Mr. Speaker, please interrupt me when my time is up, because, with such an exciting topic as this, which deals with energy efficiency, of course, and all the other environmental aspects, the old teacher in me is back. I feel like I could go on for hours.
In passing, I would like to commend my colleague from Drummond for introducing his motion and say hello to all the people of Drummondville, particularly those I had the opportunity to work with during my four years there. I have fond memories of that time.
To come back to the motion, just this once, I will start my speech by quoting a Conservative minister. His remarks support the motion before us. In 2013, the former minister of natural resources, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, wrote:
From 2007 to 2012, the ecoENERGY Retrofit—Homes program provided incentives to more than 640 000 homeowners. As a result of this program, these homeowners are now...lowering their energy consumption by an average of 20 percent. It is estimated that this program...created or protected thousands of jobs...
That is an excellent summary of this motion. They say the simplest things are often the most effective. Here is an excellent example of that saying. This is an utterly simple motion, but one that allows for numerous applications and offers many positives. I will have occasion to talk about that more.
Of course, it all hinges on monetary incentives. We are living in a time when we have never been more aware of environmental issues or discussed them as much, unless perhaps you are a Conservative. However, people around the world are talking about them. When the time comes for action, money often talks.
If you ask Canadians who are getting ready to buy a new car whether they are interested in a hybrid model, most will answer yes. However, when financing a hybrid car, they are forced to run the calculations over several years to determine whether, given the energy costs of a conventional vehicle, they can come up with the extra money they need to buy it. That is where a government that really has an energy vision designed to reduce greenhouse gases, but also to develop a society of the future, can put major incentives in place.
The eco-energy retrofit–homes program was a very successful program. I say that in the past tense because the Conservatives decided in January 2013 to terminate it. That is a strange policy. The Conservatives had a functional program for once, and I thought they could have continued in the right direction.
In an evaluation in 2010, the head of the program concluded that its residential component had been successful because it had helped reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions while boosting the economy. That is pretty important, particularly when we are talking about renovation work in homes, apartment buildings or any type of building.
However, private homeowners in particular often have the same problem as people with the hybrid cars I mentioned a moment ago. Sometimes they are tempted to do the work, but when they see the size of the bill—let us not deny the fact—some absolutely have to do the work and will try to find someone who will do it for cash. That is where things go downhill and people start dealing with the whole underground economy that escapes us. However, we can get it back by introducing incentives to encourage all people who do retrofit work to do business in the legal economy.
Why did they cancel it? What reason did they have to abolish a program that worked so well? Perhaps it was to save money. That, in a word, is the Conservative government’s policy: saving money. I should say making cuts. In normal circumstances, however, savings should be used for good programs. It looks as though Conservative government has not really understood that. The fact remains that the Conservatives’ record on energy and the environment is terrible. We all know it.
Need I remind hon. members that there are some specific policy issues that Canada has backed away from? Canada is still the only country to have pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol at the UN Conference on Climate Change in 2011, is it not? That feat did not do our country proud.
The elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in 2012 is a clear reflection of the Conservatives’ position. They are willing to talk about the environment if they are asked a question, but it is not an area in which they are truly willing to take action.
The NDP, on the other hand, wants to move forward, particularly in terms of investing in measures to fight climate change and to help Canadians reduce their energy consumption and lower their energy bills. That is the crucial element.
We can engage in a conversation with each citizen and clearly show them how, by spending some money and with a little help from the program, they can lower their energy bills over the next few years. What is more, not only will they be able to recoup the investment they made in renovations in the short term, they will also be able to benefit from lower energy bills for years to come, while doing their part to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
With this reasoning, it will not be difficult to convince people who have to do some renovations or who are building a new house to adopt higher environmental standards.
The purpose of the motion is not new and does not require a radical shift in policy. The motion simply calls on the government to adopt a real policy for the future, a policy that takes into account the environmental challenges of tomorrow.
We, on this side of the House, are convinced that climate change is tied to human activity. Some of the activities that contribute significantly to global warming include heat loss and energy waste. Every study bears this out—as if we needed studies to know this is true. The cheapest kilowatt hour or energy is the energy we manage to save because it has already been produced and can be used later.
What the motion is proposing today is therefore very simple. By contributing to improving the energy efficiency of houses, residential buildings, shops and businesses, we will be contributing to combatting climate change.
In light of the global climate crisis, reducing greenhouse gases by putting an energy efficiency program in place will reduce our ecological footprint.
If there is one idea that I often talked to my students about, it was the importance of reducing our ecological footprint. If there is one generation we can count on to truly change things, it is the younger generation. There are many examples of this throughout history.
For example, how did we manage to reduce smoking rates in our societies? It was because of the children and teenagers who were able to persuade their parents to stop smoking, and because young people did not start smoking. How did we manage to increase our recycling rates? It was because of the children and teenagers who persuaded their parents to recycle.
Today, I think it would return the favour very well if we, the politicians, stood up when the time comes, after the second hour of debate on this motion, and voted unanimously to send a clear message to all those generations who are prodding us forward. We would be telling them that we have understood the message and that we want to leave them a society and an environment that is as clean as the one we received from our parents, or even cleaner, in terms of both air and water quality.
In conclusion, the NDP has long been a party that looks to the future. We put forward this motion, that we implement an energy efficiency program to encourage homeowners to reduce their energy consumption, as part of our effort to combat climate change. This strategy will also make it possible to reduce Canadians’ energy bills and create jobs. This is another important element: whenever we talk about creating jobs in the energy sector, we are no longer necessarily talking about creating jobs in the service industry that are often part-time, minimum-wage jobs. Rather, we are talking about full-time, high paying jobs.
