House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cuts.

Topics

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, before the Leader of the Opposition has the right to ask questions about the environment he should answer some questions.

Why is it that the Liberal record over 13 years was one of unmitigated failure? Why is it that the Liberal leadership candidate, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, said, “On Kyoto the Libs never got it”? Why is it that the member for St. Paul's said that we had one smog day in 1993 and 48 last year?

That record is not acceptable to us, which is why we have introduced, for the first time, meaningful, tough regulations on pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, it was exactly that sort of bafflegab and hot air that set off the fire alarms in Parliament this morning.

Environmentalists are telling us that this nonsense from the Conservatives is nothing more than a policy made in the U.S.A., like so many other actions of the government.

For the next four years, Canadians must wait while the government does nothing but talk. For the 15 years after that greenhouse gases will increase. Climate change gets worse for more than 40 years.

Why is the government violating its responsibility to the environment, our children and the future of our planet?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

It is incredible, Mr. Speaker, because every Liberal leadership candidate who has proposed targets for greenhouse gas emissions has proposed that those targets will be met by 2050. The difference is this. We are committing today for the first time ever to introduce meaningful, tough regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65% by 2050, as opposed to the commitment by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore to reduce them by only 50%.

We will do far more than the Liberals ever will.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Toronto Centre Ontario

Liberal

Bill Graham LiberalLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, all evidence points to the contrary. This plan will be harmful to our children's health, contribute to the degradation of our environment and destroy Kyoto. While the Conservatives continue with their consultations, our planet is dying.

Why will the Prime Minister not just admit that he does not care about the environment, that he has no plan today, and will not have one tomorrow, next year or in 44 years?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:15 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, after 13 years of monumental failure by the previous Liberal government in terms of environmental policy, our government is taking action by introducing the first ever clean air legislation, which will reduce pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

In fact, after watching greenhouse gas emissions increase by 28% under the Liberals, our government is promising here today to significantly reduce emissions.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, what the minority Conservative government announced this morning is simply a disgrace for future generations. We might as well say that the government is in complete denial about the urgency of taking action against global warming. Not a single new measure to deal with greenhouse gas emissions was announced.

Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that he wants to destroy Kyoto and that the bill is just smoke and mirrors?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Canada's commitments in respect of the Kyoto protocol, it was the previous Liberal government that was such a monumental failure since greenhouse gas emissions rose by 28% under its tenure.

Our government, on the other hand, has introduced measures for the automotive sector for the first time and is proposing new stricter regulations governing air pollution. Today, after 13 years of Liberal failure, we are taking concrete action.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minority Conservative government's bill truly represents a step backwards. It does not identify any short-term objectives and does not give any new powers to the government to fight climate change.

With regard to greenhouse gas reductions, the Conservative government has set no objectives for 2010 or even for 2030. It is targeting 2050, which is almost half a century away.

Can the Prime Minister explain why his government has decided to set objectives for 44 years from now and why he has no plan for achieving them?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, can the member explain why the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% by 2050; the member for York Centre, by 50% over the next 45 years; Mr. Bob Rae, by 50% in the next 45 years; the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore by 50% by 2050, or over the next 45 years?

Today, we have promised to reduce them by 65% over the next 45 years.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government has been promising us for months a made in Canada green plan that will go beyond Kyoto. Today, the government introduced a bill providing instead for a four-year consultation process before even producing any regulations. Moreover, in its bill, the government left itself a loophole, a way out of honouring its Kyoto commitments.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, after nine months, he has given birth to an empty shell and that, in the meantime, greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to increase and will continue to do so until 2010?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I will readily admit that this is the first government that has taken concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to reduce pollutants, to introduce legislation and to improve the quality of our environment with good, strong regulations.

Ours is the first government to regulate emissions. Realistic regulated targets will allow us to achieve our environmental objectives. We are proud of the work accomplished by this government.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Even though it is imperative to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate changes already affecting the public, the government flat out rejects the Kyoto objectives.

Will the Prime Minister admit that only the big oil companies stand to benefit from his “made in Alberta and written in Washington” plan?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:20 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

No, Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It is totally ridiculous to suggest such a thing when all industrial sectors in Canada, including the oil industry, will be affected by the regulations announced today and by the bill.

Every industry and region of Canada has to play an important role in the steps being taken to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases so as to improve the quality of our environment and the health of Canadians.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the government confirms that it has decided to take the intensity approach, the one put forward by the previous government and roundly criticized by the Commissioner of the Environment. This ill advised choice will not bring about any major reduction in greenhouse gases and might even allow them to increase.

Given that the oil companies will double their production in the coming decade, does the Prime Minister admit that the intensity approach only confirms his indulgence towards his friends, the oil companies?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, our government was very proud today to table Canada's clean air act, because our clean air act is actually going to reduce greenhouse gases and reduce smog, but most importantly, for the first time in Canadian history we will actually have national air quality objectives. That will reduce smog. It will reduce cancer. It will reduce chronic bronchitis. It will reduce childhood asthma.

I would like to ask the member opposite if he is against those things. If he is not, I hope he will support the clean air act.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister rather to read her own bill because it makes no reference to Kyoto, provides for intensity reductions that will not begin before 2011, confirms that the government does not plan to make any short- or medium-term international commitment and provides expressly that the government does not have to fulfil its commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

Will the Prime Minister admit that this bill quite simply means the end of the Kyoto protocol, and that this will certainly make his friends, the oil companies, happy?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc is against clean air and against actually introducing for the first time in Canadian history regulations across every industry sector for air pollution and greenhouse gases.

If the member is against the clean air act, I guess he is also against setting fuel efficiency standards in the auto sector for the first time in Canadian history, against establishing national air quality objectives for the first time in Canadian history, and against myself and the Minister of Health being accountable to Parliament by reporting on annual progress.

Canadians want these things. Quebeckers want these things. Why does he not want these things?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is official. Just like the Liberals, the Conservatives are going to make the air Canadians breathe a whole lot dirtier. Despite what the minister says, there are no caps on greenhouse gases. There are no targets for the industrial sector. By the government's own admission, pollution will not go down, it will go up.

Can the Prime Minister explain why he just gave his friends in big oil and big industry a 20 year pollution holiday?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely wrong. The hon. member comes from a party that asked and made a platform commitment for the introduction of a clean air act.

I guess those members cannot take yes for an answer, because today we have for the first time introduced meaningful regulations and a meaningful law that will give the government the power to restrict the emissions of both pollutants and greenhouse gases, with a hard target of a 65% reduction.

I would like to know what the member has against mandatory auto fuel efficiency standards. Is she going to vote against those standards and against the clean air act?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:25 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, this act does not make the air better, it makes it worse.

If the minister thinks that industry is a cheap date, as she said, then why did she give industry another five years to pick up the cheque? If the government really believes in regulating industry, then why did it not have the guts to do it today?

Will the Prime Minister admit that the big winner today is the pollution industry, while the losers are Canadians who are tired of being promised clean air when all they get from Liberals and Conservatives is hot air?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, like on so many issues, the NDP members are so blinded by their dogma and ideology they cannot see the facts, the facts today from this government.

The Liberals introduced the statutory framework for regulation of industry in terms of pollutants 35 years ago, but they never brought those regulations into effect. That is precisely what we have done today.

After 13 years of Liberal inaction, today we introduced meaningful industry regulations that will reduce pollutants in our air to protect the health and safety of Canadians.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, the so-called clean air act pretends to deal with air pollution and greenhouse gases by removing them from the toxics section of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government has just opened itself up to years of lawsuits, because this measure is likely unconstitutional. Apparently no one told the minister that the government only has the undisputed constitutional power to regulate toxic substances if they are clearly labeled toxic.

Will the Minister of Justice admit that this process weakens the law and will tie up any real environmental action for years in the courts?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

In fact, Mr. Speaker, what Canada's clean air act does is enhance the powers that I have as a federal environment minister and enhance the powers that the health minister has. In fact, for the first time in Canadian history we will be able to regulate indoor air for things like radon, which is a leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers.

What did the Clean Air Foundation say about that? It said, “We are pleased to see that the clean air act will permit, for the first time in Canadian history, regulation of products that will have impacts on indoor air”. That is results for Canadians and protecting the health of Canadians.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I fear the law does not support the minister. In the Hydro-Québec case, the Supreme Court decided that the federal government needs to label toxic substances “toxic” in order to regulate them with certainty. This bill removes all air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the list of toxic substances in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government is begging for a lawsuit.

Will the minister admit that her real intention is to delay action on climate change for years when she already has the tools she needs to act today?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:30 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have missed the press conference this morning, because what we introduced today was a notice of intent to regulate all industry sectors under current legislation, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. All regulations will proceed without Canada's clean air act.

What Canada's clean air act will do is enhance our powers to do things we cannot do right now, like regulate indoor air pollution and regulate biofuels so that we can burn cleaner and greener fuels and give opportunities to farmers.

If the member cares about those things, he will support Canada's clean air act.