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.
