Debates of Nov. 28th, 2007

The Environment

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is saying is that he will pretend to do something when in fact he will do nothing meaningful on climate change. His excuse is that some other countries are not doing enough. Instead of pushing the world in the right direction to do more, he will drag everyone to do less and less and less, down and down and down.

Is the Prime Minister sending his minister to Bali to sabotage Bali as the Prime Minister sabotaged the Commonwealth?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that question is coming from a leader who raised greenhouse gas emissions 35% when he was in office. Our position is to lower greenhouse gas emissions, not to raise them.

We have been absolutely clear. In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally, we must have mandatory emissions targets for all major emitters. That is the position of the Government of Canada. Shamefully, it is not the position of the Liberal Party. That is the wrong position. It is the wrong position for Canada and it is the wrong position for the globe. We are going to fight for a strong international agreement.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tackling climate change means that major emitters must sign on to binding targets, but the Prime Minister said that he will veto binding targets on anybody as long as they do not apply to everybody. This is cynicism masquerading as principle and it is abdication masquerading as leadership.

Will he reverse course now, and at Bali commit Canada to negotiate binding targets for reducing carbon pollution?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Our position is there needs to be mandatory targets for all major emitters. That is the only way we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally. We need an effective international protocol. The government will not settle for half measures. We will hold out until we get that effective protocol.

[Michael Ignatieff, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under that approach, we will get no measures at all.

Global warming will devastate the poorest countries, increase resource-based conflicts, exacerbate water shortages and increase famine and desertification.

In Bali, what concrete and specific measures will the Conservative government put forward to help poor countries?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to do something different than the Liberal Party. We are going to cut greenhouse gas emissions absolutely in Canada. We are going to go to Bali and work to secure an agreement where all major emitters are going to be required to reduce greenhouse gases.

It is interesting that the member would ask a question. This is the deputy leader of the Liberal Party who said that the man sitting beside him, the former minister of the environment, did not get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked a little earlier, the Prime Minister suggested that the Government of Quebec shared his position on climate change. I will read the proposal, the motion from the National Assembly of Quebec, “that the National Assembly express its disagreement regarding the position of the Canadian Government on climate change—”

Does the Prime Minister think that when the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously expresses its disagreement, that means it shares his position?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I was citing the position of Quebec's environment minister, who said all major emitters in the world should have mandatory targets. That is the position of the Government of Canada. Any other position will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that would be irresponsible.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaking of irresponsible, when the Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition, in every debate on the Kyoto protocol the Bloc Québécois pressured the Liberals to accept it, and the Prime Minister pressured them to reject it. He was protecting the oil companies, saying that it was a socialist conspiracy and that there was no science behind climate change.

Will he admit that he is doing exactly the same thing today that he was doing from the opposition benches? He is trying to put a different, yet equally hypocritical, spin on this than he did when he was on this side of the House.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this Conservative government has stopped subsidizing the tar sands. It was this government who did that.

In all the years the Bloc Québécois has been here, it has not reduced a single ton of greenhouse gas emissions. The only thing the Bloc Québécois can do is put on its show here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the National Assembly of Quebec took a stand today and the Bloc Québécois will take a stand next week in Bali.

That is why the Conservatives are refusing to invite the opposition parties to Bali. The Conservatives are afraid we on this side of the House will stand up and reveal their strategy to the world, a strategy that consists in helping the oil companies instead of the environment.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking action. We are acting in a number of ways. We are regulating large companies, which has never been done before. We are working very hard with the provinces. We have given $350 million to Quebec to help it implement its climate change plan. These are things that the Bloc never did in 13 long years.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government's approach is unacceptable.

The question is simple: will the government abandon its fatalistic, do-nothing approach and will it shoulder its responsibilities as France has done, invite its partners to the international table and promise to make commitments and set binding targets to fight climate change?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that any agreement to fight climate change include targets that apply to everyone, not just Europe and Canada, but also the United States and countries like China and India. That is this government's position. It is also the position of Line Beauchamp, Quebec's environment minister. It is also the position of André Pratte of La Presse. Only the Bloc Québécois does not want to do anything in the vast majority of countries. We are taking action across Canada.

Airbus

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious matter when a minister misleads a committee of the House. When the Minister of Justice said that he could not suspend Mr. Schreiber's extradition order, he made either an error in judgment, or just an error. The NDP will raise this question of privilege in committee. Nevertheless, the minister can rectify the situation right now. He can take this opportunity to admit his mistake.

Will he admit that he misled people? Will he say that he really does have the powers—

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. Minister of Justice.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will do no such thing. We all get legal advice on these matters.

I did indicate to the committee that I would cooperate. I see it has taken a process in place, which was suggested by me yesterday and, indeed, was suggested by his member, the member for Winnipeg Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not good enough. The facts are very simple. Every day Canadians are tired of the scandals of the Conservatives, then the Liberals and then the Conservatives, and it goes back and forth. They are tired of the delaying tactics.

Let us look at the facts. Mr. Schreiber is coming to the committee tomorrow, but he is being extradited the very next day.

The terms of reference for the inquiry will not even be available until January 11. The minister says that he does not have any powers to stop the extradition, but the facts are clear. He has those powers.

Does the minister truly intend to face the House on this matter?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the ultimate question of the leader of the NDP is. The Minister of Justice will obviously not comment, and neither will anybody in the government comment, on an issue that is before the courts.

In terms of the hearings tomorrow, the Minister of Justice has been completely cooperative in that regard. I think we are all very interested to hear the testimony, and I hope those hearings tomorrow will be a credit to Parliament.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice showed utter contempt for Parliament when he refused to use the power clearly available to him and to him alone under the Extradition Act. Just think of that. Parliament had to trump the Minister of Justice to ensure the appearance of Karlheinz Schreiber before the ethics committee.

After the ethics committee is done, what assurance is there that Mr. Schreiber will stay in Canada to appear before a public inquiry? Will the minister do his duty, or is he determined to silence Schreiber and ship him out of the country before the public inquiry can be held?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the legal advice I received from the Liberal Party was to the effect that I was to deliver someone else's client without a bail hearing from a provincial correctional institute. The Liberals finally have taken the advice of the member for Winnipeg Centre, and they should let that process take place.

The Prime Minister has set in place a process for a public inquiry. Yesterday we were served by the counsel for the individual with an application for a stay/leave and that will be heard on Friday.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister claims he does not have the power to effect the surrender order to send Mr. Schreiber to Germany. If that is true, by what power did the minister act to prevent Schreiber being shipped to Germany before December 1?

Where is that authority in the law, and if it can be used for December 1, why can it not also be used to keep Schreiber in Canada until he testifies at a public inquiry? If the minister did it once, why not again, why not for the public inquiry?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of interfering with the processes here or in the committee of the House. The court proceeding, as I indicated, will take place before the court of appeal on Friday.

I received a lot of legal advice. A couple of weeks ago the Liberals wanted me to release tax information on an individual. I appreciate getting legal advice from the Liberal Party because usually that is what one is not supposed to do.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, section 42 of the Extradition Act is very clear. It says, “The Minister may amend a surrender order at any time before its execution”. As the legal counsel to Parliament said yesterday, it is not a long sentence, it is not a complicated sentence. Section 42 of the act is crystal clear and gives the minister all the authority he needs. The minister's denials are patently false.

Why will he not ensure Schreiber stays for the public inquiry? Why is he so determined to shut him up and ship him out?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Liberals were all in a lather about getting an individual before a committee of Parliament, with the help of the Speaker's warrant. Apparently that individual is on his way. I would think they would be happy about that, but apparently not.

They wanted a public inquiry. When they got a public inquiry, they were not happy about that. This individual has legal advice. The matter will be heard before the court of appeal on Friday, and we should let that take its course.