House of Commons Hansard #159 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fisheries.

Topics

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Calgary Southwest
Alberta

Conservative

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to blame the Liberals, since the leader of the NDP just did it for me.

The fact is, as I just said, the long term targets proposed by the Minister of the Environment for Canada are actually stricter than those being proposed at the G-8.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's climate change plan does not cut it. An environmental group is suing the government, and the Pembina Institute is telling us that the emission reduction plan will not work, that it will not meet the targets and will not put an end to emission increases.

Will the minister immediately address the 20 shortcomings identified in his plan by the Pembina Institute?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to taking real action to help fight harmful greenhouse gas emissions. We are seeing huge effects of global warming in our country, things like the pine beetle in northern British Columbia and schools coming off their foundations. In Inuvik we see a lot of flooding and intemperate weather.

It is time for Canada's national government to finally act on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want to study it more. We do not want more international conferences. The government is rolling out a comprehensive plan that will see an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Ottawa South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the wheels are completely off the environment minister's plan.

For the record, the Pembina Institute notes that the Liberal project green would have led to real reductions, nearly seven times greater than what is outlined in the Conservative sham.

Yesterday, the provinces weighed in, and their number one criticism is the lack of leadership on the part of the government and its failure to impose absolute emission reduction targets.

Will the minister end the intensity based rhetoric that killed his credibility and place hard caps on emissions for 2012 and beyond, which reflect the actual science of climate change?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have seen a little more Liberal math. The Liberals were great supporters of intensity based targets when they were in government. I can understand the concern of environmental groups about that. The leader of the Liberal Party came forward with a plan that saw a 12% intensity reduction. Somehow in Liberal math a Liberal 12% reduction is seven times better than a 33% Conservative intensity reduction.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, in 2004 the current Prime Minister said:

I will always bear in mind that the people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government.

It is time he practised what he used to preach.

The opposition parties built a strong plan to fight global warming and wrote it into Bill C-30, but the government refuses to bring it back to Parliament for a vote.

When will the Prime Minister live up to his 2004 commitment and bring Bill C-30 back for a vote in the House?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we saw two bad changes made to Bill C-30. Let me tell the House about each of them.

Bill C-30, as amended by the Liberal Party, contains an unlimited license to pollute. That is wrong. If there is an unlimited licence to pollute, where countries can simply buy their way out of actual greenhouse gas reduction, that will not cut it.

I also take great offence and have great concern with the Liberal approach to allow the Minister of the Environment, with the stroke of a pen, to allow pollution to continue to rise in some parts of the country. That is wrong and it is bad for our environment.

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are sick and tired of the eco-fraud that the government keeps dishing out.

Yesterday the Pembina Institute punched holes through the environment minister's plan. Today the minister was caught saying there were fewer greenhouse gas emissions from coal plants while he was a member of the Ontario government, when in fact there were more. The government's environmental agenda has no credibility.

Why will the Prime Minister not admit that Parliament created a better plan than his minister did? Why will he not bring back Bill C-30 for a vote in the House?

The Environment
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean
Ontario

Conservative

John Baird Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, very directly for my friend opposite, I will tell her who was caught with eco-fraud this morning in committee.

We saw the Liberal members of the environment committee try to suggest that the leader of the Liberal Party was somehow responsible for warmer weather back in 2005, leading to a reduction in greenhouse gases.

One of the big reasons why greenhouse gases did not go up as much as they previously had was because Mike Harris privatized the nuclear reactors and got more power online. However, instead of working with privatization czars, apparently Mike Harris, rather than working with his own ministers, was working with the leader of the Liberal Party on that.

Option Canada
Oral Questions

May 29th, 2007 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker—

Option Canada
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Option Canada
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Peter Milliken

Order, please. The hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain now has the floor.

Option Canada
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, Option Canada and the Canadian Unity Council spent $11 million and not $5.2 million, as was believed, to support the federalist camp at the time of the Quebec referendum. Justice Grenier has reported that this small fortune came from one source: the federal Department of Canadian Heritage.

Does the involvement of the federal government, which spent at least twice as much as the limit imposed on the yes camp, not warrant that a commission of public inquiry get to the bottom of the matter?

Option Canada
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Pontiac
Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, once again I must say that the truth will come out. In this context, I explained to the hon. colleagues of the Bloc Québécois that, on the one hand, this government is committed to one principle, respecting the jurisdictions of provinces and territories. On the other hand, it practices a form of open federalism, which has already had a very positive impact on federal provincial relations. I hope that we will continue exactly in that direction.

Option Canada
Oral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Yves Laforest Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that the government also promised that there would be greater transparency.

In addition to the $11 million identified by Justice Grenier, we must remember that Chuck Guité admitted to reserving billboards, at a cost of $8 million, during the Quebec referendum campaign and that, according to information from the Canadian Unity Council, almost $25 million was spent by the federal government in 1995 to promote Canadian unity.

Does the Prime Minister's promise to clean house also apply to Canadian unity? If so, what is he waiting for to set up a commission of public inquiry?