House of Commons Hansard #36 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was education.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the alarmism necessarily helps the serious debate.

The government has moved forward on very meaningful plans to develop renewable fuel and include those in Canadian fuel content on the mandate of the government. We have also seen significant investments in public transportation toward those who use public transportation.

I note today there are some useful ideas in the green homes plan of the NDP. I think the NDP members will be happy when we come forward with our ideas in that area, and they will support them, just as they supported the ideas in our budget.

Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources claimed that the wind power production incentive was not cut from the budget. But what he was careful not to mention was that the credits not yet allocated have been frozen, which actually paralyzes the program and any action in this sector.

Why has the minister decided to create such uncertainty for this sector and to hang wind energy technology out to dry?

Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Saanich—Gulf Islands
B.C.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, we are developing our plan. At committee earlier this morning, I asked the hon. member to bring forward his ideas.

I applaud the NDP members. I was quite surprised that after I asked them to submit their ideas and indicated that we were interested in talking to them, only a few hours later they actually came up with some suggestions.

We are moving forward with proposals that will have a meaningful impact on every single Canadian. We believe wind will play a future role in Canada's energy supply and we support that.

Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Roy Cullen Etobicoke North, ON

Mr. Speaker, we know what works. It was in our programs, but there is more.

The government pretends it wants to meet an ethanol target of 5%. However, we now learn that the government has let the ethanol expansion program die. There is no new funding for wind energy, no new funding for biofuels, and the government is cutting the EnerGuide home program.

Is this the government's only response to global warming, scrapping and freezing programs without one single new idea of its own, not one?

Natural Resources
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Saanich—Gulf Islands
B.C.

Conservative

Gary Lunn Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to talk about the programs that were working for the Liberal Party, I do not know if he is talking about the sponsorship program or what he is referring to, the facts speak for themselves.

Greenhouse gases under the old Liberal government, the very old Liberal government, went up each and every single year it was in office for 13 years. We have done more in six months than that old government did in 13 years.

I want to remind the hon. member, on renewable fuels, that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of the Environment, and I met with every provincial counterpart, and we are moving forward to bringing real results to every single Canadian.

The Environment
Oral Questions

June 8th, 2006 / 2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Belinda Stronach Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, for the first time in seven years, the smog summit in Toronto was without a federal presence. Where was the minister? As one newspaper described it, she was speaking to a blue chip luncheon crowd where she compared--

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order. The hon. member for Newmarket--Aurora has the floor. Her remarks seem to have created a bit of a sensation, but we will have to have some quiet so we can hear the question. The hon. member is about to pose a question and we will now have some order so we can hear it.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Belinda Stronach Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, at the luncheon she compared doing a good job for the environment to earning a Boy Scout badge. We checked it out and it turns out that the Boy Scouts actually have a climate change program, which would put them light years ahead of this minister.

When will the minister follow the example of the Boy Scouts and introduce her climate change program?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we were happy, as the Government of Canada, to sign the declaration for the smog summit, but yesterday I was here in Ottawa speaking.

As I said, we took a big step yesterday to clean up the air Canadians breathe by announcing our new mercury strategy. The Clean Air Foundation was encouraged by our announcement and said that this is going to protect the health of Canadians. It is the first time in Canadian history that we have taken a step like this on our environment.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Belinda Stronach Newmarket—Aurora, ON

Mr. Speaker, based on that answer, I do not think she is going to get a climate change badge to sew on her outfit.

If the minister really cared about air quality, she would have been at the smog summit yesterday in Toronto.

The minister claims to have a plan to deal with smog. Then, why did she decline to attend the obvious forum in which to share the details of this plan? Does she not care about air quality? Or, does she simply share the Prime Minister's low opinion of Toronto?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove
Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned about smog days in Toronto. That is why on June 1 we regulated the lowest content of sulphur and diesel fuel in Canadian history. That is why yesterday we took measures to introduce regulations that would eliminate 10 tonnes of mercury out of our environment. Mercury adds to blindness, paralysis and infant death. These are real results and real actions on the environment.

Gasoline Prices
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, the summer vacation season is approaching and bringing with it unjustified gasoline price hikes, despite a likely decline in the international price of crude oil.

Can no one in the government wake up and see that consumers are paying too much for gas, because the refinery profit margin that all the oil companies take is far too high and could go even higher during the vacation season?

Gasoline Prices
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Beauce
Québec

Conservative

Maxime Bernier Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, as I said in this House last week, I am happy to see that the Competition Bureau has conducted six investigations in the past 15 years. Every time it investigated, it concluded that there was no collusion in setting prices.

Members should also note that in this House in 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology investigated and issued a report that drew the same conclusion: there was no collusion in setting gas prices in Canada.

Gasoline Prices
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has responsibility for competitive refining prices. That is where there is a fairly large problem that needs to be solved.

In any event, the industry minister has zero credibility when he talks about the price of gasoline. On January 19 on Radio-Canada he said that the price of oil is high because leftist environmentalists are putting pressure on the oil companies to prevent them from refining products and that he wished Quebeckers would stop pointing the finger at the oil companies.

How can the government side with the oil companies rather than with consumers by making irresponsible statements like that?