House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 31% of the vote.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, once again, none of this assists us in bringing forward the kinds of policies that are required to go in the clean air act to make this work for Canadians.
We are not living in the past. This is 2007. We need to move. Let us move on this issue. Let us make it happen.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I think the situation is such that energy, the environment and climate change are important issues right now. There is the thought that we will come to a solution in this Parliament and that the four parties working together would take this out of the next campaign when we are next in front of the voters.
The Liberals want to keep some doubt in this process and I think that is something that is shameful. Let us get on with this and get it done. There are four parties here that are willing to work. Let us put this political partisanship--
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate today we have heard constant accusations from both sides. Of course the Liberals want to bring the New Democratic Party into the game they are playing with the Conservatives of who is at fault here. The NDP is not interested in who is at fault here. We are here to do something for Canadians right now.
When we look at the Liberal record over many years on many subjects, there is an old saying which makes sense here, that the best indicator of future performance is the past performance. When we look at the past performance of the Liberal Party over 13 years, it was really a sham. How could anyone use the promises of that party in 2005 to judge its relevance for staying in office?
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Victoria.
Members of the Liberal Party have been waving around a five year old letter from the Prime Minister when he was leader of the Alliance Party. In this letter the Prime Minister made statements about Kyoto being a socialist plan to export Canadian wealth. Yesterday it was the only question the Liberals could ask in the House, but both the Prime Minister and the Liberals are wrong. Shipping Canadian dollars to other countries as the Liberals would have done to meet Kyoto is actually a capitalist plan. It is a plan to ensure that corporations can continue to expand their markets and find a way to deal with Kyoto at the lowest possible cost without any worry about the effect on the global environment.
All around the world the successful countries that have dealt with climate change are social democratic countries which have values which the NDP also has. We have a plan to meet Kyoto and it is a plan based on social democratic principles which will build the Canadian economy, create jobs for average Canadians and save working families money on their energy bills.
One of the key elements in the NDP plan is to change how we deal with energy. Canada needs an energy strategy. We need to ensure there is clean energy available not just for today but for our children and grandchildren, not a plan that allows a laissez-faire system to exist in this country to recklessly produce and sell off our fossil fuel resources.
What would a strategy look like? The primary goal of an energy strategy must be to provide a secure energy supply sufficient to meet our needs. However, these needs primarily must be reduced. By reducing the needs it will enable the most rapid transition as possible to an energy regime based on conservation and the sustainable use of renewable energy.
The goal of an energy policy must definitely not be merely to produce as much energy as possible to meet a growing global demand with no regard for social and environmental impacts. Conservation and reduction of energy consumption must be one of the pillars of an energy strategy. Consuming less energy will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce air pollution and save ordinary Canadians money. Those are all laudable goals.
The second pillar of an energy strategy is to replace non-renewable energy sources with renewable ones. To do this our strategy would include actions to develop a thriving renewable energy industry in Canada, particularly wind, small hydro, solar and biomass. All of these are possible. All of these are important and all of these can happen in our system.
We need the creation of a crown corporation to assist communities, commercial and industrial interests at the community level, to help create these kinds of energy which are not transported mainly by pipes or transmission lines but really deal with how we use energy at home and in the community.
We need to install 100,000 solar roofs to get our solar energy program going. We are falling behind the rest of the world. Our country has an abysmal record of supporting solar energy.
We need to invest in cogeneration. One of the simplest and most fundamental ways that northern countries save energy is cogeneration; use the waste heat that is produced in industrial and electrical processes.
We need investment in sustainable public transport.
We need to provide funding to support the development of community groups and non-profit organizations to promote activities which have these values and put these values in front of Canadians which allow small businesses, individuals and community governments to make the best of the energy systems that are available to them.
A gradual transition to a sustainable renewable energy regime allowing maximum use of attrition and ensuring planned decreases in production can be accomplished and can save jobs, and can provide a reasonable transition to a new economy.
However, any strategy for Canada would be incomplete if it did not address fossil fuels. When we talk about addressing fossil fuels, I do not think we only want to talk about bringing liquefied natural gas into this country to replace a rapidly declining resource that was so mishandled through the 1980s and 1990s by successive Liberal governments.
The NDP strategy would conduct a complete assessment of federal subsidies and incentives to the energy sector, with input from relevant stakeholders, accompanied by the establishment of a specific timetable for the rapid elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies and incentives, particularly those associated with the oil and gas industry.
In order to share my time with my hon. colleague from Victoria, I will bring my debate to a conclusion.
Finally, an energy strategy for Canada must put Canada's energy needs first, not those of the United States, not made in Washington with the North American energy working group giving direction to this country. We need our own energy strategy. We need it in conjunction with the Kyoto plan. Without that energy strategy, we will not get to Kyoto.
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to some of the work that was put in place by the Liberal government on climate reduction and perhaps look at the work done by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. She looked at the program for carbon sequestration and found that the moneys had been expended but that only one of the five projects had been completed and the CO2 reductions from that program were a hundredth of what they had hope for.
Let us look at the wind program. Everyone was pleased that some effort was put into wind in Canada but when we compared the program in Canada to the one in the United States we found that the wind industry here was dealing with a subsidy that was half of that of the United States and U.S. wind producers were selling into a market where wholesale prices for electricity were considerably higher.
When we look at biomass, we have had a complete lack of program development in the use of biomass energy over the last number of years. We have a huge resource in waste wood. Three million tonnes a year is being wasted in our forest industry. Nothing has happened on that front.
What about solar energy? We heard that the people in charge of the Canadian Solar Industries Association admit that we are the least funded nation for solar thermal energy of all the western nations.
On every front on renewable energy, the programs that were put in place were thin soup for Canadian producers and developers.
Why should we continue with programs like that, that were not doing the job for Canadians?
Business of Supply February 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a very interesting dissertation on the nature of the ability to react to a global crisis by reducing the actions to a territorial level.
Quite clearly, in Canada we are in an integrated economy and we still are in a country together. We have certain interests that play against each other and certain interests that we have in common. However, in energy, it is very important to realize that we are an integrated system. We supply natural gas across the country. We could supply more hydro electric energy across the country as well if we had a grid, but right now we are proposing to take on a new source of fossil fuels and that would be liquefied natural gas.
In the member's province of Quebec we are looking at a terminal right now for the importation of liquefied natural gas from Russia. Does this fit with the member's idea of how the future of Quebec energy should be developed, that we tie into international markets for a fossil fuel product that has a very high environmental cost in its development and transportation? Is this the answer that the member sees for Canada and for Quebec?
Energy Strategy January 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
The provinces have been calling for the creation of an east-west electricity grid. Such a grid would increase Canada's energy security and would be an important element in an overall energy strategy for Canada, something that even the oil companies have been asking for. These calls match with the creation of a powerful cabinet subcommittee on energy security and with the minister's comments of 2006 when he said, “Canada's energy strategy is key to North America's economy.”
When will the minister make good on his promise and bring forward to Parliament a Canadian energy strategy to give Canadians a secure and clean energy future?
The Environment January 31st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In the Northwest Territories, all people, including aboriginal leaders, are concerned about record low water levels and how the oil sands are affecting the waterways downstream.
In 1997 the Mackenzie River Basin master agreement was signed. It was supposed to result in agreements between all jurisdictions in the Mackenzie watershed. In 10 years the federal government has dropped the ball and we have seen no action to implement these agreements.
Will the minister support slowing down oil sands development until these agreements are in place to protect Canadians?
Natural Gas January 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has repeatedly said that Canada is an energy superpower and has created a powerful cabinet subcommittee on energy security. However, it is clear what the Conservatives are saying on energy in Canada is not what is being said by government agencies here and abroad.
I just returned from Russia and was briefed there by our embassy. It is saying that Canada is running short of natural gas and needs to import liquefied natural gas. Imported Russian LNG is not a secure form of energy. Hardball energy politics are part of the Russian play book. This imported natural gas will also hurt ordinary working Canadians who earn a living in our oil and gas industry.
For the Northwest Territories, Russian LNG means direct competition for Mackenzie Valley natural gas. For the residents of Lévis, Quebec, Russian LNG represents an unacceptable environmental hazard in a terminal. For all average Canadians, Russian LNG means higher taxes as the government makes no money on it, unlike Canadian gas.
Without any process or plan, the Conservatives want—
Canada Pension Plan January 30th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his presentation on this issue. We in the New Democratic Party as well are concerned about opening bills like this without substantive changes that can make a difference to Canadians in all places in the country.
My experience in discussing Canada pension plan issues with my constituents in northern and remote communities is that the system is not working for them. Quite clearly the cost of living is so high in those areas and seniors are living on fixed incomes under the Canada pension plan. The plan does not recognize the geographic differences that affect the cost of living for individuals. It is a real question of fairness.
In the community of Tuktoyaktuk, the cost of living is probably 200% more than the cost of living in cities such as Edmonton or Montreal. Our seniors are in dire straits. I do not know if that fits with other rural communities across the country, but would the hon. member comment on whether this pension system is working fairly across the country? Canada is such a large geographic area and the cost of living cannot always be equalized. How does the hon. member feel about this?