Debates of May 16th, 2006

The Environment

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the international community knows that not only Canada, but the international community in general will not reach the Kyoto targets. That is why we are taking part in talks to achieve better results in future. It was the former government that decided to accept targets that it was unable to reach and did not try to reach. In future, this government will take action instead.

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

Mr. Speaker, instead of taking a page from the Americans' book, the government should learn from Europe, which has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions, and Germany, which has already reached its target. It would do better to learn from these countries.

This evening, the House of Commons will vote on a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to meet the Kyoto protocol targets. When he was the leader of the official opposition, the Prime Minister frequently criticized the Liberal government because it did not abide by votes of the House of Commons.

Now that he is on the other side of the House, does the Prime Minister intend to abide by the members' decision on the Kyoto protocol, as expressed in the vote this evening?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois motion is not an action plan, but this government intends to create an action plan.

The hon. member and leader of the Bloc Québécois talks about the international community and Kyoto. The reality is that India, China, the United States, Australia and Mexico have no targets and will not reach the Kyoto targets. That is why we are working with the international community: to get real results.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada lost face yesterday at the Bonn conference on climate change since the government rejected the Kyoto protocol and the minister was not able to fool anyone with her laissez-faire strategy.

Will this government acknowledge that by rejecting the Kyoto protocol it has shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it has chosen the other strategy, the laissez-faire strategy of President Bush?

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister's meetings in Bonn were very successful. The minister had the opportunity to put Canada's position forward in an honest and forthright manner to ensure our international partners understood that the mess was provided by the former Liberal government.

The international partners are supportive of our commitment to provide a made in Canada plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we do not have the same perspective on the conference.

By abandoning the Kyoto protocol and adopting the Bush administrations's strategy—one that permits targets to be met on a voluntary basis—is the Prime Minister not aligning himself more than ever with the oil companies, and singling himself out as the one who gave in to the oil lobby against the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, our international partners are very supportive of our made in Canada plan. The minister had the opportunity to share--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I can hear a lot of supplementary questions, but we are getting the answer to the first supplementary now. Hon. members will have to wait their turn to ask questions later. The parliamentary secretary has the floor for an answer and members will want to hear him.

All the members want to hear him. Order, please.

The honourable parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister had the opportunity to share in Bonn our commitment to show real action on this issue. With the first part of our made in Canada plan, our renewable fuels strategy will be launched next week in Regina.

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, in days following the last election, the government, without any consultation, doubled our commitment of troops in Afghanistan to 2,000 men and women. Then the Minister of National Defence had to indicate that “because of this decision, Canada is greatly challenged for a substantial commitment elsewhere”.

When making this decision, did the Prime Minister realize that this would render Canada incapable of responding to other situations in the world in making other commitments, including peacekeeping? If not, why not?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

First, Mr. Speaker, the government did not make the decision to send the troops that are there today. That was made by the former government, although we support that decision and support our troops in the field.

We understand that a commitment of this magnitude creates some real constraints on our ability elsewhere. At the moment, however, including the situation in Sudan, we do not expect the need for large scale commitments of Canadian troops elsewhere. That is why we will ask the House tomorrow to back our decision to continue to send a significant Canadian contingent to Afghanistan and to accomplish the work of the international community there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is confirming that we will indeed be compromised in our ability to respond to large scale situations elsewhere in the world. It is important that all Canadians know that.

For months, the Prime Minister has been saying that there is no need for a vote on Afghanistan because there is no new mission. Now we learn there is to be a vote on the situation in Afghanistan and our involvement.

Is tomorrow night an about face on the Prime Minister's policy or are we dealing with a new mission? By the way, does he believe that providing 36 hours of notice for a debate on a two year commitment of our troops is the proper way to make foreign policy?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada, unfortunately, has never actually taken a position through a vote on this issue. It is appropriate that it do so at some time. Members of the House and the parties of the House have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward.

Yes, it is a large and important commitment. What we are doing there is not just protecting our national interest. We are providing international leadership and some real advancement to the standard of living and to the human rights of the Afghan people. These are important things for which Canada should stand.

The Environment

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our international reputation should be important to this government. Yet, it suffered a serious blow yesterday in Bonn. Despite everything, this government stubbornly clings to its made-in-the-U.S.A. policy of inaction.

The German environment minister publicly denounced the Canadian Minister of the Environment, saying that, with six years still to go before reaching the Kyoto targets, Canada should not be throwing in the towel.

Yesterday, it was Senegal. Today it is Germany. How long can this government go on tarnishing Canada's reputation internationally?

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

Mr. Speaker, after the environment minister shared the mess that the Liberal government left this country in with regard to the environment, it now understands our position.

Our renewable fuel strategy is the first part of our made in Canada plan and the fulfillment of this government's commitment to put Canadians first. This government is developing a made in Canada plan that will have real results and achievable results on the environment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not be fooled. Here are some headlines from today's newspapers. From the daily Le Devoir: “Canada loses face in Bonn”. From La Presse: “Climate change: Berlin snubs Canada”.

Yesterday, the German environment minister said that Canada could still meet its Kyoto targets.

Why did this government cancel made-in-Canada programs such as EnerGuide and replace them with a made-in-the-U.S.A. policy of giving up?

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

Mr. Speaker, the real question is: Why did that party keep from the Canadian public what was happening on the Kyoto targets? It knew for the last five years that those targets were not achievable and that it was 35% above those targets. Why did that party keep that from the Canadian public?

EnerGuide Program

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Natural Resources said that nearly half of every dollar spent on the EnerGuide program was used to pay for home inspections and overhead costs and was never distributed to homeowners.

According to the minister's rationale, should program officials have set up a tent on a street corner to distribute cheques to every passerby?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

No, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the old Liberal Party decided to stand on street corners and hand out cheques as we saw through many of its programs. Quite often they were envelopes of cash.

The facts are with EnerGuide that 50¢ of every dollar went to administration inspections. That is not efficient for an energy efficient program and that is not how this government is going to do business.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was referring to the affair under Mr. Mulroney with respect to Airbus.

Let me ask the hon. member if I could actually do the same thing for what it is worth.

The minister assured me that Canadians who were already approved for funding before the budget cut the EnerGuide program would still receive their grant. Why then is his department website saying that this is subject to the availability of funding?

Will Canadians who are approved by his own department get their funding or not? Will the hon. minister now explain this contradiction?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wants to stand up and talk about scandals and affairs, the list from his own party is very long. From the sponsorship program, to HRDC, to the gun registry, the list goes on and on. The old Liberal Party had a reputation for creating billion dollar programs with no accountability.

This party is committed to accountability. With respect to EnerGuide, anybody who is in the program we will honour that commitment.

Francophonie

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to embarrassing us internationally at the conference on the environment, the government is making the headlines around the world because of its unacceptable treatment of the secretary general of la Francophonie. Canada's behaviour has been criticized in Le Figaro, Le Monde and the magazine Jeune Afrique, among others.

How can the Government of Canada remain indifferent to a formal request for an apology from the government of Senegal?

[Josée Verner, Conservative, Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Diouf repeated many times that the federal and provincial authorities had given him a warm welcome. He was particularly pleased with the outcome of the conference in which representatives of francophone governments from around the world took part. This is what we should remember about the conference.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member opposite that Mr. Diouf is not the government of Senegal and that it is indeed the government of Senegal, through its ambassador, that is calling for an apology.

Since 1988, under the Agence de la Francophonie and the Institut de l'énergie et de l'environnement de la Francophonie Privileges and Immunities Order and the Vienna convention, the Government of Canada accords diplomatic status to officials of la Francophonie.

Will the government acknowledge that, had its minister been present to welcome the secretary general, the regrettable conduct could have been avoided—