Debates of June 7th, 2006

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply today to the question asked by the honourable member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley on May 12.

The honourable member was concerned about the EnerGuide program and other programs implemented by the previous government to deal with climate change.

I would like to remind the honourable member that the Minister of Finance has committed $2 billion to the environment and energy efficiency in the budget tabled a few weeks ago. In that budget $380 million is allocated to the climate change program. It is a significant investment.

We believe that such an investment would be put to better use and give better results than the moneys spent by the previous government. Our government is committed to pursuing new avenues in the area of climate change policies. We want to establish a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a plan that will take into account the economic, social and environmental context of our country. We want to establish a plan to ensure that we have clean air, water, soil and energy for Canadians, and an effective and realistic approach to climate change issues for Canada. It is not enough to follow in the footsteps of the previous government, that is, to make an international commitment without adopting a plan to implement it and without determining the repercussions for Canada. We have seen the results of that approach.

Several years after the Liberal government brought in programs and spent hundreds of millions of dollars on climate change initiatives, we are still a long way from producing meaningful results and honouring our commitments.

The Liberals were aiming at a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Today, Canada's emissions are 35% above that target. It is time to restructure our climate change programs. It is time for practical solutions.

The budget contains $380 million for climate change initiatives. This is the same amount the previous government allocated. But now we have to find the best way to use that money to have the greatest impact on climate change. Some existing programs can be tailored to our strategy. In other cases, though, we will have to see whether taxpayers' money can be better used to support the new strategy. All the climate change initiatives are being reviewed to ensure that they produce real results for Canada.

After examining the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program, the government concluded that taxpayers' money could be better used and allocated to initiatives that will have a greater impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the program ended at midnight on May 12, 2006. Homeowners who had an evaluation performed under the EnerGuide for houses program still qualify for a grant provided that they make the residential energy upgrades and meet all the program requirements by March 31, 2007.

The government is working on a new strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The various ministers responsible will announce specific initiatives in the weeks and months to come. The House will see the wisdom of investing in programs that will have a real impact on air and water quality and energy efficiency for Canadians.

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

That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That party supported this program. Those members supported it unanimously. This has saved Canadians over $650 million net. It is a program that has proved to be successful on a number of ideas for Canadians, with average help of $750 a year for people who truly need it.

Even the member for St. John's East, back in 2003, said in a question to the House:

In order to qualify for a grant, however, a homeowner must have an evaluation done of his home by an authorized agent. There were no authorized agents in place in Newfoundland and Labrador in August. There are none now...will the minister put an authorized agent in place--

The Conservatives knew about it, but what has happened is that there has been a bit of a bait and switch program going on here. They did not cost out their election promises, and as a result, they have cut a very good program. They have cut it deeply and have hurt the very Canadians who not only are making a contribution to energy reduction, but are helping to stave off cold winters. This program was able to help them during difficult times.

This is a very callous idea from a minister who clearly cannot articulate why he did it. He was told to do it and unfortunately many Canadians are suffering as a result of it. Shame on that. When is the minister going to stand up and tell us when this program is going to be reintroduced immediately to help those he has left high and dry?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of developing a plan to reduce greenhouse gases that will meet the particular needs of Canadians.

In the meantime, the government manages some 95 different programs that address climate change. These programs will continue in the current fiscal year and temporary financial assistance will be available. The ministers concerned will make relevant announcements on specific programs.

From the beginning we realized that some programs were not achieving the desired results. The One Tonne Challenge, for example, is a marketing campaign that was implemented by the previous government. We do not want to adopt that approach. We want to use taxpayers' money in a way that will achieve the best results. We want to implement more effective and efficient programs to reduce emissions. We will continue to review current activities and support those that work.

Furthermore, we are planning to add new activities that will help improve performance for all Canadians. We are committed to establishing a strategy that will ensure the quality of air, water, soil and energy for generations to come, and we will follow through.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being here this evening to answer my simple question.

Members have had the privilege of acting on behalf of their constituents when they needed urgent passports. These urgent passports were normally required when there was a sickness or death in the family and the passport was needed within a 10 day period. Individuals living in northern and rural areas however have no ready access to a passport office.

I know that individuals living in an urban area would normally receive their passport in 20 days, but this service is not available to those individuals living in remote areas. The government has set up an office through Service Canada in my own community. I am really concerned about individuals living in northern and remote areas who have to drive sometimes 8 to 12 hours to get to the closest passport office. These individuals can no longer get support from their members of Parliament.

I do not understand the change in policy that the government has brought forward. I wonder if the government understands the impact this policy is having and its discriminatory nature. I believe this is now creating a two tier system, one for constituents who live in large centres where there is a passport office nearby and one for constituents who live in northern and remote areas who do not have a passport office. Somebody in a big centre like Toronto can just jump on a subway, catch a bus or take a taxi to a passport office, whereas those individuals living in remote areas face greater difficulties.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could inform me as to whether or not the government understands the difficulty this has created. I wonder if it has come up with any resolution to this problem.

The minister suggested that I bring all of my cases to him, and I have brought a couple in the last few weeks. I was hoping, in the weeks since I asked my question, that perhaps there would be some clearer understanding and some policy changes made. I was also hoping some direction would be given to members who want to serve our constituents in this way.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this issue to Parliament. As members of Parliament we both know how important it is to assist our constituents when they are dealing with federal government issues. I am very happy to note that he is working very hard for his constituents. The member has highlighted an issue that he says is creating some problems.

Last April the Auditor General in her report on passport services, which was tabled in Parliament, specifically raised the importance of further analyzing security and privacy issues in regard to the services provided by members of Parliament.

In direct response to this observation, a new policy guideline regarding the roles and responsibilities of members of Parliament and the passport office were introduced on April 1, 2006 to address increased security and privacy requirements.

Since September 11, 2001 we all know that security has been highlighted due to the threats from terrorists. As Canadian passports have become attractive to those people, we naturally have had to introduce these new security measures, as has been pointed out by the Auditor General.

Passport Canada values the services provided by members of Parliament and is committed to working with MPs to provide services to Canadians. Passport Canada has a section dedicated to ensure that service requests from members of Parliament are actioned effectively and efficiently.

The normal standard of service for an application submitted through the office of a member of Parliament is 20 working days. For exceptional cases where a passport is required in less than 20 working days for humanitarian and compassionate reasons or imminent travel business, members of Parliament are to contact the MP section of Passport Canada during normal working hours. After hours, emergency services are available through a network of duty officers.

Passport Canada will take appropriate action on a case by case basis to assist any Canadian who legitimately requires a passport on an urgent basis regardless of where they reside. These cases are exceptional and will be dealt with accordingly. Past history has shown that these cases represent less than 1% of requests received through members of Parliament.

It is important to bear in mind that even in exceptional cases, a personal appearance before a Passport Canada officer is an integral part of the security and integrity of the passport issuing process. This measure is intended to authenticate the identity of Canadians applying for a passport and to reduce the risk of identity fraud by allowing for an immediate and thorough verification of the identity.

Each member of Parliament has been provided with a comprehensive guide to assist with processing passport applications.

A Passport Canada guide for members of Parliament is available. Detailed information of the service locations can be found in this guide. Information on passport services provided by members of Parliament is also available on the Passport Canada MP website. An information session hosted by Passport Canada for members of Parliament and their staff has been held and more sessions will follow.

I would like to assure the member that our objective is to improve security while maintaining the level of client service through multiple business channels. Passport Canada continues to be committed to--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the answer. It does not sound like the government fully understands the inconvenience that this will create for literally thousands of people, particularly constituents in the rural, northern and remote areas that many of us in this place represent. We are trying to help our constituents get the services that are available to literally millions of Canadians who happen to live in larger centres where there is a passport office.

I understand the security issues. We hear about them here all the time. However, security should not always trump our need to provide service to our constituents who are upstanding law-abiding Canadian citizens who simply want the same service that others are getting.

The requirement that a person appear in person before a passport officer to get an urgent passport is inconsistent with the process that is in place. Every year thousands of people mail in their applications and documentation and receive their passports through the mail and there is no requirement for a face to face meeting with anybody. I do not understand where in that instance it is okay, but in the instance where--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in brief response, I am sure the member does not want us not to follow the Auditor General's recommendations. She has raised the concern of security and the concern of verifying the information.

With regard to the member's concern, it would be best for all Canadians that we all work together to address the issues that have been raised and to come up with a satisfactory answer so that we can provide services to his office and to his constituents.

It would be better for all of us to have a dialogue to see how members of Parliament can resolve the issue, but take into account the other issues highlighted by the Auditor General, such as security.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:31 p.m.)