Debates of Nov. 6th, 2006

Canada-EU Summit

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is totally ridiculous. The Minister of the Environment will meet with her Quebec counterpart today to plan their trip to the international conference in Nairobi. I would like to remind the hon. member that Canada is a signatory to the Kyoto protocol. It is therefore the responsibility and duty of our Minister of the Environment to represent Canada. Quebec's environment minister will be there and they will work together in the interest of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since it was elected, the Conservative government has repeatedly criticized the Kyoto protocol targets, which it considers unattainable. Yet we learned this morning that the Minister of the Environment agrees with the binding targets for phase two of the Kyoto protocol.

How can the Prime Minister agree to phase two of the Kyoto protocol when he denounced phase one, deeming the targets too difficult to attain?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he did not denounce the Kyoto protocol, he recognized that it was impossible for Canada to reach the phase I targets because of the Liberal government's inaction. Under the previous government, greenhouse gas emissions in Canada rose by nearly 30%. That is a fact. That is why we are going to carry on with the clean air act to implement real regulations in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some countries have attained the phase one targets or are on their way to attaining them. I fail to see how we could attain the phase two targets without attaining the phase one targets. Ordinarily, phase two comes after phase one.

I would therefore like the hon. member to explain this to me. Their position is completely muddled. Could we not have a debate here in this House so that the Minister of the Environment could explain what she is going to say in Nairobi and how she can attain phase two by skipping phase one? We do not understand.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, phase I runs from 1997 to 2012. That time was nearly entirely under Liberal responsibility. Perhaps the Bloc leader can ask the Liberals why they did not attain the targets for the first phase of the Kyoto protocol. We are carrying on and assuming responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by bringing in, for the first time, binding regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something the Liberals never did.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hurt the parliamentary secretary's feelings, but the Conservatives are in government now. It is up to them to make decisions. We would like to know more about this because the Kyoto protocol file is total chaos.

As the Minister of the Environment prepares to represent Canada in Nairobi, does the Prime Minister not think it is his duty to remove any doubt about the position Canada intends to take in Nairobi? After all, do we not have the right to know what she will be talking about on our behalf?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, over the next two weeks in Nairobi, at the UN conference on climate change, countries will be discussing how we can review the Kyoto protocol. That is an important agenda. We truly need to have a global response to see what worked and what did not.

We obviously know the Liberals did not work for the environment. Why would the Bloc support a nil plan?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like everyone who read the paper this morning, the Bloc Québécois finds it disturbing that, since the government was elected, it has had an anti-Kyoto protocol agenda, has refused to comply with it and has denounced its goals.

Today, on the eve of her departure for Nairobi, the minister announced in Quebec that she supports phase two of the Kyoto protocol and that a carbon exchange will be set up in Montreal.

When are we supposed to believe the government? When it is against the Kyoto protocol or when it is for it, on the eve of the international conference in Nairobi?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we are part of the Kyoto protocol. Canada is participating in a dialogue with the international community on how to address climate change after the first commitment period when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.

It is only prudent for all countries to take this opportunity to discuss what is working well or what is not. I encourage the hon. member to stop obstructing the government. We need a clean air act and we need participation.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown once again that he does not have his priorities straight. He cancelled a meeting in Helsinki, where he was to discuss climate change with the European Union, but decided to attend a NATO meeting not far from Helsinki, probably to try to drum up support for the unbalanced mission in Afghanistan.

Why is the Prime Minister willing to talk to European leaders about war, but not about climate change?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is completely ridiculous.

It appears that the leader of the NDP has seen the agenda for the summit meeting with the European Union. We, on the other hand, have not seen it. I therefore do not know if climate change is even on the agenda.

However, the Prime Minister will attend the NATO meeting and the APEC summit.

He met with leaders from the European Union in St. Petersburg this summer and will attend another summit next spring.

[Jack Layton, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course the issue of climate change is going to come up. The European leaders understand that we have a climate change pollution crisis in this world, and they are going to put it on the agenda. Not only that, they are on track to achieve the Kyoto objectives. In fact, the European Union is going to surpass the Kyoto objectives.

Given that the pairing of votes will ensure nothing will happen to the government while he is gone, why will the Prime Minister not go and talk about climate change with the world leaders, who feel it is a real priority? What is he afraid of?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he is afraid of absolutely nothing, which is precisely why he has brought forward the most meaningful legislative framework for the quality of our environment in Canadian history.

The clean air act is the first act that would impose mandatory regulations on all industry sectors for both carbon emissions and pollutants and toxins. It is an act that would, for the first time, impose real regulations for, among other things, auto emissions, which has always been opposed by the NDP. It is an act that would, for the first time, give the power for the government to regulate the quality of indoor air. We are acting for the environment and we would like to have the NDP's support.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Industry appointed Dr. Christopher Essex to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Last April, Mr. Essex sent a letter to the Prime Minister to tell him that allocating funding to research on climate change would be senseless. He will now sit on the council of an agency that distributes nearly $900 million to Canadian university researchers.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Mr. Essex will not use his new position to eliminate subsidies for researchers who do not think the way he does?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of and very pleased with Mr. Essex's appointment. He is a competent, informed man, and an educator, professor and doctor unlike any other in Canada.

His contribution to the council will be excellent. This is a good move for Canada.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives determined to destroy the Kyoto protocol at international summits, but they are also finding a way to attack research being done here in Canada. By appointing Dr. Christopher Essex, who denies the existence of global warming, the Conservatives are trying to sabotage research done on this phenomenon.

The Prime Minister's new strategy for resolving climate change problems is to eliminate subsidies to those who do not think the way he does.

Is that what he calls addressing the source of the problem?

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are dealing with Liberal misinformation. It is very disappointing.

Our policy is to promote science and technology throughout Canada and we will ensure that science and technology are a priority for all Canadians. Furthermore, we have nothing against varying points of view.

Income Trusts

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the minority Conservative government has pulled out all the stops to muzzle high profile critics of its income trust fiasco.

Hours before the income trust announcement was made, Margaret Lefebvre, executive director of the Canadian Association of Income Funds, was sent to her new post at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. From there she can make little noise about this disastrous policy of the Conservatives.

How are Canadians supposed to believe that this was a coincidence and not just another muzzle job?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what is confusing is the position of the Liberal Party on this matter. This is a file that it bungled last year. This is a matter that it failed to address. It has now been addressed and addressed clearly.

If the member opposite is interested in what corporations, business leaders and economic columnists in Canada think about this, he can read the press from coast to coast that is almost uniformly recognizing that this was the right thing to do, people like Domenic D'Alessandro, the CEO of Manulife, who said, “I think it's the right thing. I agree with the--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Beauséjour.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister did not answer the question, I will give him another chance.

Peter Brown, the chief executive of the investment firm Canaccord and no fan of the Conservative income trust flip-flop, has been sent to a new position with the Vancouver Olympic committee. This is a committee that relies on strong federal cooperation, so it will tolerate no criticism of the Conservatives.

Another critic has been muzzled, but the Conservatives cannot silence Canadians who have seen their investments go up in smoke. Who is the next income trust critic to be muzzled by the Conservatives?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about muzzling a critic. Here is another view, “It was absolutely the right thing and we had started on this track to protect the tax base, to ensure tax fairness and to work for the productivity of the nation”. That was the member from Markham yesterday afternoon on television. Perhaps the member opposite would like to muzzle his own critic.

National Defence

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a British officer responsible for training the Afghan army said that it would be at least 10 years before that army could take on its responsibilities without help from other countries.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us whether he agrees with this statement, and especially whether this assessment corresponds to those of Canada's defence staff?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian Forces is making great progress in training the Afghanistan national army and the Afghanistan national police. So far we have trained over 7,000 and our goal is to create many more members of its military and police force to provide the security that it needs in its country. Over time I would trust that the member would support this effort.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was not at all clear. I will rephrase my question. I am asking him whether it is true that the Afghan army might not be prepared to take on its responsibility within a reasonable period of time. If so, will NATO, and, by extension, the Canadian Forces, have to stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years?