Roy Cullen

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member for Timmins—James Bay that I am confused as he is. The Minister of the Environment stands up in the House and talks about planes, trains and automobiles. Maybe it is the old John Candy movie that she saw at some time. Then today it was about closing every household down three times. I do not know how she closes down a household three times.

I am sure what she is trying to do is develop an analogy. The part that I found fascinating was that she left out the example of the large emitters. That deals with oil and gas producers of course and that might be a little touchy in Alberta.

We must collectively get our heads around this issue and deal with large emitters, deal with the manufacturing sector, the oil and gas producers, and the transportation sector. We must deal with the little things that Canadians can do, including making their homes more energy efficient, including putting investments into public transit rather than these Mickey Mouse programs of a tax rebate for the users of public transit, which we know will reward the current users of public transit, but will not have any effect in terms of increasing the use of public transit.

That is where the Minister of Natural Resources stands up and talks about 50¢ dollars. If the member wants to look at 50¢ dollars, I will show him a program that gets no impact and that is the public transit passes credit. We know it does not give anything in terms of new public transit users.

The Minister of Natural Resources' 50¢ dollar theory with respect to the EnerGuide program was totally debunked this morning in committee. The deputy minister said that there was 13¢ in administration and the rest of the 50¢ had to do with the pre and post-audit of these energy efficiency proposals. How could taxpayers and householders be expected to say that they would save $1,000 a year in energy if they patched up their windows and fixed their furnace without any sort of objective review of that? That would be an insult to taxpayers.

I am glad that the deputy minister of natural resources clarified that this morning. I thank him for that. Certainly, we have not had the same candour or directness from the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of the Environment. In fact, I would have to say that the Minister of the Environment is just confused.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion presented by the Bloc Québécois, which I must say is one of the more convoluted and complicated motions that I have ever seen in the House. If we read through the entrails of it, it basically says that, yes, we need to meet the Kyoto targets, but do not look to Quebec if we are to do that.

While I would agree that we need to acknowledge and recognize early movers, and there are some in Quebec, we need to recognize that across Canada. We all have to take some collective responsibility for dealing with greenhouse gases. My colleague from Yukon has pointed out, as we all recognize, that after years of the Conservative Party saying that the science was not clear, hopefully everyone in this chamber now understands that climate change and greenhouse gases are a problem.

We had a bit of the buck passing yesterday when the Minister of the Environment suggested that to meet the Kyoto targets we would have to take every train, plane and automobile off the streets of Canada. That is interesting.

We do know that the transportation sector contributes substantially to our greenhouse gas emissions. What was noticeably absent was the question of large emitters. Where was that in her remarks? Large emitters are oil and gas producers and large manufacturing plants. That is why we in Ontario, for example, must take some responsibility for the greenhouse gases that are produced by the manufacturing sector. Indeed, we must do that across Canada, but how can we leave out oil and gas producers?

Greenhouse gas emissions are something that we have to start taking some collective responsibility for. In 1997 the Canadian government signed the Kyoto protocol. The opposition has said it was for photo opportunities. That is a scandalous claim to make. We know that the Prime Minister at the time received some pressure and lobbying from environmental groups, quite rightly, that had a grave concern about greenhouse gases and their effect on climate change.

The Prime Minister knew that the Kyoto accord was in jeopardy unless Canada signed on to the accord. The Prime Minister signed on to the Kyoto accord. What are the advantages of such an accord? The accord sets certain parameters. It sets certain stretch objectives and it puts in a framework for consequences if the targets are not met. By doing that, the Prime Minister saved the Kyoto protocol.

It could be argued, as some of us did at the time, that the goals would be very difficult to achieve and that we had to have a concrete plan. I think the government at the time was right to sign on to the Kyoto protocol. It was not too long ago, in fact in 2005, when the previous environment minister for the government brought out Project Green, which laid out a plan to move forward on climate change and achieve our Kyoto objectives.

Is it true that meeting our Kyoto objectives will be a stretch target? Absolutely. If we sit around in this chamber and debate and pass the buck, and throw it to the next generations, then we will have failed in our responsibility as members of Parliament. The government will have failed if it does not deal with it. We must deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.

We have heard a lot about this made in Canada solution. We do not know what that is. In fairness, the government has been in power for a short period of time, but it implies that the ozone layer knows a country's borders and that there is a recognition of that. We all know, on the Liberal side, that if Canada is to reduce greenhouse gas production, all citizens will have to play a part. That is why the previous government brought in programs such as the one tonne challenge and EnerGuide for housing which the present government is now gutting.

This morning at committee we found out from the departmental people that what the Minister of Natural Resources was talking about in terms of a 50¢ return to the people that were achieving energy reductions, 50¢ for the department and 50¢ for citizens, was actually a bit of a stretch in terms of the facts of the case. The facts are that there is about a 12¢ administrative charge that the department has to bear, but the other part is to do the pre and the post-audit.

Was the Minister of Natural Resources about to argue that we would not have any audit of the energy efficiencies that were planned to be undertaken? Would the experts have to go in and say, “yes, there is this kind of energy efficiency required that will be achieved”? Of course not. There is the question, was this getting the bang for the buck? However, the 50¢ dollar argument just does not cut it and we will be pursuing that one more.

There are many opportunities where the Conservative government talks about picking up the low lying fruit. We certainly have opportunities in the transportation sector. There is public transit. What our government decided to do was to invest in public transit infrastructure and in fact, if we talk to the public transit experts they say that is what is required.

The program that the government is proposing, a tax credit for public transit users, we all know in the House that it will only get about a 10% to 20% maximum lift in terms of new users of public transit. What it does is reward existing users. That is nice. It is nice to reward existing users, but is that the best use of taxpayers' dollars? We want to get more people on public transit.

There are a number of other opportunities in terms of biofuels, but in Canada unfortunately, we have a mixed grid with different provincial regulations and targets with respect to ethanol. We keep talking about corn, but we know that in the United States the Americans are talking about grass and corn stalks. We need to start to get a little more creative.

I would like to talk about the oil sands because I know that it is a politically sensitive area. We know on this side that the national energy program was not the way to proceed. If anyone on this side does not understand that now, we need to examine ourselves.

Certainly, I will not support moving away from world prices on oil and gas. If we were to put our head in the sand, no pun intended, about what the oil sands is doing in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions, then we would be missing the point. We know that areas like Fort McMurray are going nuts. There seems to be unbridled growth. We know that the oil sands production is going to double by 2012 and triple by 2020. There is about a 40% input of energy to get out a unit of energy from the oil sands. Its impact on the water resources is huge. To produce one barrel of oil from the oil sands it takes 2 to 4.5 barrels of water. The Athabasca River basin is under huge stress.

We need to deal with these issues quickly. Is clean coal an oxymoron? I do not think so. Some would argue that it is, but we need to deal with that. We need to deal with a host of other issues in a constructive and positive way. I am hoping that is what the government will do.

[The Environment, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the questions and I will ask the minister to answer but that was no answer and no assurance for Canadians.

We also have some problems with our water resources. According to the Pembina Institute, energy development is having a negative impact on our rivers, streams and lakes. Action is needed immediately to stem the growing drain on our water resources.

What is the government doing right now to address this serious problem?

[The Environment, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, energy development goes hand in hand with increased greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, the Conservatives are doing nothing to address this serious problem.

When will the government announce a real program instead of uttering platitudes?

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla knows full well that the alternative documentation in lieu of a passport has always been on the table. What Canadians might not know, though, is the way in which the government has caved in to the U.S. administration in terms of the western hemisphere travel initiative.

Perhaps it was because the U.S. administration promised some resolution to the softwood lumber deal. Is that not interesting? Because the U.S. president had an option last week, and that was not to launch the extraordinary appeal of the NAFTA panel. President Bush decided to do that, so I am not sure what the exchange was, because on both counts, Canada is not very well represented.

I do have a question for the Minister of Public Safety. There are a number of initiatives in the department, I am sure, that I could not find in the budget. One is for measures dealing with counterfeit goods. Goods are coming into Canada and jeopardizing the safety of Canadians, whether they be pharmaceuticals or electrical equipment.

There is also the idea of creating some kind of accountability at our borders for people who might feel that they are being wrongly or unfairly treated. I did not see anything in the budget to deal with this. I know that was an initiative of our government.

There is also the Port of Prince Rupert and the need for customs officers there. I did not see any money in the budget for that.

I wonder if the minister would comment on those items as well.

[Mining Industry, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Mining Week in Canada, a time to celebrate and highlight the many accomplishments of the mining industry and the contribution that this sector makes to Canada.

This industry employs more than 370,000 Canadians in rural and urban areas and is a world leader in sustainable mining technologies. It accounts for 4% of our gross domestic product and is the largest employer of aboriginal Canadians in the private sector.

While there are many positive things of which to speak, there are also challenges. The industry requires investment in geosciences and support for a geological mapping strategy. It also faces a growing labour shortage as the industry will require up to 81,000 new people in the next 10 years.

The recent Conservative budget failed to address these concerns.

A new Liberal government would meet these challenges head on and ensure that our very important mining industry in Canada continues to grow and prosper.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support Bill C-3 going to committee. However I find it quite amusing when the government takes credit for bringing this legislation forward. If the oppositions parties had not called the election that bill would have been in the House. Governance as it relates to our border operations has been of concern for many members on this side.

We have a classic example in Windsor-Detroit where we have some private sector interests that are basically setting the standards and buying up all the real estate that will be a part of any transaction of any new crossing. The previous government had started to get on to this and had drafted the legislation, and I hope the government deals with this.

I am not a big fan of nationalizing these sorts of operations but there are some people who would, and perhaps some our colleagues down at the other end and on their side.

I think we need to have a state of governance that provides the national security and the national interest of the Canadian people in this massive corridor that takes care of so much trade and the passage of people across our borders. We need to be in charge here, not these private sector interests because this represents a key national corridor for the trade of goods and the mobility of people.

The member also alluded to the concept of perimeter. Is this a new change? Is this a change in the philosophy of the government? Does the government still subscribe to the notion that we need to harmonize all our national security policies with the United States and Mexico?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had to say. He continues to claim that with his laptop computer he can calculate financial estimates better than the best economists in Canada and the experts at the federal finance department. I continue to be amazed.

Is the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot happy with the direction the Conservative government is taking in terms of Americanizing Canadian public policy? We have seen that in many respects. We have seen it with respect to the way the Conservatives are treating the fallen soldiers who have come back from Afghanistan. We have seen it with respect to the throne speech in the Senate chamber where they selected a number of people, just like they do in the state of the union address when the president speaks to the American people. We have seen it now when they are calling for a public prosecutor just like Prosecutor Starr in the United States. I do not know if the member has ever had the chance to read the autobiography of Bill Clinton where he spells out and describes the terrible venom that this prosecutor had for Bill Clinton and followed him day in and day out on the Whitewater case. Now we have the government talking about a budget office of Parliament, another Americanization of public policy in Canada.

I wonder if the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot would comment on that, please.

[The Environment, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would table all the analysis. We on this side know that many of the programs that worked are being gutted.

Let me be specific. Last year we introduced a program that would reduce the energy costs of seniors and low income Canadians by $500 this year, next year and every year thereafter. The government is gutting that program. Why?

[The Environment, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we all know about the negative impacts of climate change. We see it every day. Yet, the government continues to gut the programs that are designed to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

Regrettably, as evidenced by the throne speech, the environment is not a priority for the Prime Minister. Can we anticipate that he will flip-flop on this issue, and put in a concrete and specific plan to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from Canada? We need a made in Canada solution not a made in U.S.A. solution.