Mark Warawa

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the motion reads:

That the House call on the government to set fixed greenhouse gas reduction targets as soon as possible so as to meet the objectives of the Kyoto protocol, a prerequisite for the establishment, as expeditiously as possible, of a carbon exchange in Montreal.

We agree with this. The motion does not say only in Montreal. It is common knowledge that Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg have all expressed interest. He knows well that there could be multiple people dealing with carbon trading right here in Canada.

We do support the motion as it is written and Montreal would be a contender for the market but it could be Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto. However, we are a democracy and we are a free market. The opportunities to have trading are there and the market will decide.

I am quite surprised that the member would want to have it mandated by government that it could be only one exchange. We are a free market and the market will decide.

[Business of Supply, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and good friend, a member I highly respect, the member for Louis-Hébert.

On behalf of the government, I want to thank the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for coming forward with his motion today.

Like the hon. member, I believe Canadians want real action on the environment. Canadians want to see climate change addressed and harmful greenhouse gas emissions reduced. They also desperately want to see greenhouse gases and air pollution reduced so that the air we breathe is cleaner.

Canadians demand leadership from their government for both a clean environment and a growing economy. Canadians also want their elected representatives and their government to act responsibly on both fronts.

In 1997 the Liberal government agreed to the Kyoto protocol. In the following nine years in government, the Liberal Party did nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. While it promised big cuts to those harmful emissions, it instead sat back and watched them rise dramatically.

Let us consider the evidence. In 1997 when the Liberal government signed on to the Kyoto protocol, Canada was 22% above its target, but the good news was that we had 15 years to make it. By the time Canadians chose to change their government in 2006, Canada was already 35% above the target.

We accepted our international obligations and we will make our very best efforts. We are big believers in the need for international action.

The government has said very clearly that it is supportive of Canada remaining committed to the principles and objectives of the United Nations framework convention on climate change and the Kyoto protocol.

We would like to see more cooperation and leadership among all major emitting countries, particularly the G-8+5, which includes not only the big western economies like Britain, France, Germany and the United States, but also the big emerging economies like India and China.

Our government was elected to make decisions. The global challenge of climate change and global warming requires meaningful, decisive action. Reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution also demands leadership and resolve.

Already we have taken significant steps that not only prove our commitment to action but will also make a difference in Canada's environment for the health of all Canadians. We have unveiled a wide range of initiatives to promote clean energy and clean transportation, the two biggest sources of greenhouse gases and pollution.

We are increasing the use of renewable fuel through regulation and supporting the growth of our biofuels industry.

We are providing financial and tax incentives to Canadians to drive eco-friendly vehicles.

We will regulate mandatory fuel consumption standards on the vehicles that Canadians buy.

We are supporting the growth of renewable energy resources like wind and tidal power.

We are providing incentives to Canadians to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

We have partnered with the province of Alberta to create an ecoenergy carbon capture and storage task force that will recommend the best ways to deploy technology to capture carbon dioxide from the oil sands and store it deep underground.

We have provided $1.5 billion to the provinces and territories to support concrete energy efficiency technology and other projects they have identified to achieve real reduction in both air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Budget 2007 also demonstrates our commitment to the environment with an investment of $4.5 billion to clean our air and water, to manage the legacy of chemical substances, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, most importantly, to protect our natural environment.

Combined with over $4.7 billion in investments made since 2006, the resulting investments in environmental protection total over $9 billion.

However, these investments alone will not drive the changes in energy efficiency, technology, innovations and investments in industrial facilities that must occur if Canada is to do its part to reduce the global burden of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Our focus is now on implementing tough but realistic regulations to reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution from large industrial sources while ensuring that our economy continues to prosper.

We are exploring the use of emissions trading as part of those regulations. I would remind the House it is the private sector that makes those choices and it is the private sector that should provide any trading infrastructure.

There is nothing that says there must only be one exchange here in Canada. In Europe, for example, there are several carbon exchanges. None was established by a government. I believe it was Jean-Charles Robilliard, the spokesman for the Montreal Stock Exchange, who said that there was room for both exchanges to operate in emissions trading.

Our government cannot take responsibility for the inaction and mistakes made by the previous Liberal government but we will take responsibility for cleaning up the mess that we inherited from the Liberals. By doing nothing to reduce the harmful greenhouse gas emissions, the previous government focused far too much on the economy.

While industry pushes for minimal action and the environmentalists push for perfection, the problem is getting worse. It is time for Canada's government to act, and we are acting. Soon we will unveil our regulatory framework for industrial air emissions. Our strategy will ensure real reductions in both greenhouse gases and air pollution.

We will include tougher rules and regulations that will require Canada's industry to reduce pollution that threatens the health of Canadians and that causes climate change. For the first time in our country, we will have a strategy, one that is real, concrete and realistic for reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Of course, Canadians will need to make some adjustments. We all need to take on more responsibility. It is something we believe Canadians are prepared to do. Our citizens want urgent action on the environment and they are ready for some tough but fair medicine.

However, how much is too much? Where do we draw the line? Canadians expect us to deal with these issues with responsibility and balance. We also need a balanced approach that reduces both greenhouse gases and preserves Canadian economic growth.

Will everyone like our approach? Probably not. Some will say that it is too weak, while some in industry will say that it is too tough. Someone must take the lead, though, and that is the responsibility of the Government of Canada. Leadership means making tough choices. We were elected to make those tough choices on behalf of Canadians and not to duck them.

In closing, I want to remind the House once again that we agree wholeheartedly that urgent action on greenhouse gases is needed and we will be coming forward shortly with our plan.

I also want to say again that the government supports the principles and objectives of the Kyoto protocol and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Therefore, we will be supporting this motion. As for carbon markets, I have indicated in our notice of intent that we support emissions trading, and the motion does not specify that Montreal must be the only carbon market in Canada.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first government in years that is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to clean up the environmental mess left after 13 years of Liberal inaction. We are getting the job done. They did not.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we do not support the Liberals' plan and their amendments to it. For example, political interference in setting air quality standards is not acceptable either.

Here is an interesting quote from somebody that was a witness. He said, “It would be devastating for the whole community...It would be suicidal for our economy”. Do Canadians know who said that? Buzz Hargrove.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that was one of the questions that was asked of the sponsor of Bill C-288. We asked, what is the cost? Unfortunately, the Liberals would not bring the cost, so we had to do the work for them, as it is too often.

This is what Mark Jaccard said:

--the Kyoto Protocol is likely to trigger a major economic recession. From what I understand of our legal options for compliance with Kyoto and my knowledge of the energy-economy system, I concur with this conclusion.

He is right. The Liberal way does not work.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest maybe that member is a little frustrated because we are getting the job done.

He said that when Canadians find out what it is going to cost for their plan, they are going to scream. The Commissioner of the Environment said, “When it comes to protecting the environment, bold announcements are made and then often forgotten as soon as the confetti hits the ground”.

It was shameful what the Liberals did. We are getting the job done.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, imagine that, a Liberal trying to make recommendations on the environment.

After 13 years of doing absolutely nothing, we now have a government that is moving forward, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cleaning up the environment.

I have a very interesting quote. This is from the Commissioner of the Environment speaking about the Liberal Party. It says, “There is a gap between what the government said it would do and what it is actually doing”. Good intentions are not enough. We are getting it done.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking specific questions on our framework announcements which will be coming out shortly. I encourage him to wait. The announcements on those targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be coming out very shortly.

[The Environment, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this government considers climate change to be one of the greatest threats facing the world today.

I also want to make it very clear that Canada, under this government, remains committed to the principles and objectives of the United Nations framework on climate change and the Kyoto protocol.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the sense of wonder and reverence we feel as we learn about the past human activities that laid the foundation of our country stimulate a profound desire to ensure the preservation of historic places, artifacts and structures. It encourages us to want to share these experiences with our families and ensure that future generations can also benefit from them. It motivates us to ensure the protection of natural areas and commemoration of historic places, which is a national priority.

These areas and sites symbolize our national identity. They characterize the way we see ourselves and how others see us as a nation. Through our efforts, we demonstrate to the world a thoughtful, caring attitude toward the national and international treasures of nature and culture so richly bestowed upon Canadians.

Such is the spirit of Bill C-220. It reflects what many Canadians feel when they walk toward a shore and look at a lighthouse. Lighthouses are part of Canada's history. They have ensured safe navigation and docking for tens of thousands of fishermen, ship crew members and passengers and immigrants. The inspiration and knowledge we derive from these special heritage places more than justify our efforts to protect and commemorate them.

Canada has a world-class system of heritage areas and programs designed for the preservation of the most outstanding of our country's treasures. This includes national historic sites, national parks, heritage rivers, historic canals, marine conservation areas, heritage railway stations and heritage buildings, including lighthouses. These special places provide Canadians with outstanding opportunities to learn about and personally experience their rich heritage. These sites are an integral part of what we are, not simply what we were.

The historic sites component of Parks Canada is responsible for Canada's program of historical commemoration which recognizes nationally significant places, persons and events.

The Minister of the Environment designates national historic sites on the advice of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada and federal heritage buildings evaluated by the Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office and an interdepartmental advisory committee.

More than 100 lighthouses have been designated as national historic sites or as classified or recognized federal heritage buildings. There are other types of heritage buildings, such as old post offices and armouries. I will give a few examples of these precious landmarks of Canadian history.

The first lighthouse on the St. Lawrence and the third oldest in Canada today was erected on Île Verte facing the Saguenay Fjord. The Île Verte light was first lit in 1809. It remained the sole light on the mighty St. Lawrence for the next 21 years.

Today, the private owner keeper's house has been transformed into a bed and breakfast. Every year thousands of visitors from across Canada, North America and Europe have the opportunity to spend some time at this legendary site and learn more about Canada's history.

Gibraltar Point erected in 1808 is the oldest existing lighthouse on the Canadian Great Lakes. The tower, built of limestone, originally stood some 67 feet in height. A 15 foot extension was added in 1832. The lighthouse is no longer in service but he city of Toronto has preserved it as a historic site.

Located on Lake Huron, Point Clark Lighthouse was built between 1855 and 1859. It commemorates the vital role of lighthouses in navigation on the Great Lakes. The 87 foot limestone tower, topped by a 12 sided lantern framed in cast iron, is typical of the six Imperial towers built in the region, a lighthouse style rarely seen elsewhere in Canada. Point Clark Lighthouse is one of Canada's national historic sites. The township of Huron has an agreement with Parks Canada to operate the light keeper's house as a local museum.

Fisgard Lighthouse is a circular brick tower, 56 feet high with an attached dwelling. It was built in 1860 at the entrance to Esquimalt Harbour. Along with Race Rock light, it inaugurated the fixed navigation aids on the Pacific coast of Canada. Even though the lighthouse is still in service, Parks Canada maintains it as a historic site. The former keeper's house now contains exhibits and a video station.

There is no doubt that lighthouses are important to Canadians. They stand against winds, tides and storms. They are a symbol of strength, resilience and Canadian courage and resourcefulness.

But they are not the only type of heritage buildings worth protecting. National historic sites represent thousands of years of human history and hundreds of years of nation building. They have been representative of the diversity of Canada's historic heritage.

National historic sites are located all across Canada. Each national historic site tells its own unique story, part of the greater story of Canada, contributing a sense of time, identity and place to our understanding of Canada as a whole. Each national historic site is part of a system that spans the country, telling the story of Canada's development as a nation.

In her November 2003 report, “Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government”, the Auditor General questioned the protection of many examples of the same building type, citing lighthouses specifically. In a follow-up report released in February 2007, the Auditor General reiterated some important recommendations, including the need to strengthen the conservation regime for built heritage.

Under the Parks Canada Agency Act, Parks Canada has the responsibility for built heritage programs and historic places in Canada. The agency's objectives include ensuring the commemorative integrity of national historic sites and respect for and conservation of the heritage character of federal heritage buildings.

The processes adopted by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for the selection of national historic sites and by the Federal Heritage Building Review Office for the evaluation of federal heritage sites are based on recognized selection criteria and in-depth research. They are intended to protect the most outstanding examples of Canadian cultural heritage in all categories of built heritage, not one single type.

In conclusion, protecting our built heritage is about making choices. Which historic places will we choose to protect? What means will we put into play? How will these activities be funded?

As we heard earlier today, not all old buildings can be preserved. The choices are never easy to make, but they have become critically important to the development of protection strategies. We need to make judicious choices in designating heritage buildings and to have appropriate means to ensure their conservation on behalf of all Canadians now and in the future.

We want to examine Bill S-220 carefully. I commend Senator Carney in the other place and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's for bringing the matter forward in the House to stimulate this important debate. I encourage all members to engage in a fulsome debate on this issue.