House of Commons Hansard #116 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was industry.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order. The hon. secretary of state has the floor.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to read the Liberal tax trick document this afternoon and it is a funny thing. There is not one single page in it about actually reducing carbon emissions, not one page. There are 42 pages about new taxes on Canadians to pay for new Liberal spending.

Canadians have heard this story before. They saw the movie back in 1993 when the Liberals promised to scrap, abolish and eliminate the GST. They broke that promise. We cut the GST. We have cut taxes by $200 billion. We will continue to defend the interests of taxpayers against the Liberal Party.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, with the government's proposed plan, no progress in sustainable development is in sight and no real decrease in greenhouse gas emissions is anticipated. What we need is a carbon exchange, but in order to ensure its viability, we need absolute reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions with 1990 as the reference year.

Will the minister admit that with his plan that proposes 2006 as the reference year and intensity targets instead of absolute targets, he is playing into the hands of the oil companies?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify to the leader of the Bloc that our plan includes absolute reduction targets for greenhouse gases. The good news is that a carbon exchange opened after we made our plan public. It is open; it is in Montreal. That is good news for our planet and for the fight against climate change.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the only problem is that that is not true. They are not absolute reduction targets; they are intensity targets. It is in black and white in the Conservatives' plan. Either they cannot even reread their own documents or they prefer to mislead everyone.

They are not even using 1990 as the reference year. If they were, the aluminum smelters that have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by 15% since 1990 in Quebec would be benefiting. They are not because this government and this minister are in bed with the oil companies.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, today we saw a new alliance between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois. The Leader of the Bloc Québécois is now a good friend of the great centralizer in the other corner of this House.

The goal of our plan is a 20% absolute reduction in greenhouse gases. That is good news for the fight against climate change and these are real results for our environment.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, in an open letter, Alain Lemaire, president of Cascades, denounces the Conservative plan:

Fundamentally “green” companies will be the big losers in the new Montreal Climate Exchange if the government insists on retaining 2006 as the starting point for calculating emission reductions imposed on industry, rather than using 1990 as the reference year.

Will the Minister of the Environment be honest and admit that he is only using 2006 as the reference year because it is advantageous to the oil companies?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, greenhouse gases are too high today. We have to cut them absolutely. That is why there is a growing consensus that we want to get the big emitters involved in a genuine effort around the world to reduce greenhouse gases, whether it is Yvo de Boer, who last week in Bonn spoke up to the idea to reduce greenhouse gases by over the 2005 number. That is why liberal democrats in the United States Senate, like Barbara Boxer, and the socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, voted for a plan with 2005 numbers. The 2005 baseline was also used by the Japanese government.

Canada is providing real leadership. We are getting the job done.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister should be referring to Europe rather than to all sorts of other countries. Quebec and Ontario oppose the Minister of the Environment's plan. Everyone agrees on the principle of absolute targets and on 1990 as the reference year. An effective approach to greenhouse gas reduction requires a territorial approach.

If the minister is open to Quebec as he claims, why does he not revise his plan in order to include the territorial approach, as Europe has done?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the House will be interested to know that it was the member in the Bloc Québécois who voted for the Kyoto protocol, which did not have any territorial approach for it. Therefore, the member will have to go to Quebec and explain why he voted for a non-territorial approach with respect to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

We are going to regulate the large polluters to reduce their greenhouse gases. We are going to regulate the car companies, through the Minister of Transport, to cut their emissions by 20%. We have a whole host of other initiatives designed to achieve an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gases. This is good news in the fight against global warming. We are not talking about it; we are doing it.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Speaker, the most urgent crisis we face is climate change but the action promised has never materialized. The Liberal government did not get the job done. The current government cannot do it. We need only look at its inaction regarding the tar sands, the biggest polluter, the biggest polluting project in the world.

Why does the government not accept the argument that its approach based on intensity targets is a gift to the major oil companies? It does nothing to reduce pollution.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we have three approaches, a tough, a tougher and a toughest approach, with respect to oil and gas in the oil sands. For existing facilities, we are requiring an 18% reduction and a constant 2% improvement. We are requiring a tougher and new cleaner fuel standard for plants that are currently under construction. Finally, is a mandatory requirement for carbon capture and storage.

This, together with the other industrial and non-industrial initiatives we are taking, will lead to an absolute 20% reduction of greenhouse gases. This is what our planet demands. This is the kind of leadership Canada is now getting, which it never got for 13 long years.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

NDP

Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON

That is right, Mr. Speaker. We do have three approaches. We have no plan from the government, with emissions going up. We have the wrong plan, unfortunately, from the Liberals, with no planned reductions at all to carbon emissions. Then we have our plan, which proposes a strong plan on the emissions, a real cap on pollution, a price on pollution paid by the big polluters, with all the money to go into the solutions that Canadians look for so they can make the right choices. Those are the options.

Why will the Prime Minister not simply stand and recognize them?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is proposing to allow the big polluters to buy their way out of pollution; simply write a cheque to Ottawa and go on polluting our environment. That is not good enough for Canada. We need absolute reductions in greenhouse gases. That is what we are seeking to deliver.

Right around the country, though, provincial premiers are coming out saying they do not agree with the carbon tax. My premier, Dalton McGuinty, does not agree with the carbon tax. The Premier of Nova Scotia today came out against the Liberals' carbon tax proposal. One after another they have come out and they want absolute reductions, not a game of tax flim-flam from the Liberal Party.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, Glen Hodgson of the Conference Board of Canada, Tom d'Aquino of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary, Don Drummond, Chief Economist at the TD Bank, Mark Jaccard of Simone Fraser University and Bill Robson of the C.D. Howe Institute, today the Prime Minister called crazy and insane the very type of innovative green shift plan these people all supported and that we today proposed.

What exactly is crazy here? Six leading Canadian economists or a Conservative talking grease cartoon character?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeSecretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Premier of Nova Scotia have commented on it. The member just cited certain economists.

Here is what Don Drummond, chief economist for the TD Bank, says, “It's never going to be revenue-neutral for any individual or any corporation”.

Andrew Coyne, columnist for Maclean's said, “The Liberals have used the carbon tax to fund their spending ambitions”, and the plan is “not remotely “revenue neutral””.

This is what the experts are saying. Neither they nor ordinary Canadians will be fooled by this Liberal tax trick.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, talk about tax tricks, allegations and non-truths. There would not be one iota of additional tax on a litre of gasoline, not one. It would save significant reductions in income taxes for all Canadians, help for working families, help for the low and middle income earners, help for rural and northern dwellers and help for seniors to deal with energy prices. The Conservative government and the NDP have no plan to help people with energy prices and no plan for climate change.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeSecretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Liberals' chutzpah when it comes to this kind of tax trick because they got away with it way back in 1993. Remember when they promised to scrap, abolish, eliminate and kill the GST? What did they do? They kept the GST. Canadians have learned they cannot believe Liberals when it comes to taxes.

We can believe one thing. When the Liberals say today that they are going to raise taxes, we can believe that. They are going to raise them by billions of dollars, increasing the price of just about everything for ordinary Canadians. Canadian taxpayers will not buy the tax trick.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order please. There seems to be undue excitement in the chamber at the prospect of the end of the session. I would urge hon. members to calm down somewhat. We have to be able to hear the questions and the responses.

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier now has the floor.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, under our program, the price of gas will not go up. That is a fact. The income supplement for seniors will go up by $600. That too is a fact. Families will get $350 per child. That is yet another fact. And what will the Conservatives do in the meantime? They will raise the prices of electricity and natural gas.

So instead of making meaningless comments about our plan, can the Prime Minister tell us how much his so-called action plan will cost?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeSecretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, because the member claims to be an environmentalist, yet he supports the plan that was introduced today, a plan that does not have a single page dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The plan includes 42 pages of tax and price hikes for ordinary citizens, and does not even mention reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Canadians want nothing to do with the Liberals' shell game.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to scare Canadians, but fear is the weapon of the weak. It is the chosen weapon of those looking for excuses to justify their inaction. Those who do not have the courage to base their debate on the facts choose to run fear campaigns instead. The facts are these: they have given up on the fight against climate change; they are refusing to acknowledge that we must act now; they are mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his lack of courage and sincerity will end up costing all Canadians dearly?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeSecretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Liberal Party leader's statement that “a carbon tax...is simply bad policy”. That is what the Liberal Party leader said just months ago. Why has he changed his mind? Why does he change his mind as often as he changes his shirt?

Yesterday in Montreal, Air Canada laid off 2,000 workers because of the rising cost of airplane fuel. Now the Liberals want to raise the cost of fuel even more.