Debates of Dec. 8th, 2010

The Environment

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, a national wildlife area designation does not preclude development. This government is of the view that well-managed resource development can co-exist with protected areas as long as it does not impact conservation values.

It is important to remember that there are numerous other tools in place to protect the environment and manage development in the Northwest Territories. Any plans for exploration or development would have to include measures to mitigate environmental impacts.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member should try explaining that PMO answer to the grand chief.

The Conservative government is again embarrassing Canada on the world stage with no federal strategy to adapt to climate change, no ability to clean up major oil spills, no good answers to environmental petitions, no system to deal with hazardous chemical spills in our oceans, cancelling ecohousing programs, cancelling wind energy programs, closing our Arctic research foundation and cancelling climate change adaptation programs.

Why is the government embarrassing us again by closing a 14,000 kilometre square park in the Horn Plateau?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member's conclusion.

When one looks at what the government is doing to make sure that we are ready for any problems both in the north and in the rest of the country, here are three examples. Transport Canada has updated its environmental prevention and response national preparedness plan. By this coming spring the Canadian Coast Guard will have updated its natural environment response strategy. And Environment Canada will be in place by the end of this year with its strategic emergency management plan.

The Environment Commissioner asked us to work more closely together and we are taking that advice. These strategies show we are moving ahead.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has denounced the laissez-faire attitude of certain countries when it comes to fighting climate change, saying that we must not repeat the failure of Copenhagen. Yet to the Conservative government, the Copenhagen accord on climate change is a success.

Is the Conservative government not in the process of doing in Cancun what it did so well in Copenhagen, namely stymying all negotiations on committing to new greenhouse gas emission reductions after 2012?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Copenhagen accord was only a first step. It is important to have a binding agreement that includes all the major emitters around the world. The Bloc Québécois's position is that only a third of the greenhouse gas emissions should be controlled by the Kyoto protocol. That is a ridiculous position on dealing with greenhouse gases. All the major emitters have to be included.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ridiculous thing is that the Prime Minister wrote, in 2002, that Kyoto is a “socialist scheme”. That was ridiculous.

It is clear that industrialized countries have to make a greater effort since they pollute more per capita than emerging countries such as China.

If it had a modicum of responsibility, should the Conservative government not be supporting the imposition of binding targets on all industrialized countries and introducing tariff policies for those that do not comply, like China for example, instead of obstructing all negotiations under the pretext that some countries are not on board?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we must include all the major emitters around the world in order to control greenhouse gases.

To come back to statements that are ridiculous or not ridiculous, I am quite intrigued by the Parti Québécois critic's statement on the Government of Quebec's climate change record. She said that it is “just by chance” that Quebec has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. The leader of the Bloc Québécois might want to consult his leader in Quebec City to settle this debate.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative government does not do something to fight climate change, Canada and Quebec could be hit with a punitive tax like the one proposed by the European Union. Quebec has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions to below 1990 levels, and that is a fact. It would be unfair for Quebec to have to pay such a tax because of Ottawa's leniency toward oil companies, particularly given Quebec's special trade relationship with Europe.

Does the government understand that if Canada is hit with such a tax, Quebec will bear most of the burden?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the real issue is, who in Quebec is speaking about climate change on behalf of the sovereignist movement, the Bloc Québécois or its head office in Quebec City?

This morning, the Journal de Québec reported that PQ MNA Martine Ouellet said that lower greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec are just a coincidence. According to the paper, the member, who is in Cancun, believes that the reduction is due more to recent paper mill closures than to supposed intensive government action.

Who is speaking on behalf of the sovereignist movement?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no problem with Quebec paying the price for the Minister of Natural Resources' stance in favour of the oil sands.

Still, can the government admit that it will use any excuse—and we just got another one—to defend the oil companies' interests at the expense of the environment and Quebec?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, that is utterly ridiculous. As I said yesterday, Canada has a huge range of natural resources. We have oil. Demand will continue to grow. The member can try to make people believe that cargo planes will fly using solar panels in the near future, but we have a way to position ourselves as a global leader in energy security and as a clean energy developer.

Once again, who is speaking on behalf of the sovereignist movement about climate change, head office in Quebec City or the Bloc?

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives remain an obstacle to any progress on climate change in Cancun; that much is clear. The United States is calling for co-operation, but this government is not helping the cause in any way. Worse still, here in Canada, the Conservatives are hiding the truth from Canadians. They are hiding reports on the impact of climate change on our communities, one by Health Canada and the other by Natural Resources Canada.

Why is the government hiding these reports, which are important to Canadians?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the idea that Canada is an obstacle is completely ridiculous. Our government's position is that we need an international agreement that compels nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Several countries oppose not only that, but also the very idea of measuring their emissions. To achieve such an agreement on reducing greenhouse gases, it is essential that all major emitters be included.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is embarrassing us on the world stage on this issue. In fact, it is embarrassing us here at home as well.

The Environment Commissioner just yesterday came out with a scathing indictment of the government's inaction when it comes to protecting its citizens. Environment Canada is only testing the water of 12 out of 3,000 reserves in Canada. That is a dereliction of duty. The government is playing Russian roulette with people's lives by not testing the water.

When will the Conservative government take responsibility and do what it is supposed to do and protect the water that Canadians drink?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, not only has the government made additional investments in that area; of course, it has appointed an expert panel specifically on the Athabasca question.

To return, the leader of the opposition says, once again, that Canada is somehow an obstacle.

Canada believes there should be a legally binding international agreement on greenhouse gas reduction that includes all major emitters. The position of some countries at Cancun is that they are not only opposed to that; some countries are opposed to even the idea that they should measure and report their emissions.

I wish the leader of the NDP and the opposition would get on side with Canada instead of trying to embarrass Canada.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the government has no plan at all on climate change. It has no plan on clean water, and neither does it have a plan when it comes to protecting the coasts of our country.

The Prime Minister used to say that a leader had a responsibility to respect the will of the House. He certainly has changed his tune on that one.

He now has a chance to show that he can be that leader he used to talk about, because yesterday this House adopted an NDP motion to legislate a ban on tankers off the B.C. coast. Will he bring forward that legislation?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this government is more than willing to respond to practical and sensible ideas from the opposition.

On climate change, all we have got from the opposition is targets pulled out of thin air with no idea of how it would achieve them. That is its only policy.

Yesterday the opposition's idea on tanker traffic was a blanket ban, so we would not be able to deliver heating oil to coastal communities, aboriginal people, or deliver fuel to Vancouver Island. None of this is well thought out.

We will defend the best interests of this country.

Government Spending

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, seniors are struggling; 25% more are in poverty. Youth is struggling, with the highest unemployment in history. Patients are struggling with longer health care wait times.

Yet Conservatives continue to waste money at an alarming rate: $30 million on changes to the census; up to $60 million spent on action plan signs and more spent tracking them; more money spent on government advertising in one year than all the beer companies combined.

It is about choice: family care or Conservative waste. When will they make the right choice?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, one example after another shows where we continue to perform and continue to manage taxpayers' dollars in ways that are far better than the Liberals ever did.

Ministerial office budgets are being reduced by $11.4 million this year. All operational spending of government is frozen for the next three years. There are reductions in items like the use of the Challenger jet. Cabinet ministers from the Conservative government have 80% less usage than the Liberals used to.

We have things under control. We are going to keep it that way.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, how is this for management? The worst example of waste and mismanagement has been the excessive spending by the Prime Minister and his cabinet, almost $10 million more a year spent for ministers' offices.

Twelve ministers actually overspent those increased budgets by more than $2 million. The finance minister alone overspent his budget by $430,000. Cuts the Treasury Board wants to make now will not even account for half of the ministers' overspending.

Why is it the Conservatives will cut the GIS, but they will increase ministers' budgets?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I will send my hon. friend these items in writing, if that helps, because I already have that. Her people are not putting these items in front of her, obviously.

Not one minister overspent the budget allocation. As a matter of fact, ministers spent 16% less than what was available to them. With what we are putting in place this year, there will be an $11.4 million saving on ministers' office budgets alone.

I would like my hon. friend to say: Is she opposed to this reduction in ministerial office spending? I would like to know if she is opposed to that.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, wastefulness and fiscal incompetence will eventually define this Prime Minister.

He and his deficit champion allow their ministers to spend as if there were no tomorrow: $30 million just to scrap the census; $300 million just to satisfy the vanity of the government House leader; $1.3 million for ministers and their assistants to take taxis.

Does the Prime Minister realize that all of that does absolutely nothing to help Canadians, who are stuck with the bill?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, for some moments of blind courage, I will give the Liberals some credit, because they continue to bring forward areas where they hopelessly overspent, and then they allow us to reflect on how we are spending far less than they were.

Whether we are talking about travel, which we have frozen, whether we are talking about ministerial office budgets, which are going to be reduced, in every single area we are performing far better than they are. I think that is why they are upset. It is the exposure of this that is bothering them.

We are going to keep on this track of paying respect to taxpayer dollars.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance exceeded his own budget by $430,000, so we do not need to take any lessons from him. Cabinet members' office spending has increased by 14%. PMO spending has increased by 31%. Some $2 million was spent on a fake lake and pavilion.

After all that, they tell us that they have to make cuts to culture, that they cannot help the forestry sector and that struggling seniors will have to tighten their belts even further.

Why do they not trim their $5.3 billion of fat instead?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep repeating it, but I do not want my own colleagues here to in any way become bored with the repetition, so I will refer to some figures the Liberals brought out today.

They want us to cut professional spending in areas, and I am just reading from their own document. Which of the 1,200 nurses do they want us to cut, to not hire, in 600 communities across Canada? Which doctors should we not have hired who assisted to get us through the H1N1 crisis?

The Liberals pointed to these items in their press release today. Which nurses and doctors do they want us to cut?