Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

The Environment

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the opposition to read sections 27, 29 and 33 of Canada's clean air act, which allow for a North American trading system.

As for the acid rain agreement, what we need is a North American solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is utter confusion within cabinet as far as the creation of an emissions exchange is concerned. While the Minister of the Environment announced yesterday that a climate exchange would see the light of day in spring 2007, the Prime Minister's Office seemed less sure.

The Prime Minister's press secretary contradicted the minister by saying, “ The creation of such an exchange cannot be seen as a done deal. That does not mean the idea is good or bad. We are not taking a position on the matter”.

Could the Prime Minister tell us who speaks on behalf of the government: the Minister of the Environment or his press secretary?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois can find his answer by reading the notice of intent on Canada's Clean Air Act.

It recommends the possibility of having an emissions exchange. The government is clear on this: industries, not taxpayers, will have to cover these costs.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the responsibilities of the industries and the oil companies. Nonetheless, his press secretary is saying they are not taking a position and the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the question either. Furthermore, for there to be an emissions exchange, greenhouse gas emissions targets need to be set. The Minister of the Environment's plan does not set any targets until 2011.

Does the Prime Minister realize that next spring is in 2007 and not 2011?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, our government intends to set targets in the coming year. By 2011, we will have a system for the entire Canadian economy. This is major progress. This is the first time a Canadian government has been determined to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases and to adopt a mandatory regulatory system.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of the Environment and the Prime Minister's Office are contradicting each other about the Kyoto protocol and establishing a carbon exchange in Montreal, other countries are getting organized and moving ahead.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, while his office and his Minister of the Environment contradict one another, elsewhere, such as in Europe or Chicago, they are organizing and starting to put in place the infrastructure required to take advantage of the new international market, which we cannot do here because we do not have targets?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. I invite the opposition to read clauses 27, 29 and 33 of Canada's clean air act which provides for a North American trading system. Also, it will be easier to develop ties with the European market.

With regard to the acid rain agreement, we need a North American solution.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we ask the minister to reread the statements she made yesterday because she is out of step with what the government has said.

Montreal has already expressed an interest in establishing a carbon emissions exchange and the Montreal Exchange is working on it.

Will the Prime Minister promise that if a carbon emissions exchange is established, there will only be one and it will be located in Montreal?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that any system must be based on market forces for trading in rights to emit greenhouse gases and air pollution.

Unlike the Liberals, our government does not believe that it must maintain a market with taxpayers' money. We believe that polluters must bear the full cost.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, the additional costs of this wrong mission in Afghanistan are continuing to escalate. The latest in the ballooning costs is $157 million to send tanks to Afghanistan and now $17 million for six howitzer artillery pieces. The cost for the artillery pieces alone is the equivalent of the taxes paid by 5,000 Canadians.

Why does the government keep pouring the hard-earned money of the taxpayers into a mission that even the Minister of National Defence has said cannot be won militarily?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the request for the additional equipment came from the Department of National Defence itself. Its view is that this equipment is necessary for the military to complete its mission, which as we know is not simply a peace and security mission but is also aimed at development in Afghanistan.

We stand firmly behind our military and we will always make sure they have the equipment they need when they are in the field.

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

Mr. Speaker, in June, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the mission in Kandahar would cost $1.25 billion. We now know that the information the minister gave was incorrect. Government documents indicate that the mission costs will be half a billion dollars higher.

Why is the government not being honest with Canadians and taxpayers about the costs of the mission in Afghanistan?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are paying the bills to provide our soldiers with the equipment they need.

The truth of the matter is this. It costs money. It costs money to do the work of the international community in this dangerous country. It costs money to help the Afghan people. It costs money to support our troops. Whether the NDP is there or not, Canadians will always be behind our men in uniform.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday thefisheries minister admitted that global warming is likely contributing to the declining fish stocks off the shores of Newfoundland, but here is the real irony. While the Worm report predicts that all the fish stocks will collapse by 2048, the Conservative government's clean air act does not have any hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2050, two years later. Whoops.

Does the minister agree with his government that there is no need to tackle global warming until the last fish is gone?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, a report put out recently certainly put everybody on notice that if we had kept going the way the Liberals were going, we probably would not have any fish left 50 years down the road.

However, we have made major changes not only in how we operate in our own country but how we operate internationally, because for once in many years, Canada has taken the lead in dealing with fishery problems around the world. If the Liberals had done that several years ago, we would not have such a report on the record.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in today's paper the minister is quoted as saying that he believes the Worm report takes it very seriously and that he is worried about the impact of global warming on fish stocks. Yet on October 8 he told the House that he places his trust in his government's made in Canada plan, no action until 2050. Fish are not impressed.

Why is the minister willing to watch all our fish die before doing anything concrete to fight global warming?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the minister is mixed up considerably between the environment and the fisheries.

If the former minister had done his job when he was the minister of fisheries, like many of his colleagues, we would not be in the mess we are in today. But by taking some leadership and bringing our international partners onside with us, things are changing. Hopefully the brain food that all of us need will be there when we need it. It is too bad the Liberals did not use it when they had the opportunity.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made a rather surprising statement for a member of the Conservative cabinet. He said he was concerned about the impact of climate change. Asked to comment on the demise of nearly all fish stocks by 2050, he said, “—then there is the temperature. Off St. John's, for example, the temperature has risen by 4.5 degrees. That has an enormous impact”.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not fire the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because he dared contradict him and tell the truth about climate change?

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that all of us are concerned about what goes on in the ocean. We have been saying that for many years.

For five years I was a member of the standing committee. We kept trying to convince the then government that it should do something about what is going on in the ocean and protect our stocks. We saw absolutely no leadership, but we are seeing it now.

Not only is Canada showing leadership, but many other countries are willing to work. It was just a matter of somebody going to the table and asking them to participate. We are glad--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Honoré-Mercier.

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

Mr. Speaker, he is trying to muddy the waters. A major study shows that there will be no fish left in our oceans by 2050.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is saying that that is due, in part, to the impact of climate change. At the same time, his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is saying that there is no urgency and that it is not necessary to set targets before 2050, when there will be no fish left.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, straight? Will he tell her that in 2050, it will be too late and that her refusal to act now will have disastrous consequences for fish stocks in Canada, including Quebec?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that he knows full well through the introduction of our legislation and our notice of intent to regulate, the regulations are proceeding already.

We have set a very ambitious target. In fact, it is the same target that the Liberal leadership candidate he is supporting has said, of up to a 65% reduction by 2050.

We also have hard targets that will be in place for the medium term and we will be setting short term targets in the new year. I would encourage him to work with the government if he thinks this issue is urgent.

Canada-EU Summit

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that the Prime Minister's absence from the Canada-EU summit had nothing to do with his fear of being confronted in public about his U-turn on the Kyoto protocol because he did not know what was on the agenda.

Yesterday, the Finnish ambassador said that the agenda has been known for months and that the Kyoto protocol is on it. Does the government have a new story for the House now that the ambassador has discredited its previous story?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we will be meeting all of Canada's Kyoto protocol obligations, except for the Liberals' unrealistic targets. We will set new targets so that we can make real progress together with our international partners.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, it is becoming more and more difficult to ask questions when the government members do not even understand what they are being asked.

The Prime Minister does not hesitate to attend APEC and NATO meetings. Furthermore, his government refused to support a unanimous motion to defer votes during his absence. Yet the Prime Minister claims that his government's minority status justifies postponing the Canada-EU summit.

Is the real reason for this the fact that the Prime Minister is afraid European leaders will confront him about his pathetic climate change record?