Mark Warawa

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I grin when I hear the rhetoric from the member. Maybe he did not notice what was happening. He was busy ordering a cake for the end of Bill C-30 and meeting with his media buddies. Maybe he should have paid more attention.

Maybe he should have paid attention to the witnesses. Every one of the witnesses said that what he was proposing could not be done, except for one, but he ignored that and got busy ordering a celebration cake.

This is what was said in the Globe and Mail right after Bill C-30 ended and while he was cutting his cake:

— what the opposition parties, especially the Liberals, did to this bill in committee before they returned it to the House of Commons...made a bad law worse. With dozens of amendments, they slapped a hefty carbon tax on industry and then assigned the money from that tax to a new agency with the clout to give it back—if satisfied with the polluter's progress—or to spend it elsewhere. Their overhaul was so drastic that they even amended the name of the legislation.

Bill C-30 was severely damaged. He talked about the national air quality standards. We support national air quality standards, not regional standards where there can be political interference. All Canadians deserve to have air quality, not just some areas.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

That was the member for Halton, a Liberal member.

Even when the Liberals were in government, it was easy for them to offer whatever people wanted but they had no intention of ever delivering.

Now that the Liberals are no longer in government, it is clearly easier for them to tell Canadians what they want hear, which is that they want to achieve the Kyoto targets, when in fact they cannot and had no intention to. It was 13 years of mismanagement.

The NDP takes the same position but it is hard to tell what the NDP's position is on short, medium and long term targets for greenhouse reductions because in the last six weeks it has supported two different positions.

First, there were the targets that it wrote with its Liberal buddies on Bill C-30. These targets would cost Canadian families and businesses over 275,000 jobs and send gasoline prices soaring over $2 a litre. These targets would be disastrous for the economy and the NDP supported them.

The NDP then introduced even tougher targets in a private member's bill sponsored by the leader of the NDP that would harm the economy even worse. Those targets were so over the top that when it tried to write them into Bill C-30 even the Liberals said that they did not make sense because they were so obviously over the top.

Canada's new government is committed to improving the environment on behalf of all Canadians. This includes concrete and realistic industrial targets recently brought forward to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the air that we all breathe.

Let us look at what happened with the clean air sections of Bill C-30. The opposition members gutted those clean air sections. We asked them to work with us to protect the health of Canadian children, the elderly and those suffering with respiratory illnesses. What did they do? They gutted those important sections out of the clean air act.

What did Canadians lose in the opposition's rush to gut the bill? Led by the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and the Liberal member for Ottawa South, what did Canadian's lose? They lost mandatory national air quality standards, and members opposite are applauding that those were lost. Canadians lost mandatory annual public reporting on air quality and actions to achieve national air quality standards. Canadians lost increased research and monitoring of air pollutants. Canadians lost tougher enforcement rules of compliance to air quality regulations. Finally, the opposition removed regulations that would have improved indoor air quality.

We heard from Health Canada officials at the environment committee yesterday about the importance of indoor air quality. Allow me to quote from their presentation:

Canadians spend about 90% of their time indoors.

In the built environments where we live, work, go to school, and play, Canadians are exposed to a variety of contaminants such as airborne moulds from excessive moisture, emissions from household products and building materials, and carbon monoxide from poorly vented oil and gas appliances.

These and other indoor air contaminants can cause or exacerbate many different ailments, including asthma, respiratory infections, and allergies.

Under the Clean Air Agenda announced last fall, the Government committed to develop a priority list of indoor air pollutants in partnership with provinces and territories, which will lead to guidelines and other measures to protect the health of Canadians from these pollutants.

Tragically, the opposition members removed indoor air regulations from Bill C-30. What did they add instead? They added delayed action by requiring six months of consultation around a new investment Bank of Canada, before we could move forward on tough new regulations for industry. They added complex and unworkable requirements that would make it harder, not easier, for government to act on air pollution.

Even worse, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, inserted a clause that would allow political interference into air quality standards. The Liberals would allow the environment minister to exempt economically depressed areas from air quality standards for two years. This would allow the environment minister to engage in political interference in setting air quality regulations. That is something Canadians certainly do not want.

It is also interesting to note that at the House of Commons environment committee yesterday, officials from Health Canada testified on the importance of national air quality standards as opposed to the regional patchwork as proposed by the NDP members and their Liberal buddies on Bill C-30.

Bill C-30 was key to protecting the health of Canadians and the environment. It is clear that the opposition picks politics over the environment.

The Liberals also inserted their carbon tax plan into the bill, a plan that would lead to zero greenhouse gas reductions. Unlike the Liberals, we believe actions speak louder than words. That is why we introduced the toughest, most realistic plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the world today.

For the first time ever, Canada's new government will force industry to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution. We have taken immediate action to implement mandatory targets on industry so that greenhouse gases begin to come down.

Canada needs to turn the corner because we went in the wrong direction under the Liberals. Since the Liberals promised to reduce greenhouse gases in 1997, they have only gone up.

Canada's new government is turning back the hands of time on the disastrous Liberal record and we will cut 150 megatonnes by 2020. We will impose mandatory targets on industry so air pollution from industry is cut in half by 2015.

The government is serious about tackling climate change and protecting the air that we breathe for Canadians today and tomorrow. Our plan is real. It begins now, immediately, and will lead to concrete results with challenging but realistic targets for industry.

There is no doubt that we all need to work together if we are to address our growing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. Unfortunately, the motion seeks more delay and more debate, and that is why we will not support it.

The time for talk is over. The time for action is now and I look forward to getting support from all opposition parties to implement our tough new regulatory framework on air emissions.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

He is still at it, I can hear him.

On December 5, Parliament referred Bill C-30 to a legislative committee of the House of Commons for review. As we all know, Canada's Conservative government worked in good faith in committee on Bill C-30 to try to improve the clean air act.

In committee we supported amendments brought forward by every party to improve and strengthen Canada's clean air act. We even brought forward amendments of our own. Sadly, in most cases we were opposed by the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.

Vehicle emissions is one example. We brought forward a reasonable amendment to achieve tough vehicle emission standards based on North American market standards, standards that would be supported by labour. What did the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc do? They voted against it and then knowingly imposed standards that would be impossible for industry to meet without shutting down the Ontario auto industry. As for the Liberals' plan, Buzz Hargrove said that it would be disastrous but they did not listen.

We also cannot ignore the unrealistic targets that were put into the bill by the Liberals and the NDP. The Liberals played politics by inserting Kyoto targets into the bill with no realistic plan to achieve them. The NDP supported that irresponsible action. It is difficult to stomach such gall from the Liberal Party. It is also clear that the Leader of the Opposition did not support Kyoto. His colleagues have repeatedly said this.

Liberal environment ministers, David Anderson, Christine Stewart and top Chrétien advisor, Eddie Goldenberg, told Canadians that the Liberal Party had no intention of meeting the Kyoto targets, that they were only paying lip service to Canadians on Kyoto. It is hard for Canadians to believe that the Liberals had a plan to achieve Kyoto five years ago and it is even harder today. The member for Halton said so. He stated:

I heard [the Prime Minister] yesterday in a speech say, in one breath, that action must be taken, while in the next he added that reaching Kyoto targets would be “fantasy”.

Is he right? Technically, yeah. We’re so far behind now that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, a member who has served on the Bill C-30 legislative committee and one of many Conservatives who is working hard for a cleaner environment.

I also want to thank the minister who, I believe, will go down in history as one of Canada's greatest environment ministers.

I am pleased to participate in today's opposition day debate introduced by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, well-known as the member with over the top rhetoric and theatrics in the committee. It kept the committee very interesting.

[Water Resources Management, May 10th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to address Motion No. 249, introduced by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

We all know that water is perhaps one of the most valuable natural resources. It is essential to life. It is critical to the health and well-being of Canadians. It is critical to aquatic systems.

It is also vital for economic prosperity across sectors such as agriculture, oil, gas and shipping. That is why it is also important to this government's environmental agenda, which includes conservation of species and spaces, clean air and climate change.

In dealing with one of our most precious resources, Motion No. 249 calls on the federal government to immediately develop, in consultation with the provinces, territories, aboriginal groups, municipalities, local community organizations and others, an integrated water resources management strategy.

The main focus of this motion is to advance the concept of integrated water resources management to measure, monitor and protect freshwater.

After examining this motion and its implications, the point that I would like to address is that much of the spirit and substance of this motion is already being implemented by the federal government.

For example, integrated water resources management is a water management approach that advocates decision making based on engaging stakeholders and incorporating ecological, social and economic considerations.

As well, the global water partnership sponsored by the United Nations development program advocates an integrated water resources management based on principles of openness, transparency, inclusion of stakeholders, accountability, responsiveness, efficiency and equality.

These are principles that Canada is already using to help guide integrated water resources management approaches here in Canada.

As a matter of fact, Canada has been taking an integrated water resources management approach for many years. We have already adjusted our thinking. We have created new tools for the job. We have put these tools to work in a wide range of integrated water resources management initiatives across Canada.

Integration is happening at many levels. Our work on water is bringing together provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal peoples and stakeholders, municipalities, industry, energy, agriculture, non-governmental organizations, community groups and research teams.

This government is also working toward effective planning and decision making on water management through partnerships.

The fact is that collaborative water management is a cornerstone of integrated watershed management. This means that stakeholders need to be actively involved in water management decisions.

We are continuing our work to put in place inclusive and transparent coordination mechanisms that will allow us to widen the application of this broad principle.

In fact, if we look at the 1987 federal water policy that was passed by former prime minister Brian Mulroney's Conservative government, we will see that this policy calls for integrated water management planning. It also calls on the federal government to achieve this through its programs, policies and laws.

So for 20 years we have had a federal water policy that is already consistent with integrated water resources management, and all the actions proposed in Motion No. 249 have already been captured in the policy's five strategies.

As well, the federal water policy is a statement of our government's goals for Canada's freshwater resources. Today, this government is on track toward achieving those goals. This year alone, we announced $4.5 billion in new spending on the environment.

This includes the national water strategy, where we have invested $35 million on freshwater initiatives: $11 million over two years for cleaning up Great Lakes areas of concern; $5 million over two years for the International Joint Commission to study Great Lakes water levels; $12 million over two years to support the cleanup of Lake Simcoe; and $7 million over two years for the cleanup of Lake Winnipeg.

Our national water strategy also supports healthy oceans by investing $382 million for conservation and protection of fisheries and ocean habitats.

Budget 2007 also includes a long term infrastructure plan that will help support investments by provinces, territories and municipalities to improve water and waste water infrastructure, including treatment facilities, sewage collection and water distribution.

Our government will be pursuing these budget initiatives in an open and consultative manner.

As for the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions, this government recognizes their responsibilities with respect to water delivery. We consistently favour a collaborative approach that is respectful of the roles and responsibilities of each order of government.

Fortunately, the provinces and territories also recognize the need for collaboration and an integrated approach to water management.

Our mutual understanding of the need for collaboration is important, because the reality is that the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for many aspects of land use planning and development that impact water quality and availability. Many provinces are demonstrating their commitment to this approach by introducing new policies and legislation that moves toward integrated collaborative approaches.

For example, the province of Alberta's new water for life strategy introduces a transition from traditional water management planning for water allocation issues to integrated watershed management planning supported by a shared governance model.

Ontario is moving forward with a comprehensive approach to protecting sources of drinking water.

The Quebec water policy is based on full integration of the different aspects of water management by adopting an integrated watershed management approach relying on citizen involvement, integrated management of the St. Lawrence River and recognition of water as an integral part of the collective heritage of the citizens of Quebec.

There is no doubt that many Canadian jurisdictions are using integrated water resources management to guide their central water management approach. Considerable progress is being made in many areas and we expect this trend of policy and legislative reform to continue as jurisdictions come more fully to terms with the need to manage their water resources for economic, social and environmental reasons.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are also cooperating on the national collection of water quality information through national agreements on water quality and quantity monitoring. There is movement toward integrated management with better data and information and an emphasis on clear and transparent goals and results.

As well, where water management issues are a shared federal, provincial and territorial interest, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment also provides a formal mechanism for effective intergovernmental discussion and coordinated approaches to regional and national environmental issues, including water management.

The council also recently introduced national initiatives to promote drinking water protection from source to tap and options for a Canada wide strategy for managing municipal waste water effluent.

Regional cooperation in water management is also achieved through bodies such as the Prairie Provinces Water Board and the Mackenzie River Basin Board. These boards ensure that interprovincial surface waters and groundwaters are equally shared by Canada's prairie provinces and they help to prevent potential conflicts.

When we look at all of these initiatives that are taking place, we can see there is no doubt that ensuring clean and safe water for Canadians is a joint undertaking that is being taken very seriously by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

It is clear that this government is committed to collaborative, integrated management of water in partnership with these orders of government.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that the Competition Bureau has conducted six investigations since 1990. He also knows that the Competition Bureau already has the power under the Competition Act to investigate.

The reason we are here today is to debate the price of gas and he knows full well that under the Liberal plan there would be dramatic increases in gas prices.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the goal of the motion was to deal with the price of gas.

Canadians are very concerned when they go to the pumps and see the high gas prices. However, the reality is that the Bloc members are trying to present themselves as being concerned about the high price of gas. The Competition Bureau already has the power to do what the member is asking so why would members of the Bloc be trying to act like they care about high gas prices? The fact is that it is the Bloc that supports dramatically higher gas prices through a carbon tax under the Liberal plan, which would mean billions of dollars in new carbon taxes and sending billions of dollars outside of Canada?

The Liberal plan is a bad plan and it would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would permit unlimited dumping of carbon into our atmosphere.

The Bloc members are trying to present themselves as caring about high gas prices but that is not the truth. The truth is that they want higher gas prices than we are already looking at. They would like to see gas prices at $2 a litre, which is not what Canadians want. Canadians want a cleaner environment and they want gas prices under control.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

It is unbelievable.

Of course, then there is the deputy Liberal leader who, during the leadership debate, called for a form of carbon tax that would push up the price of gasoline. Just a couple of months ago, the Liberals were praising a $100 billion carbon tax, which again would have increased the price of gasoline.

Then there is the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering who was quoted in the September 11, 2005, Toronto Star as having said, “A lot of analysts say gas at $1.50 a litre is well within sight”. Then there are the Bloc members who have signed on to supporting the Liberal carbon tax plan, Bill C-288.

The costs of this so-called environmental plan were independently analyzed by some of Canada's leading economists and experts, people like Don Drummond and Mark Jaccard. Don Drummond was a former senior public servant under the previous Liberal government and is now a vice-president of the TD Bank and Mark Jaccard is another well-respected expert on environmental issues. What did they find? They found that under the Liberal plan, backed by their buddies in the Bloc, Canadians stand to lose 275,000 jobs. That is terrible. Also, under the Liberal plan, the price of gasoline would increase a whopping 60%.

I am from the Vancouver area, the riding of Langley, and the price out there right now is $1.269. If we add 60% on to that, it is over $1.90 a litre. That is what the Liberals want and that is what the Bloc wants. I guess that $1.50 a litre predicted by the member for Ajax—Pickering just was not enough tax on the backs of Canadians and families and businesses. That plan from the Liberals and the Bloc does not get it done on the environment or the economy.

Let us talk about the actions that our government is taking, not only to improve the environment but also the economy. For example, our government is taking a number of actions to reduce pollution from the transportation sector. These actions would not only reduce our greenhouse emissions but would also have economic benefits for Canadians.

The government is also assisting small communities and large cities by investing $33 billion in infrastructure, including public transit. The tax credit for public transit passes, first introduced in budget 2006, is being extended to initiate fare products, such as electronic fare cards and weekly passes.

All these resources are designed with one goal in mind; and that is, to help Canadians make better and more environmentally responsible decisions.

Renewable fuels are cleaner fuels that reduce air pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions. The government recently announced its intention to develop a regulation requiring a 5% average renewable content by volume, such as ethanol, a Canadian gasoline, by 2010. Renewable fuel production is a new market opportunity for farmers and the rural communities.

Budget 2006 included $365 million to assist farmers in realizing opportunities through agricultural bioproducts, including renewable fuels. To meet the requirements of the proposed regulations, over 2 billion litres of renewable fuel will be required, creating tremendous business opportunities for Canadian renewable fuel and agriculture producers.

Budget 2007 invests up to $2 billion in support of renewable fuel production in Canada to help meet those requirements, including up to $1.5 billion for an operating incentive, and $500 million for next generation renewable fuels.

Support under the program to individual companies will be capped to ensure that the benefits are provided to a wide range of participants in the sector, not just the large oil producing companies. That is fair.

Budget 2007 also makes $500 million over seven years available to Sustainable Development Technology Canada to invest in the private sector in establishing large scale facilities for the production of next generation renewable fuels. Next generation renewable fuels produced from agricultural and wood waste products, such as wheat straw, cornstalk, wood residue and switchgrass, have the potential to generate even greater environmental benefits than the traditional renewable fuels.

Canada is well positioned to become a world leader in the development and commercialization of next generation fuels. For example, the Ottawa based Iogen is one of Canada's leading biotechnology firms. It operates the world's only demonstration scale facility to convert biomass to cellulose ethanol using enzyme technology. I encourage a visit to that wonderful facility.

Transportation is one of the largest sources of air pollution and greenhouse gases in Canada. Cars, trucks, trains and planes all add to air pollution and they account for over one-quarter of all greenhouse gases and air pollutant emissions in Canada. For the first time, the Government of Canada will regulate cars and light trucks to ensure they use fuel more efficiently. Our standard will be based on a stringent North American standard. We will work hard with the United States to pursue a clean auto pact that will create an environmentally ambitious North American standard for cars and light duty trucks.

We will make air pollution rules for vehicles and engines that are sources of smog, like motorcycles, personal watercraft, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, and align them with world leading standards. We will also continue to take action to reduce emissions from the rail, marine and aviation sectors and we will work with our U.S. neighbours to administer these regulations as efficiently as possible.

Those are all great things that the government is doing to balance the environment and the economy. Unlike the Bloc members, who have done absolutely nothing but complain in this place for years and have nothing to show for it, it is this government that is getting it done for Canadians and the environment.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Oshawa, for his hard work on the environment. He is doing a great job.

I am pleased to rise in the House to participate in today's debate. The price of gasoline is a serious issue and an issue of great concern to Canadians from coast to coast. But it is much more than a cost issue. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment, I see how the government is balancing environmental protection and economic prosperity.

As Canadians, we want a safe and healthy environment, one that contributes to our well-being and quality of life. Canadians care about the environment. They expect government to lead in acting to protect the environment. At the same time, they want a government that balances environmental protection while ensuring a successful economy. The record of the other parties in achieving that balance is miserable.

Let me turn for a moment to the record of the other parties in this House on the cost of gasoline to Canadian consumers. On August 24, 2005, the Montreal Gazette published the following:

Canadians and many of his own colleagues might be cringing when they see the price at the pumps these days, but high gas prices are actually good for Canada in the medium and long term, said [the] federal Environment Minister.

That person is now the leader of the Liberal Party.

[The Environment, April 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the only scheme was for the Liberal Party to suck money out of Canadians and not get the job done.

Sheila Copps is the person I was quoting. She went on to say on the environment, “the Liberals are not on solid ground”. I wholeheartedly agree.

If our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 would have been implemented 10 years ago, in 1997, we would have reached our Kyoto targets. However, because of mismanagement, and it was abysmal, Liberals did not get it done. We will get it done.