This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cmhc.

Topics

Veterans AffairsOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Conservative

Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, an interesting reaction from a party that voted for five things it did not do in 13 years of office.

What Canadian veterans understand is that the way to support veterans is to first support them when they are in uniform and that is what this government is doing.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, one week late, the Minister of the Environment is headed to Nairobi, but she has yet to give the House any indication of what she will actually do when she gets there. We already know that the minister wants to gut the Kyoto accord but she has not told the House what changes she wants to make.

Will the Minister of the Environment admit that she will be pushing global warming off the international agenda until 2050 because she has no credible plan and no intent of addressing this international crisis?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the submissions we are making on behalf of the Government of Canada to the Nairobi conference are the submissions that have been on the United Nations website and our long-standing position on Kyoto since Germany, which was in May.

I welcome the member to take a look at those submissions. If he has any comments, I would like him to make them to me. I also invite him to speak to the member from his party who is accompanying us. We are being open and transparent about our position and we appreciate any feedback.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should step aside and let somebody else do the job, although it will be hard to find somebody over there who is committed to the environment.

In any event, this House has a right to know what changes the minister will make regarding Kyoto. This is an international accord that Canada signed but she has not lifted a finger to support Canada's commitments in 2012. Now she says that she wants fundamental changes to the accord.

What are the changes? Why is she pursuing them and why is she, contrary to the majority of members of the House and a majority of Canadians opposed to this do nothing plan, going ahead with nothing in her pocket?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member exactly what change I have made.

We have moved the Canadian environment from voluntary measures, with no plan to reduce greenhouse gases or air pollution under the previous government, to regulations across every industry sector in the country. We started that process a few weeks ago and those regulations will obviously come into effect in the short term. We are setting short term targets, something this country has never had before. We are doing that in the new year.

Finally, this country will make progress toward our Kyoto obligations.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, clearly, this government does not know where it stands.

The Minister of the Environment promised a carbon credit trading market in Montreal but, within a week, was contradicted by the Minister of Industry and by the Prime Minister's press secretary. Now, the Prime Minister is contradicting his own press secretary and is also promising a carbon credit trading market in Montreal.

What is the government's response to the Montreal Exchange's fears that the carbon trading market will not see the light of day, due to these contradictions?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, we are in consultation about the market, but our government believes that any such system must be based on market forces for the trading of credits with respect to greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Unlike the Liberals, our government does not believe that it should use taxpayers' money to maintain a market. With our government, those who pollute must pay the price.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of the Environment plans to support the Montreal Exchange, does this mean she will set specific short-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions?

Luc Bertrand, president of the Montreal Exchange, believes that governments have a clear role to play in putting a value on carbon reductions. In other words, governments should take the Kyoto protocol's approach and not that of the oil and gas industry.

Will the minister deliver real targets, real reductions and a real policy?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister 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. Like the acid rain agreement, what we need is a North American solution. We are therefore consulting industry and the provinces regarding short term targets.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's dithering about creating a carbon exchange in Montreal prompted the president of the Montreal Exchange to say, and I quote:

What worries me the most is seeing this market trickle out of the country.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister confused 2011 with 2007, which did nothing to allay concerns. Four years' difference is no small thing.

My question is this: Does the Minister of the Environment agree that the Montreal Exchange has legitimate concerns about the contradictory statements she and—

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I met with the Montreal Exchange. We recognize the opportunity for Canada to lead the way in a carbon exchange market that is market driven based on industry and not through taxpayer dollars.

The mandate of the Government of Canada is to set out these regulations, and we will do so in consultation with industry and the provinces.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Exchange says it is ready to set up a carbon exchange.

Can the Minister of the Environment confirm that if a carbon exchange is established in Canada, it will not be in Winnipeg or Toronto, but in Montreal and nowhere else?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:40 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, our government has always been clear that no market will use taxpayer money to buy or sell greenhouse gas credits.

Unlike the Liberals, who set up a $1 billion Canada emissions reductions agency to buy and sell domestic and international credits with taxpayer money, our government is not proceeding with this program. We will not subsidize the market and we will not create an artificial market. This market will be driven by industry and by the markets.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Exchange already has a head start with respect to establishing a carbon exchange. However, the government's hesitation and lack of clarity could very well nip this initiative in the bud.

By saying that there are still some loose ends, is the Minister of the Environment adopting a new strategy in order to move the future carbon exchange elsewhere in Canada?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, I have made the point before that the member should look at the clean air act because it sets out, in three different sections, the opportunity for the government to recognize certain kinds of tradable units. That is actually the role that the Government of Canada plays. We recognize tradable units as part of the regulatory framework.

I would encourage the Bloc members, if they would like to see an exchange, to support the clean air act.

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

The Montreal Exchange is not alone in asking for fixed targets so we do not miss the boat. Yesterday, the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion supporting the establishment of a carbon exchange in Montreal.

Is the Minister of the Environment planning to give a positive response to those who are telling her that setting greenhouse gas emission reduction targets is urgent so the carbon exchange can be established without delay?

The EnvironmentOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Edmonton—Spruce Grove Alberta

Conservative

Rona Ambrose ConservativeMinister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, it is our role, as the government, to set up the regulations in order to have an opportunity for a carbon exchange. What I am waiting for is a yes from the Bloc. We need the clean air act to pass so we can recognize certain kinds of traceable units so we can have a flexible, efficient, modern market.

I would encourage her to have her environment critic actually read the clean air act, talk to me and then we can work on it together at the legislative committee.

Federal Accountability ActOral Questions

November 8th, 2006 / 2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, the minister of evasion and non-answers failed to respond yesterday about 44 Conservatives who violated that party's empty accountable promise of last April 11 to limit contributions to $1,000.

Today, we learned of a 140 more. That is right; nearly 200 violations in total and now 200 broken promises.

Thousands of other violations will occur if the Conservative promise-breaking machine keeps smashing forward.

Will the minister confirm that these overcontributions will be returned and stopped? Will the Conservatives keep their promise of April 11, yes or no?

Federal Accountability ActOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, after a lot of thought and reflection, I want to thank the member for Ajax—Pickering for the idea. I do share his view that we need to get tougher. We need to make the federal accountability act and its campaign finance reforms retroactive to April 12.

Federal Accountability ActOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON

Mr. Speaker, yet another amendment from the Conservatives. That makes 52. Conservative senators just introduced number 51 yesterday.

Here are the choices. The Prime Minister and the minister can apologize, stop these violations and pay back the money. They can toss this promise in the garbage heap, along with all the other deceptions they made to get elected, and admit that the Conservatives' word means nothing. They can own up and admit that they pulled a fast one on Canadians. Or, are they going to say that Hansard did not catch their promise?

Will the minister keep the commitment he made to Canadians on April 11, yes, or no?

Federal Accountability ActOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ajax—Pickering says that we have choices.

I say that he has a choice. He can put up or he can shut up. He can announce that he will support our plan to make this bill retroactive. He can support our plan to make campaign finance reform retroactive.

Let us make the changes in the federal accountability act retroactive to April 12 and let us see the Liberal Party give back the 139 $5,000 donations, even from 12-year-olds, which should make the member for Eglinton—Lawrence happy.

Income TrustsOral Questions

2:45 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative income trust deception has now become an international embarrassment.

The Prime Minister promised that he would not monkey around with income trusts. Canadians and international investors actually believed him. They invested their life savings and put them away, only to get burned by this government's betrayal.

This government's deceit has hit the most vulnerable in Canada. It has impacted the international investment community.

After this falsehood and flip-flop, how can any investor ever trust the Conservative government?

Income TrustsOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite correctly identifies the fact that a large number of unit holders in income trusts were foreigners and yes they were benefiting, and arguably benefiting unfairly from this tax loophole in Canada. I understand the party opposite voting against pensioners, but now it is advocating in favour of foreigners taking advantage of the Canadian tax system.

Income TrustsOral Questions

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Dhalla Liberal Brampton—Springdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, we are not advocating on this side of the House to turn the Canadian marketplace into a banana republic.

The Conservatives are an international embarrassment for Canada when it comes to the environment and now they have damaged Canada's economic reputation on the international level. The Prime Minister created this problem himself by promising Canadians he would not tax income trusts and as a result of this double-cross, this flip-flop and deceit, innocent vulnerable Canadians have lost their life savings.

Why did the Conservatives scam innocent Canadians throughout the country?