Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the budget. Similar to other members who have expressed such in the House, I also reached out to my constituents. I have also been receiving a lot of phone calls and emails from other people across the country who are concerned about what is not in the budget and what has been cut from the budget. It is well known in the House that I have a great interest and long-standing work in the area of the environment. Despite the fact that I heard a lot of concerns from my own constituents about there being no more funding for health care, no more funding for advanced education, much to my surprise, by and large the largest number of concerns expressed to me were that the highest priority they set for the budget is that they want more money to address climate change and protection of the environment. What I intend to address in the budget debate today is the shortfalls in that area.
The hon. Minister of the Environment has described the budget as setting a new high watermark for eco-funding. In assessing whether the budget actually merits this accolade, let us recall the responses made to the economic and climate crises--and I remind the House we are not just in an economic crisis; we are facing also a serious climate crisis--by other jurisdictions and authorities.
President Obama, in his first month in office, provided clear leadership by announcing measures to forge a new greener economy for his nation, a stimulus package that doubles the generating capacity of the United States renewable energy over three years to power six million homes; the financing of retrofitting of two million homes to save low income earners the average of $350 a year; the retrofitting, not the sell-off, of 75% of federal buildings to save the government $2 billion a year; loan guarantees to leverage $100 billion in private investment in clean energy projects. He cleared the way for new rules to require production of more fuel efficient and cleaner cars, unlike Canada's government which missed the deadline. He also dedicated $600 million for new federal fleet cars.
Germany has enacted a law that requires power distributors to purchase electricity from renewable sources for a fixed time at fixed rates above market prices. In other words, it is giving a leg up to the new green economy, as much as a seven times higher price for solar power. Germany now generates the most renewable energy worldwide and the largest production of solar panels and wind turbines in the world.
We are letting these businesses pass by. They employ one-quarter million people and a $400 billion revenue stream for this sector, four times the figures since 2000.
The International Energy Agency has called on all governments to include green measures in their stimulus plans. “If governments are spending money for a stimulus package”, it says, “why not spend it on renewables?” Its executive director said, “It stimulates the economy in the short term and in the long term it is sustainable. It kills two birds with one stone”. Although perhaps not the metaphor an environmentalist might prefer, we get the message.
This week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, business people and economists alike voiced support for reduced reliance on dirty fossil fuels and support for green industries capable of creating jobs as the preferred path to ease the difficulties faced by businesses and workers alike.
The United Nations Environment Program has launched a $4 million green economy initiative to get the global markets back to work. This initiative, funded by the European Commission, Germany and Norway, will deliver within two years a package for use by all governments to help make this transition. I hope that the government pays attention to this package.
According to the UNEP executive director, “The financial fuel and food crises are part of a much wider market failure which triggers deeper environmental impacts coupled with an over-reliance on finite fossil fuels”. That renowned international organization recognizes that we face both an economic crisis and a climate crisis. Its intent is to mobilize and refocus the global economy toward investments in clean technologies and natural infrastructure. It has called for new creative, forward looking and transformational thinking. Instead of pouring more investments into the same old extractive short-term economy of yesterday, UNEP is advising nations, including ours, to move investments toward a new green economy.
Such an economy would be based on three pillars: valuing and mainstreaming nature, employment generation through green jobs and green policies, and the use of instruments and market signals to accelerate the transition to a green economy.
How do these brave, bold initiatives to start the economy and save the planet compare to the measures in the budget tabled before us in Parliament? The Minister of the Environment has advised we must read the budget in the context of the fall 2008 throne speech. That speech, coupled with policy and law reforms slowly being revealed to us, suggests a dramatically different path than that taken by President Obama, other nations or international institutions of the world.
Our federal government is granted extensive powers to forge bold new directions for reviving the economy and sustaining our living environment, powers that if exercised in a timely and effective manner could drive change for the better, trigger major shifts in investment and provide hope to Canadians for a sound and sustainable future. Counted among those important powers are the spending power, the taxation power and the regulatory power. Let us not forget the regulatory power.
The question we must ask ourselves in assessing whether we will vote for this budget is whether the government has actually used its taxation and spending powers in the budget to show leadership to establish a new high-water mark for the environment. Has the government followed the path of its G20 partners and delivered on its commitments to unleash a new greener energy future for Canada?
True, there is some evidence of new language and a tinkering at the edges of the old-style economy. Some of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are to be made available to them to renovate their homes or cottages or to build a deck. Some additional dollars would be set aside for the home energy retrofit program. Those with cash to spare to do both may potentially be rewarded with both a grant and tax relief.
Perhaps less of the pie has been allocated to those at the bottom end of the prosperity gap. Regrettably, no moneys are allocated for retrofitting the large rental housing stock.
What else is missing from the budget? Let me share just a few examples brought to my attention by my constituents, by renewable energy experts and investors, by energy efficiency entrepreneurs, by transit authorities and by respected scientists, simply to name a few I have consulted or who have contacted me.
With regard to transit, a stated priority of the government is to get workers to their jobs in a cleaner, less smog-producing way. Despite the valuable contribution public transit makes toward this goal, not a single dollar is specifically committed to transit, and this despite a cost analysis by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that for every billion dollars invested in infrastructure for transit, over 11,000 full-time jobs are created. Perhaps a few of the 167 priority transit projects identified by the Canadian Urban Transit Association as ready to go may eventually win the lottery and be funded under building Canada.
What about the clean and renewable energy economy? The budget purports to be transforming Canada into a green energy economy. Close to $1 billion to develop and test so-called clean energy technologies singles out carbon-capturing sequestration, which has already received $1 billion and even more from the provinces, yet zero new dollars are budgeted to incent the development, and most important the deployment, of renewable energy, save possibly support for one windmill on Prince Edward Island.
What about climate change? It is among the most pressing challenges of our time. How many references are made in the budget to this issue? There is just one, occurring when the government touts nuclear power as the singular solution to Canada's energy security and climate change goals.
Regrettably, what the government has done through streamlining is cut the very institutions that can develop the innovative transition and move it forward.
It has done nothing on water, despite calls by the first nations of northern Alberta and by leading scientists of Canada.
I call on the government and I call on the members of the House not to support the budget. We need to be forging a new green economy.
