David McGuinty

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr.Chair, I did not get an answer to the question. I asked the minister specifically what the percentage increase has been in three years. He has no answer.

In 2006 the government killed $5.6 billion of climate change funding, including a commercial buildings retrofit program to help our companies and our commercial operations achieve energy efficiency. Now we learn the government is killing an eco-energy program for everyday Canadian householders, everyday Canadian homeowners, co-op and condo owners who want to do the right thing and become more energy efficient.

Let me ask the minister this next question. He is very big on metrics. He says he is doing an assessment of the program. What has been the net effect of the eco-energy program on driving energy efficiency retrofits out of the underground economy?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time this evening with the member for Kings—Hants.

Could I ask the minister a questions, going back to the eco-energy program for Canadians who are watching. He mentioned earlier that over one million Canadians have taken up the program. I am not sure what timeline he had in place. However, could he tell us what has been the increase in uptake on that program in the last three years?

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for quieting the jackals. It is important for Canadians to know that when the parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order he should make it perfectly clear.

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, when someone is rising on a point of order could you please acknowledge it because there is mass confusion on the other side? This is the second or third time that the parliamentary secretary—

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2010]

Madam Chair, that is the third time in a row the parliamentary secretary rose without actually asking your permission to raise a point of order.

I would like to raise a point order. There is a series of questions that is being put to the minister that are directly relevant—

[Offshore Drilling, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the government says there is no explanation in the Beaufort, but it is fast-tracking licences and allowing seismic testing on the sea floor.

The National Energy Board warned the government that it did not know whether a relief well could ever be drilled in the same season should there be an accident. That means a spill in the north could last up to a year or longer.

Shell Oil and Cairn Energy are already beginning to drill in those same waters. For the fifth time, will the government immediately table an emergency and safety contingency plan to deal with any oil spill off any of Canada's three coasts?

[Offshore Drilling, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, although the Americans have instituted a moratorium in the same waters, the Conservatives are moving forward with issuing permits for oil exploration in the Beaufort Sea. And they have less stringent regulations than the ones that apply to companies exploring in the American section of that same sea.

Will the government suspend all oil activities in the Canadian Arctic, including Lancaster Sound and the Beaufort Sea, until a comprehensive review of the risks of offshore drilling in the far north has been completed?

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a grave mistake for the National Energy Board and the parties engaged in that process to underestimate the importance of making the vast improvements in the regulatory system and regime that have to be in place if we are going to continue to pursue exploration and exploitation of offshore oil and gas. That would be a very big mistake.

Oil companies and, for that matter, any large companies, really do not get their licence granted by regulators. They now have learned through this BP exercise, and many more before, that their licence to operate is granted by the public. Ask BP shareholders if they are pleased about the fact that it has now cost their company probably well over $1 billion to deal with this crisis. Ask them if they think that is a productive use of the scarce capital they are investing in this company. I doubt it.

I think it is a moment in time right now, and beyond, that we should seize as a country. I do not know why we are not, for example, leading this question in the Arctic Council context, where other nation states around the Arctic are also brought up to speed on best practices. This may actually come after the review, but sometimes there may be a point in time where we simply have to say no, that the economic and environmental risks inherent in pursuing offshore drilling are simply too large and that we need to move forward.

Again, all of this decision-making is going to occur in the absence of a coherent national approach to our energy future. Where are we going on nuclear power? Where are we going on hydro? Where are we going on coal and where are we going on other fossil fuels? Where are we going on solar?

Canadians often talk about wanting to invest in renewable power. The Liberal Party of Canada has been clear. It is not that we are looking for a levelling of the playing field between renewable power and non-renewable power; we want the playing field tilted in favour of renewable power.

I think at this stage it would be really important for the government to work with the opposition parties to come up with a coherent approach to Canada's energy future.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a call for a comprehensive and coherent approach to Canada's national energy future transcends the New Democratic Party. It has been called for by industrial sectors, by NGOs and by consumer groups. It has been called for by, I think, a consensus in Canadian society. For five years now, it has been called for by the official opposition.

There is a desperate need in this country for the ball to sit down on the green, as I say for those golfers out there who may be watching or listening. We need a plan for how Canada is going to move forward efficiently on its energy future. We have to make choices. We need coherence between how we spend money and how we provide incentives for investment, using fiscal measures, as I alluded to earlier.

It is not just parliamentarians who are seized with this, but this is becoming a very important question of economic competitiveness for Canada. Our investors out there, our risk takers, our entrepreneurs are saying, ”Where are we going? How can we make hard choices about allocating scarce dollars into our companies to employ our people if we have no idea what the future looks like?”

That is why I again call on the government and the Prime Minister to actually call together the first ministers within 70 days and hold an energy and climate change meeting so that Canada can win this energy efficiency race.

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. It is true that those proposals were made five years ago, but it is now 2010. We have learned a lot. We have a lot to learn and we have a lot of progress to make. That is why I am again calling on the government to work with the opposition to finally create an energy plan for Canada's future.

And I do not mean a plan like the National Energy Program in the 1970s and 1980s. No, now we want a credible plan. The government says it has set the targets at 17%. Let us work together. We need to make progress now. That is exactly why I think this is a good motion: it is asking the House of Commons to work together to develop a plan.