Mr. Chair, I have said yes many times.
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 43% of the vote.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, I have said yes many times.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, what I have said repeatedly is that climate change is a serious issue. There is no dispute about the science of climate change and the need for action.
Let me just add this. James Hansen and other scientists have acknowledged that, fortunately, the pace of global warming has recently slowed. However, and this is absolutely critical, we must continue to address our efforts to growing global GHG emissions.
Where we disagree is not on the science. Where we disagree with the opposition is on the policy response.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, through our budget, our government has renewed domestic climate change adaptation funding. This was an almost $150-million investment over five years. Natural Resources would receive $35 million to enhance competitiveness in a changing climate with this new funding. NRCan is working with provinces and territories, industry and professional organizations to develop the knowledge and tools to adapt their operations and services to the effects of a changing climate. Examples include a protocol to assess infrastructure vulnerability currently being applied to the highways in British Columbia and at Pearson airport in Toronto; tools, such as mapping permafrost hazards to inform the development of new mines, roads and ports in the north; compiling natural resource sector-specific business cases have been highlighted--
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, as I have said many times, climate change is a serious issue. There is no dispute about the science of climate change and our government is determined to take action. Where we disagree with the opposition is on the policy response. We take very seriously the views of science when they are talking about science.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, I receive briefings continually from my department. Those briefings include scientific information. We have thousands of scientists working in NRCan and we take their conclusions very seriously. For example, the conclusion that the diluted bitumen is not more corrosive than light crude going through pipelines.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, I will try to answer in French.
Canada supports the adoption of measures aimed at tangibly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. However, as drafted, the proposed fuel quality directive will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and will harm the European Union's economy, especially the refining industry.
The fuel quality directive is a non-scientific and discriminatory approach aimed at reducing—
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, again, when NDP members go to a foreign country they advocate against Canadian interests and Canadian jobs. Canadians expect their government to advocate for their jobs. We will see what their reaction is and we have seen what the reaction is when an NDP government out west decided to oppose all forms of development. The answer is in and the members from the other side ought to take note.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, I find it odd that there is a kind of accusatory tone that if we make an effort to defend Canada's interests there is somehow something wrong with that. Actually, the opposite is the case. We are defending Canada's interests and members on the other side inexplicably are opposed to job creation in Canada.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
Mr. Chair, the point I was making is that Canada strongly opposes any measures that would unfairly discriminate against oil sands crude in a way that is unscientific. If unjustified and discriminatory measures to implement the FQD are ultimately put in place, Canada would consider all options to defend its interests. The fact that the opposition is presenting a proposal directly opposed to Canadian interests undermines our prospects of getting things changed.
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY May 21st, 2013
The point I was making about the fuel quality directive is that this is a discriminatory policy which does not achieve and cannot achieve its environmental objective. It discriminates against Canadian interests and also undermines European competitiveness. What is the response from the NDP? It is to take—