Evidence of meeting #5 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:55 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You're filibustering yourselves. You understand you're doing this, right?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
I want to have the support of the other members around the table here, in view of the performance of the minister today--
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
--giving of his time unselfishly as he did.
Canada will continue to work forcefully within the United Nations process. I think we set the tone in Uganda at Kampala and will in the days ahead as well. The Canadian delegation--the member Mr. McGuinty actually made that point in the House, for all of us there--will not include him. It will be a much tighter, more focused delegation than ever before.
5:55 p.m.
An hon. member
How do you know?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
We know that opposition MPs are free to attend. You can attend if you choose; there's nothing stopping you. The member from Ottawa South can go off to that place if he wants. He had his chance to stand up and represent Canadians. He didn't. He could have represented those Canadians he speaks of as representing, but he didn't. He abstained. The House of Commons gave this government, the Conservative government, a mandate, and a mandate on the environment in particular, while he sat on his seat. He sat on his hands there for a period of time, not standing up for Canadians on this issue, as he should have. But in fact by way of his abstaining he actually gave support to the government and the mandate of this government.
I'd like to remind the House as well that when this delegation goes to Indonesia, it's a good delegation, and they won't be there with the intent to embarrass Canada. I think some of the performances at Bonn were pretty shameful. It's clear that the opposition parties--it would appear again even today by this late-breaking tactic and a motion thrown in at the last moment here--are trying to derail the committee, I suppose, in part. It's clear that the opposition parties are not interested in working abroad, and they would rather use it as a platform to make partisan political attacks. They can do that at their own expense, but not on the government dime.
Really, the functioning of this committee is not a partisan exercise, but it's a working meeting on the next step in the process. I think the honourable member well knows that. The provinces will have representation there as well. Various environmental groups, and other third parties, will be there. They're planning on attending and there's really nothing stopping them. They'll be there.
I cited before, in addition to the other good stuff that was up on the screen here earlier, a statement from the British High Commission, and one of their very first points was this issue of universal participation. It was Mr. Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who pressed that issue, and finally they got consensus at Kampala. They state that as their very first aspiration for what's to take place in Bali from December 3 to December 14, launching, as they say, a very important process. It's a process of the highest importance for the whole international community. And as they set out their aspirations, in particular they say: we seek universal participation, and we look for agreement on a global, long-term stabilization goal. And our party is pushing, as our government is pushing, as our environment minister and the Prime Minister just previously did as well, for absolute emission reductions by developed countries.
I think that's pretty stellar, to be showing leadership abroad, but again, as I said in my questions to the minister as well, I think it's even more vital to be showing to us the fact that we have leadership on the home front as well.
I don't think, Mr. Chairman, the Canadian public will be fooled. Liberals in action have been well documented. We can look at what the environment commissioner reported from 1998 to 2006. There's the 1998 report--you can get the whole context there, but it's true to the nature of the report--where the environment commissioner says bluntly that “the federal government”--the Liberal government at that time--“is failing to meet its policy commitments”.
The environment commissioner went on to say in 1999 in that year's report: “federal departments were divided on the degree and significance of risks posed by some individual toxic substances, the interpretation and application of legislation and the nature of their respective roles and authorities. We noted that this division has led to indecision, inaction and strained relations among departments and agencies.”
That's not me saying that, Mr. Chairman. That's actually the well-regarded environment commissioner in her report in 1999.
The environment commissioner goes on to say more in the 2000 report--there seems to be a bit of a pattern here--making the point that there were “persistent problems with the federal government's management of key issues like climate change, toxic substances and biodiversity.” I continue to quote: “As a result, commitments made to Canadians were not”--I underline “were not”--“being met.”
Then again, we could carry on here. The 2001 report states that the continued upward trend in Canada's emissions demonstrates that the government has not transformed its promises into results.
I hope this is insightful for you, Mr. Chair, because as I promised, I would hope to enlighten you and go on at length here in respect to the motion before us now.
In 2002 the report by the environment commissioner said, “The federal government's sustainable development deficit is continuing to grow.” So again, we have it on and on like that.
But it's clear from the environment commissioner with respect to the abject failure of this government in respect to environmental issues. There are others as well that we could cite, but I think that's a fairly objective source we have to refer to.
In contrast to that, Mr. Chair, as you well know...because I know you follow these issues with great interest and you are an astute student of these things. You would be well aware, Mr. Chair, Mr. Regan, that the government has announced a fairly clear agenda for the environment. It's out there. It's on the record. Our plan will continue to deliver realistic and achievable results on cleaning up our environment.
That's what I'm hearing from my constituents, what they want. They want the practical deliverables. When I talk to youth, when I talk to others, I find that the airy-fairy approach of blowing hot air in terms of fine speeches and so on.... They want to see the consequence of action, significant action forward, concrete steps that are taken. And so they will.
Our plan will continue to achieve those realistic and achievable results on cleaning up our environment. It focused on some fairly broad action here at home, and it continued internationally--
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Geoff Regan
Colleagues, I see we no longer have quorum; therefore, the meeting is adjourned.