selling their technologies. They said that it was the lack of regulation. The government is not requiring anybody to clean up this sector, and therefore nobody is investing in cleaner technologies.

The technologies are there. We need to get them out of the lab and into the field. What is missing is federal regulation.

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeMinister of State (Western Economic Diversification)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if the member can acknowledge our investments in the clean energy fund, the eco-energy technology institute, the carbon capture storage projects that are helping Canada position itself as a producer of reliable clean electricity for the decades to come?

I want to know if the member recognizes the $1.5 billion in investments over the next 10 years? I want to know if the member acknowledges the eco-energy retrofit homes program that is helping Canadians make their homes energy efficient, or the $148.8 million over the next five years to help the country adapt to climate change? I want to know if the member has ever visited the oil sands and actually saw the work that has been done with technology in helping the oil sands through all of its initiatives? Has she visited to see the work that it has done?

Opposition Motion--Climate ChangeBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, I do not have time to answer that question. I would like to give an elaborate answer.

Of course, I have been to the oil sands. I have been working for 40 years trying to clean up that sector. I recommend that the hon. member go to my website and read the report that I issued wherein are listed the recommendations by the deputy premier of the Northwest Territories, first nations leaders, scientists, all calling for the government to issue clear regulations and standards so that in fact we control that sector.

One thing I would point out to the hon. member is the hypocrisy of the government. The government says it will not take any action and will not majorly require the reduction of greenhouse gases in this country because China is not acting. This is the very government that is encouraging the shipping of raw bitumen to China so that it will be upgrading, refining and increasing its greenhouse gases.

I do not need to take any lectures from that side of the House about what is needed to actually address greenhouse gases. We need to work together with other countries, but first and foremost we need to act here. I think that if regulations were passed, then the taxpayers of Canada would not have to bear the burden that is going to be placed on them and the next generations.