Luc Harvey

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain the government's intentions with respect to solving the problem of greenhouse gases and air pollutants emitted by certain sectors of the Canadian economy, especially industry.

On October 19, 2006, the government introduced Bill C-30, Canada's Clean Air Act, which gives the government additional, greater powers to take the necessary action to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. The bill strengthens the government's ability to regulate air emissions, including greenhouses gases and other air pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

The bill is currently before committee and I am eager to work with the opposition to move forward with this important piece of legislation. Immediately after introducing Canada's clean air act, the government published a Notice of intent to develop and implement regulations and other measures to reduce air emissions, which clearly establishes the government's plans to reduce the greenhouse gases and air pollutants caused by industry, transportation, and commercial and consumer products, as well as to adopt measures to improve indoor air quality.

The notice of intent highlighted the importance of regulating industrial greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution given that industry produces about half of all emissions in Canada, both greenhouse gases and air pollution.

The government will propose mandatory targets for the reduction of emissions in the short, medium and long term. We also plan to adopt an integrated approach to emission reductions so that measures adopted by industry to reduce one type of emission, such as air pollutants, will not lead to an increase in another type of emission.

With regard to short-term targets for greenhouse gases, we are committed to targets that will produce results that are better than those proposed prior to 2005. For air pollutants, we plan on establishing fixed emission ceilings that will be at least as rigorous as those of governments that are leaders in environmental performance. This is an important measure that no previous federal government has implemented.

We are attempting to find the best means for industry to achieve the targets. We wish to ensure that we are putting in place a regulatory system that will allow industry to choose the most cost-effective means of attaining emission targets while continuing to meet environmental and health objectives.

We also strongly believe that it is important to support the development of transformation technologies to reduce greenhouse gases—technologies we need to achieve the necessary reductions so we can prevent irreversible climate change.

Fighting climate change and reducing air pollution is not a short-term undertaking, and these problems will not be solved by short-term policies. Fighting climate change and air pollution requires long- term solutions. That is why we have asked the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy to advise us on specific emission reduction targets for the medium and long terms for Canadian industry so that we can reach our health and environmental goals while maintaining a stable economy.

At the end of last year, officials from my department, Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Industry Canada travelled across the country consulting the provinces and territories, industry, aboriginal groups and environmental groups about how best to establish such regulations. We also received over 800 comments from the provinces, industry, environmental organizations and private citizens about the proposed regulatory regime. Nearly all of the comments supported the government's short term measures to fight climate change and air pollution.

I would like to emphasize the fact that we are currently putting all of our efforts into developing that regulatory regime, which will establish realistic short term emissions targets for industry, as well as compliance mechanisms.

The purpose of this framework is to set short-term targets that will put us on the right track to achieve our long-term objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 45% to 65% by the year 2050, which would improve air quality all across Canada.

We are working relentlessly to complete this regulatory framework. For example, we reviewed the standards set by other governments regarding air pollutant emissions for all industrial sectors, in order to identify primary environmental standards in the world. We organized workshops with experts to discuss two main compliance options: an investment fund to support the development of technologies, and the exchange of emission rights. The discussions that took place at these workshops are helping us make an informed decision on the development of compliance mechanisms.

These measures clearly illustrate the government's intention to regulate the industry's emissions. We have made a lot of progress and we will soon release our proposed regulatory framework. We will be the first federal government to make regulations to help the industry reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

We intend to continue cooperating with the provinces and territories, the industry and other groups as we develop the regulatory framework and the regulations themselves.

We are not doing this in an unreasonable fashion. We have emission reduction targets that are logical and that will not jeopardize our country's economic growth. Indeed, experience shows that environmental protection can also generate economic benefits.

The industry is not the only source of emissions, but it is a major one. My colleagues will talk about recent announcements on programs and measures to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in other areas, including the residential, commercial and transportation sectors.

So, the government has already taken the first steps towards regulating greenhouse gases and air pollutants, and other measures will be taken in the coming weeks. Through Canada's Clean Air Act, we are also working to strengthen the government's ability to implement such regulations in a cost-effective fashion. We are looking forward to working with opposition members to further this critical issue.

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

I would like to address several questions to my colleague. I am pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Does my colleague know what percentage of the experts who appeared before the committee told us that the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol could be achieved within the scheduled deadlines? It was less than 5%. In fact, none of the experts said that the timetables of the Kyoto Protocol that were signed by Mr. “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?” were realistic.

Commissioner Gélinas also judged that the efforts agreed to by the Liberals, again by Mr. “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?”, would have reduced emissions by a single tonne, while our objective is 270 tonnes.

More than 5,000 people will die this year because of the terrible quality of the air they breathe. Would the member please tell me how the purchase of credits from Russia will improve the situation for those 5,000 people?

[Business of Supply, February 1st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want my colleague to know that there were cuts, but there were also major investments. He should stay informed.

As far as renewable energy is concerned, almost $1.5 billion has just been invested. The ecoenergy initiative has also just been improved. We were told of a fabulous Liberal program that was 50% effective, which is the standard rate of effectiveness for the Liberals. For the Conservatives, this was not enough; it needed to be increased to 90%.

I would like to know whether my Liberal colleague recently followed the news on the ethanol expansion program, through which we have already managed to reduce by 5%—

[Leader of the Liberal Party, January 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, while our government is keeping its promises and avoiding scandal, the leader of the Liberal Party is constantly changing his stand on a number of important issues for Canadians.

Just two months after becoming the party leader, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville seems to have fallen into the same old Liberal habits that were criticized by the Gomery commission.

The same member who supported the mission in Afghanistan when the Liberal Party was in power is now opposed to the Canadian mission. The leader initially said that he would raise the GST, but then recanted. On the environment and the Kyoto protocol, the man who has trouble setting priorities used to say that Canada would not be able to meet the targets. Now he is saying the opposite.

How can Canadians trust a party leader who changes his mind as often as he changes his shirt?

[Agriculture, December 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the new Government of Canada reacted quickly regarding the golden nematode issue, so that the regulated zone was only restricted to the region of Saint-Amable. This quick and decisive action allowed trading activities worth several millions of dollars to Quebec's agriculture to resume. However, producers in Saint-Amable are quite concerned, following the collapse of their markets.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell this House what the government intends to do to help these producers?

[Yseult Roy Raby and Jeanne Turgeon-Lessard, December 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the exceptional contribution to community life made by Mrs. Yseult Roy Raby, a woman who has dedicated 22 years to disadvantaged families and individuals in my riding. She has transformed thousands of lives in my riding and comforted many in need while director of community service delivery in Cap-Rouge.

Mrs. Raby will be retiring in less than two weeks and I would like to point out the excellent contribution she has made to community life in my riding.

I would also like to acknowledge the 100th birthday of Mrs. Jeanne Turgeon-Lessard, who dedicated her life to the people of my community. She will be signing the Quebec City livre d'or next week and I would like to express my heartfelt respect for her.

I can only hope that we will have the benefit of her wisdom for many more years to come.

[Violence against Women, December 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was on this day that the lives of 14 young women ended in tragedy at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. On this National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, established in 1991, Canadians everywhere are asked to remember these young women, and we are also called to action.

As we all know, too many Canadian women and girls are victims of violence every day of their lives. This is unacceptable.

The government has taken steps against this phenomenon. Specifically, it has strengthened our judicial system and supported initiatives such as Sisters in Spirit, a campaign to end violence against aboriginal women.

However, as we know, we are all in this struggle together. Today's commemoration presents an opportunity for us to think, individually and collectively, about concrete measures we can take to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls. Let us strive to build a Canada in which our daughters, our mothers and our sisters can live without ever fearing violence.

[Canada's Clean Air Act, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague and, quite honestly, I thought I was watching a science fiction show. I do not know what he was talking about. He seems to have forgotten that, in the past eight years, his party's efforts have led to a deterioration in the situation and that despite the exceptional leadership and skill of the former Minister of the Environment, things have never been in such bad shape as they are today.

Because the Kyoto targets were not properly evaluated, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville told the industry that it would never have to pay more than $15 per tonne. Thus, if there were a carbon exchange, the maximum penalty that could be imposed on the industry would never be more than $15 per tonne. That means that the Canadian government would have to pay the difference. Given that the European carbon exchange has reached 47 euros per tonne, or about $70, our government would have to pay $55 per tonne for the industry while the industry itself would pay $15.

I have two questions. How much would such a promise by the leader of his party, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, have cost the government? Second, if we think about setting targets but we limit the penalty to only $15, what was the final objective if not to realize that a mistake was made with regard to the evaluation of the Kyoto targets?

[Afghanistan, December 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a contingent of 120 soldiers is leaving the Valcartier military base today and heading for Afghanistan on a nine-month mission under the auspices of NATO and sanctioned by the United Nations.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these courageous men and women who have not hesitated to leave their friends and family for a mission that will be dangerous at times.

These soldiers of the Royal 22nd Regiment from CFB Valcartier will join the provincial reconstruction team which, since the beginning of the mission, has been rebuilding roads, schools and community centres to help improve the lives of the Afghan people.

I have no doubt that our soldiers will make a difference in the lives of the Afghan people. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to affirm that they have the steadfast support of the Conservative government.

[United Nations, November 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have always known that no Canadian government, either Liberal or Conservative, has ever accepted the wording of the United Nations draft declaration as it now reads, as indicated in the Canadian Press article of September 27, 2003, and the Globe and Mail article of September 26, 2003, and for very good reason.

Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell this House why the draft declaration is unacceptable and what Canada's new government is doing about it?