Christian Paradis

[The Environment, May 12th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government was elected to provide responsible government. It is a known fact that the return to taxpayers from the EnerGuide program is only 50 cents out of every dollar spent. A review of programs is under way to determine which ones are effective and which ones are not. In this way, Canadians will have the energy efficiency they deserve.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the objectives are clear. No one needs to hide. All of us in this House have the same goal and that is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

My colleague is asking me to do the exact same thing as the previous government. We simply have to deliver a program quickly just to please them. We are at the review stage in order to keep the effective programs and eliminate those that are ineffective with a view to achieving these objectives.

I find it very irresponsible of my colleague to ridicule the carbon dioxide capture program. The Bloc recommends maintaining the Kyoto accord and sending Canadian money abroad. We want to invest here in Canada in effective technologies.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the question put by the opposition member and my colleague surprises me.

The previous government had 13 years to establish effective programs and never did. Since we have taken office—only 100 days ago—we have already begun reviewing existing programs in order to establish effective ones. The people of Canada have asked us to.

Some programs considered ineffective were at times developed in a hurry, unfortunately, by the previous government. We are thoroughly reviewing programs and will keep the effective ones. What is more, we will add effective programs specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with this motion, the Bloc Québécois is conspiring with the other opposition parties to force the Government of Canada to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. They all know that the previous government left us with billions of dollars in Kyoto-related programs but failed to deliver the goods. Quite the opposite. Our greenhouse gas emissions have actually increased by more than 35% over the past 10 years. Not only was the Liberal approach merely a smokescreen, as Tom Axworthy said recently, but it also put Canada in a position that makes it impossible to reach the Kyoto targets without bringing on a major economic upheaval or sending billions of dollars out of the country.

I feel that the Bloc Québécois motion is both unrealistic and irresponsible because it would force Canada to take steps that Canadians and the Government of Canada do not want. Canada cannot meet the Kyoto protocol targets under these circumstances. Our government has clearly demonstrated that it intends to address the problems of greenhouse gases and pollution in Canada. It made a commitment to this in both the throne speech and the budget. However, in contrast to what the opposition is proposing, we will offer Canadians a realistic plan, a made in Canada plan that will ensure that future generations have clean air, clean water, clean soil and clean energy. This plan will enable us to achieve economic prosperity while controlling greenhouse gases, by investing in Canadian solutions and Canadian communities.

Reducing greenhouse gases means making fundamental changes in the way energy is produced and consumed. But energy plays a leading role in Canadians' economic and social lives. In this context, the key to success, in my view, lies in scientific research and technologies. Canada is a world leader in clean technologies, which offer the world new, more effective ways to increase energy efficiency, use renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to climate change. The Government of Canada and its industry partners are working to respond to the growing world demand for clean energy technologies.

Canada is already on the right track, particularly in research on energy efficiency, alternative energy sources and carbon capture and storage technologies. These technological advances will help us reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will enable Canada to capitalize on its huge energy potential for the benefit of all Canadians.

When I think of Canadian solutions that benefit Canadian communities, the CANMET Energy Technology Centre in Varennes, Quebec, immediately comes to mind. Its mission is to help some sectors of the Canadian economy—pulp and paper, petrochemical, and softwood lumber—reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, make more sustainable use of energy, and increase their capacity for innovation.

One of the major projects developed by the Varennes researchers is RETScreen International, which is recognized as the leading software in the world for analyzing and assessing the viability of renewable energy projects. RETScreen consists of a series of databases which provide decision-makers with data on the quantity of energy produced by a wind turbine, solar panel, high-efficiency gas burner or a small-capacity generator. It can also specify the cost of these systems. RETScreen recently launched a multilingual version of this model, which is now offered in 21 languages and reaches almost two-thirds of the world's population. It has saved users $240 million in Canada and $600 million worldwide, of particular importance to developing countries. This is a compelling example of Canadian know-how exported around the world.

CTEC in Devon, Alberta, also comes to mind with its technologies for the oil sector that reduce energy consumption and are more environmentally friendly. This company has helped the Canadian oil industry become a viable player in the energy supply sector and one that is environmentally responsible.

The new technologies developed in Devon will be the key to commercial development that is both economically and environmentally viable for energy resources such as the oil sands and heavy oil.

Thanks to these technologies, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands development by 50%.

Furthermore, our laboratories here in Ottawa are at the forefront of the research, development and deployment of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies for houses, buildings and communities.

They focus their activities on energy analysis and simulation tools, technology design criteria, testing, rating and monitoring, standards development, field trials and demonstrations, technology transfer and support in technology feasibility and economics.

They work in partnership with universities and the private sector to build intelligent buildings and ultra-energy-efficient buildings that can become net energy producers.

Although we are currently reconsidering the Canadian government's climate change programs, I would remind the House that many other quality programs are being continued, programs that are good examples of sound management of public funds and that reach or even surpass their targeted objectives.

For example, take the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conservation, a fruitful partnership between industry and government. To date, the industry's sectors targeted by this program have saved at least $3 billion by reducing their fuel consumption and, compared to 1990, they had reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 30 megatonnes a year in 2004.

Reducing green house gases is a global challenge and Canada, which produces only 2% of the world's greenhouse gases, could not do it alone.

Despite our best intentions and the best intentions of the international community, statistics show that global greenhouse gas emissions have been increasing since 1990.

We have to accept the fact that Canada and the world will continue to depend on fossil fuels for some time to come. We are investing to reduce emissions from oil, natural gas and coal.

One of our solutions is a project to store carbon dioxide underground. This is a joint project between the Government of Canada, the International Energy Agency and the U.S. department of energy.

This project accomplishes two things: it eliminates greenhouse gas emissions and improves oil recovery. The initial results are extremely promising.

Investment in science and technology is most promising. This approach will allow Canada to focus on excellence, lead by example and contribute to finding solutions that will have a lasting and significant impact around the world.

These are clear, concrete solutions with a vision and well-established plan to achieve our common goal of preserving our environment.

[National Mining Week, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, from May 8 to 14, I invite all Canadians to celebrate National Mining week. This year's theme is “Canada’s Mining Industry: Contributing to Economic Development at Home and Abroad”.

Mining is one of the Canadian economy’s key engines of growth. From 2003 to 2004, total production value increased from $50 billion to $60 billion and it continues to increase. What is more, in just a few years' time, Canada has worked its way up to third place among diamond mining countries.

Mining is also one of our main tools for the socio-economic development of aboriginal peoples. In Canada, more than 1,200 aboriginal communities are located within a 200 kilometre radius of operating mines.

Positive effects of mining—jobs, training and benefits to the communities—are felt in every corner of Canada.

Our mining industry creates opportunities for the people and communities touched by its activities.

I invite all Canadians to join me in celebrating this important Canadian industry during National Mining Week.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite raised an important point and I agree with what he said.

Indeed, consultations will have to be held in the communities. The current government is not claiming that it will sit down only with the provinces and territories. The areas concerned, as well as the not for profit agencies and small and medium businesses, will be consulted, as will the experts on this matter, parents.

Consultations will be held. The government has a real desire to do so. If we allow the government to go ahead with its policy then I think the problems will be resolved because real people will be consulted.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the current government's plan is very clear. The government will allocate $250 million to create additional spaces and address the actual situation parents face. It is all well and good to make speeches and toss around figures, saying that a given province is being deprived of this or that. We took an approach that will give real, immediate results for parents.

I myself have three young children. I come from a rural area. I can say that the flexible, concrete, practical measures that the government has proposed will help families that are not necessarily covered by so-called omnibus programs.

It is also important to mention that according to a recent Environics poll, many Quebeckers are satisfied with this program. Hon. members should stop tossing around figures and let us present a flexible approach. That will allow us to implement this program, which will address the situation and create day care spaces.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with one portion of my colleague's speech. Truly, it is impossible for a government to impose a solution, as the previous government wished to do.

For its part, the current government wants to propose a flexible approach that takes into account the needs of parents. In this regard, the government made a clear commitment in the election campaign and already it has put in place a program and undertaken, together with the provinces, to create additional child care spaces.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition day motion on child care.

This motion implies that the government is not keeping the promise it made to Canadians during the election campaign.

It suggests that Canadians were not aware of the two components of the universal child care plan: providing parents with an annual benefit of $1,200 for each child under the age of six years and creating 25,000 day care spaces a year starting in 2007.

This plan will honour the bilateral child care agreements made by the previous government for one year.

When our Prime Minister said publicly during the election campaign that we were going to create our own child care plan—not the previous government’s plan—he was not joking.

Canadians then took action and elected the Conservatives. We are respecting the democratic will.

The provinces and territories will receive full funding in 2006 and 2007, the transition period during which we will gradually terminate the child care agreements that were made.

During that year, Quebec will receive $152.8 million. It will have the latitude it needs to invest its share of the federal funding in child care and the well-being of families.

I would note that only three provinces had signed funding agreements, and each of those agreements included a provision permitting either party to terminate the agreement on 12 months’ notice.

I would also note that it is up to the provinces and territories to decide what child care strategy reflects the consensus of their populations.

As far as possible, the Government of Canada will respect the right of parents to choose what is best for their children and their families. We will respect the great diversity of this country, from one province to another and from one family to another.

The universal child care benefit amounts to $1,200 paid directly to parents every year, so that they can make choices that meet the needs of their families. This benefit helps parents during a time when expenses are high and income is lower.

No two families are the same. Every family is unique in itself. They live on farms, in small municipalities, on reserves, on the coast, in the urban core and in the suburbs. As a government, our role is to help parents raise their children in the best possible way.

By supporting parents in the formidable job of raising children, a job that contributes to the development of the nation, we are encouraging them to do even better.

Starting in July, parents will receive $100 a month for each child under the age of six years. That money will be taxable in the hands of the spouse with the lower income.

Parents may use the universal child care benefit in different ways. Parents may want to invest in a registered education savings plan for their children. Some parents may use it to enrol their children in a nursery school or junior kindergarten. Others may use it to pay for swimming lessons or to enrol in a sports league. Or this benefit may help a working parent to pay a family member or neighbour for child care. The benefit can also be applied to the child care expenses of a parent who works nights and weekends and who does not have access to daytime services.

I would like to remind the House that the universal child care benefit will complement a range of federal benefits offered to Canadian families: the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement, tax-free monthly payments to help families assume the costs of their children’s education; the child care expense deduction, which allows parents to deduct the cost of child care when they are working or studying; and extended parental leave, which provides parents with income support for a maximum of one year when they decide to stay at home to care for a newborn or a child they have just adopted.

It is a real feat for certain parents to earn their living while trying to provide their children with the best possible care. Not all parents can entrust their children to established day care centres: sometimes that option is impossible because of their hours of work or the fact that they live in a rural community.

Statistics Canada recently released a report on child care in Canada. It mentions the wide spectrum of choices that families make in the area of child care. It also indicates that in spite of the increased number of mothers working outside the home, nearly half of parents decide to care for their children themselves in the home.

For those who cannot manage this, the report says that a growing number of parents turn to family members to act as caregivers for their children, and others to friends and neighbours as well. In fact, only 15% of preschool children are enrolled in established day care centres.

We know that, of all the provinces and territories, it is Quebec that has the highest proportion of preschool children in day care, at nearly 52%. That tells us that the cost is very reasonable: seven dollars per day per child. There seems to be a consensus among the people of Quebec that this solution is right for them, and the province is willing to support it.

The Government of Canada recognizes this diversity among families and within our federation itself. Each province is developing a child care strategy that suits its culture and its social policy.

That is why we are offering another solution which will be based on and enhance the nine-to-five child care service model. Starting next year, we are resolved to join with employers, communities and the other governments to create up to 25,000 new child care spaces every year all across Canada.

The plan is simple: we want to offer choices in terms of the design and establishment of child care services. No government can impose a national child care system that is strict and closed to change.

In the months ahead, the Government of Canada will be speaking with employers, small and large businesses, community organizations, the provinces and territories, and people knowledgeable about innovative child care strategies. We will talk to parents to find out their needs and priorities in this regard. Above all, we want to support Canadians and Quebeckers in their important role of parent.

To close, I will mention that Canadians have voted for a government for which children are one of its five major priorities. Our objective is not to impose a solution, but to recognize the diversity of our country and the great ingenuity to be found in each of our communities.

Canadian parents are the real experts on child care. Let us support their choices.

[Asbestos, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government cares about worker and public health, and it realizes that certain asbestos fibres, such as those of the amphibole variety, present health hazards. However, the only asbestos fibre produced in Canada is chrysotile, which is safe under controlled conditions.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the chrysotile industry to Quebec, and supports the safe use of chrysotile.