House of Commons Hansard #29 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ports.
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, the science is clear. We received four substantive reports from the United Nations panel this year; all are yet another stronger case and call to action.
We saw far too many reports and far too little action from the previous government. That is why we are going to take real action in Canada, an absolute 20% reduction by 2020. We are going to do something remarkable. We are actually going to call on all the other countries in the world to join Canada in taking real action.
The EnvironmentOral Questions
December 3rd, 2007 / 2:20 p.m.
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville Québec
Liberal
Stéphane Dion LiberalLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, everybody has said that the minister will not reach his targets, and he knows that. The Prime Minister--
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. We have to be able to hear the question.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that Canada will not move unless everybody moves. This all or nothing stance is a recipe for failure.
Is the government taking this stance on purpose to derail the Bali conference, to sabotage it, to use it as a further excuse for the government to do nothing?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, it is just a bit rich to have that member of Parliament, a former minister of the environment, the man whose own deputy leader said he did not get it done, lecture this government on targets. It is just a bit rich.
We are committed to real action in Canada, real action to reduce absolutely by 20% the greenhouse gas emissions in this country. We will succeed where the previous government failed.
Michael Ignatieff Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, the government is going to Bali refusing to commit to any carbon pollution targets unless everyone signs on. That is like saying, “I won't recycle unless every one does. I won't pick up litter unless everyone does. I won't stop dumping garbage in the lake unless everyone does”. What kind of Canada have we become when that passes for international leadership?
Will the government wake up, reverse course and commit to binding targets at Bali?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to commit to binding targets in any forum around the world. We are committed to an absolute 20% reduction. We are prepared to make those numbers binding. But we also need other major countries in the world to act too. Yvo de Boer, the head of the United Nations effort in this regard, said just the other day, “To design a long term response to climate change that does not include the world's largest emitter and the world's largest economy just would not make any sense”. I agree.
Michael Ignatieff Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment is deluding himself when he says that the Conservative government has imposed binding targets in Canada.
He needs to explain something to us. If it believes so firmly in its targets, why is the government not insisting on the same targets in Bali? Is it because it wants to sabotage the entire process?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we think it is wrong to sign on to any accord that would see global emissions of greenhouse gases double by 2050.
Let us look at the deputy leader of the Liberal Party. He said, on May 23, 2006:
I think our party has got into a mess on the environment. As a practical matter of politics, nobody knows what (Kyoto) is or what it commits us to.
He also said, in a very celebrated exchange with his leader, “We didn't get it done”.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in Bali, the UN is recommending that the international community limit to two degrees the increase in the Earth's temperature in order to prevent the irreversible and dangerous consequences of climate change. An internal note from Department of Foreign Affairs states that Canada is preparing to reject the UN's recommendation, describing the two degree threshold as “scientifically uncertain.”
The UN proposal is based on political and scientific consensus. Does the government realize that it is once again being dogmatic and denying the existence of climate change?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we think it is mandatory for all wealthy countries like Canada, and the major emitters like China, India and the United States, to take action together. This is absolutely essential if we want to win the fight against global warming.
Our government is taking action. For 13 long years we saw absolutely no progress in this fight.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, in its note, the Department of Foreign Affairs admits that the two degree threshold set by Europe was beneficial and allowed targets to be implemented accordingly.
Is the minister saying that what is good for Europe is not good for Canada? Is he saying that a standard he considers effective for fighting climate change in Europe is “scientifically uncertain” when it applies to Canada?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, we have received four reports from the United Nations that are the fruit of much work and great scientific cooperation. The reports mention that the planet has already warmed up by 0.6 ºC. That is why we must take action. We cannot wait for that number to increase to 2 ºC. It is time to take action right now.
For the first time, the Government of Canada is taking action. It is establishing regulations for industry and many other programs and initiatives. What is more, we have encouraged Quebec to take action as well.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment says that it is time for action, yet he is preparing to do everything he can to scuttle the Bali conference.
Even though the consensus in the international scientific community is that temperature increases must be limited to two degrees to avoid climate change that is irreversible and dangerous to humankind, the Minister of the Environment is disregarding that consensus and using supposed scientific uncertainty to shirk his responsibilities.
Will the minister acknowledge and admit that all this double-talk and all these pretexts have one aim: not to disappoint his friends, the oil companies?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely clear that any agreement to fight climate change must include targets for all countries, especially such large emitters as China, India and the United States. That is this government's position. It is also the position of Line Beauchamp, Quebec's environment minister, as well as the Charest government and Pierre Marc Johnson.
Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is wrong, because the National Assembly passed a motion criticizing this government last week.
Having excluded the opposition from the delegation, the minister has now obtained an analysis from Foreign Affairs that conveniently questions the international consensus, and he is going back to square one by denying the scientific evidence of global warming.
Is it not true that the real reason the minister has refused to include the opposition in the Canadian delegation in Bali is that he is afraid he will be unmasked in front of the entire international community?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.
It is imperative that we not wait for temperatures to rise by two degrees. We must act now. That is why we are acting. That is why we are working with the provinces. That is also why we are regulating large industries, something that has never happened since the Bloc Québécois came to Ottawa.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, judging by its responses today in this House, the government clearly rejects the scientific evidence and the UN's European position that a two-degree limit on the rise in global temperatures is essential.
But the government has rejected this proposal. It has accepted a proposal to have a range of targets. What is that? What does that mean? This is a serious question: two degrees, yes or no?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, a rise of 2° in the earth's temperature as a result of human activity contributing to global warming, simply put, is unacceptable.
We have received four reports from the United Nations panel this year that talk about 0.6% rise, which has already taken place. The call to action by scientists worldwide, many of whom are Canadian, means that we have to act now and we cannot act alone. We need others aboard to join us in this global battle to protect the planet.
This government is acting. This government is going to get the job done. This government is going to take that message to Indonesia.
Jack Layton NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canada is losing its credibility. The government claims that it wants to continue to be part of the UN process, but this process outlines penalties for countries that do not make the grade, do not achieve what they promise the world that they would achieve.
We have had years of inaction from the Liberals, months of complacency by the Conservatives and now what we get is rhetoric.
My question for the government is simply this. Will Canada take a position in Bali that it will honour its obligations under Kyoto? Will it accept the penalties that are imposed and will it insist that the big polluters here, oil and gas companies, pay their share?
John Baird ConservativeMinister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, half of that question should probably be put to the Liberal leader. He is the person who did not get the job done with respect to meeting Canada's international obligations.
I cannot take responsibility for the failures of the previous administration. We are prepared to take responsibility for cleaning up the mess in which Canada finds itself. We are taking real action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We want to stabilize them within the next three to five years and then see an absolute reduction by 20% by 2020.
This is real action. This is the first time our country has seen it on the environment in a long time.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the previous industry minister was opposed to wireless auction set-asides. Then Brian Mulroney called the minister to set up a meeting for Pierre Karl Péladeau to try to change the minister's mind.
Was the minister shuffled out of industry because he refused to give a billion dollar taxpayer gift to help out Brian Mulroney's company?
Jim Prentice ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that I am the minister who made the spectrum decision. He knows or he should know that I never met or talked with Mr. Mulroney at any time on any occasion about telecommunications or spectrum.
The real question is the hon. member for Kings—Hants seems to be the only one who is opposed to more competition, to more choice and to lower prices.
That member, of all people in the House, should know the value of BlackBerry messaging in a timely way. I can only assure him that I think he will be happy very soon.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, we will be happy because we will be sitting on the government side of the House.
The fact is that Canadian auto parts makers are asking for $400 million in emergency loans just to survive. This industry minister has said no.
How could the minister say no to manufacturing, auto and forestry workers, who are losing their jobs, and say yes to a billion dollar taxpayer gift to wealthy Canadian media families? Do you have to hire Brian Mulroney to set up meetings for you just to get some help from the government?