Debates of Feb. 1st, 2007

Opposition Motion—The Environment

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick series of questions for the minister, and I thank him for his remarks although I disagree with them wholeheartedly.

First, can the minister comment on former Prime Minister Joe Clark's comments as reported in the Montreal Gazette today? The report states explicitly that:

He also cited the Harper government's repudiation of the Kyoto climate control treaty, signed by the previous Liberal administration--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will remind the hon. member for Ottawa South that we do not refer to other members by their surnames. We use either their titles or riding names.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I did not refer to another member.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I believe I heard you use the Prime Minister's name.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do you mean the former prime minister, Joe Clark?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I thought I heard you say the name of the Prime Minister.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No.

[Some hon. members]

You did.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will check the blues, but it never hurts to be reminded.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I will start again, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the correction.

Let me ask the minister directly, quoting from the Montreal Gazette today. This is a comment that is attributed to the former prime minister of Canada, Joe Clark. It states:

He also cited the Harper government's repudiation of the Kyoto--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. That time I know I heard it. Even if hon. members quote reports or newspaper articles, it is still important to remember that rule. Let us try to wrap this up as quickly as possible.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it states:

He also cited the [new] government's repudiation of the Kyoto climate control treaty, signed by the previous Liberal administration.

Former Prime Minister Joe Clark says:

There is no question that it injured our international reputation.

Can the minister please explain to Canadians why a former prime minister and leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada would make such a statement?

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what is happening here is that we have inherited an abysmal mess from the old Liberal Party. Its record on the environment was disastrous. Greenhouse gases skyrocketed under the old Liberal Party. There is no question that we have an enormous amount of heavy lifting to do on the environment because of the mess we inherited.

Even if greenhouses gases had held the line, or if they had gone up by even 5% by the time we took over the government, we would have had a fighting chance, but they went up 35%. The Liberals did nothing. In less than one year, we have committed $2 billion on energy programs that will directly reduce greenhouse gases. That money will be invested in new technology to clean up conventional energy. We will be putting clean renewable energy on the grid, more wind energy and things like tidal energy, and we are encouraging Canadians across the country to do their share as well through energy efficiency.

The Liberal government did not get the job done. We are delivering with concrete results and real action.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister of Natural Resources that his party has already been in power for more than a year and all that we have seen and heard has been criticisms of the Liberal party.

Let me tell the minister that we are fed up with listening to this criticism of the Liberal party. We know that they did nothing. They did not do anything, period. That is all.

However, that is not my question. Here is my question. Will the minister share with us the foundation and details of his philosophy that he is using to establish his new energy plan? In particular, how does it deal with natural resources? Will his plan be based on the polluter-pays or the government-pays approach? The two are very different, and I would be very anxious to hear the minister give a clear answer to the question.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member is looking for what we have done. In our first year of office, let me reiterate, we have made a huge investment to increase public transit ridership. We have brought in mandatory renewable fuel content. We have brought in $2 billion of energy efficiency programs. We have brought in half a billion dollars to address nuclear liability cleanup. We have put money into parks and we have restored parks. We have put $30 million in British Columbia toward the rain forests. We put in $300 million over four years for a chemical management plan, which is something that has never been done.

All of these are very substantive and concrete results.

As for the last question, absolutely, the polluter will pay, without question. If members look at our clean air act, they will see that we have made it very clear. Early in 2007, sometime in the first session, we will be bringing in short term and medium term targets, but we want to get the targets right. We want to consult with all the sectors and--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. If the hon. member for Mississauga South can keep his comment or question very brief, I will allow one more.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Action plan 2001, $1.1 billion in funding; action plan 2002, an additional $400 million; climate change plan 2005, another committed $10 billion by 2012; the climate fund, $1 billion; the partnership fund, $250 million; the one tonne challenge, $120 million; EnerGuide; and the $1.8 billion for the renewable power. Those are all items the Liberal government brought forward. The member has misled Canadians by saying that there was nothing done. In fact--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Natural Resources has less than 30 seconds to respond.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member was right when he said “we committed”. They did commit but they did not deliver. I am reading from their own budget plan of 2005: $200 million over the next five years for renewable energy. I checked up on it. They never spent a dollar. They did not get the job done.

A $200 million investment for sustainable technology for conventional energy. Guess how much money they spent? Not a dollar.

Yes, they made commitments and, yes, they gave promises but they did not get the job done.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to debate one of the most important issues that Canadians face in the 21st century, global warming and climate change.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.

The motion that stands before us reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reduction system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

My colleagues in the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party have supported the Kyoto protocol since it was first negotiated in 1997. In a nutshell, the Kyoto protocol represents an international treaty that recognizes the scientific fact that increased emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and water vapour, are present in the atmosphere due to both natural processes and human activities. Greenhouse gases help to regulate our climate by trapping heat from the sun in the lower atmosphere, warmth that would otherwise escape back into space. This greenhouse gas effect keeps the average temperature on earth at approximately 15°C. However, over the past 200 years increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have accumulated as a result of human activity, mostly from burning fossil fuels, oil, coal and natural gas.

In Canada, the growth of greenhouse gas emissions are attributed to increased coal consumption for electricity and steam generation, growth in fossil fuel production that is largely for export and increases in energy consumption arising from transportation needs.

There are some people, however, who continue to blindly deny scientific facts and prefer to bury their heads in the oil sands. One person in particular, the current Prime Minister, has yet to publicly acknowledge the science of climate change and global warming.

In fact, when the Conservatives outlined their five priorities in the last election, I can assure the House that the environment did not even make it on to the list.

This week we were reminded of that when we learned that our current Prime Minister, who once served as leader of the Canadian Alliance Party, publicly stated that:

Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.

He used this appeal as a fundraiser for his party claiming that:

The Reform Party defeated the Charlottetown Accord in an epic struggle in the fall of 1992. Now the Canadian Alliance is leading the battle against the Kyoto Accord.

It is no wonder recent polls show that Canadians have a hard time swallowing the Prime Minister's sudden conversion to environmentalism. It is much more likely that the Prime Minister is embracing political opportunism and simply fueling public cynicism.

Today, 40% of Canadians rate the Conservative government's track record on the environment as poor. Why is that? It is because one of the first acts of the Conservative government was to dismantle all the environmental initiatives launched by the previous Liberal government.

In 2005, we had a comprehensive plan set in place but the Conservatives quickly cancelled project green. They cancelled the one tonne challenge that asked ordinary Canadians to do what they could to reduce their consumption of energy. They cancelled the popular EnerGuide program that gave homeowners grants to improve their energy efficiency. They cancelled funding for scientific research aimed at sustainable development.

However, the Conservatives love to repeat the monotonous mantra that the Liberals achieved nothing on the environment file in 13 years of government.

I would like to remind the Conservatives that it was a Liberal government that joined with 168 other countries in the world to sign the Kyoto protocol in 1997. It was a Liberal government that introduced the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in 1999. It was also a Liberal government that ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002.

Last October, the former environment minister introduced the clean air act which quickly went over like a lead balloon with Canadians. In fact, less than two months after introducing this flimsy document, the environment minister was quickly sacked by the Conservatives. The so-called clean air act is completely unnecessary because the federal government already has all the legislative authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, we collects information on greenhouse gases through three departments and three key pieces of legislation: Environment Canada under the authority of the 1999 Canadian Environmental Protection Act; StatsCanada under the authority of the Statistics Act; and the Alberta environment department under the climate change and emissions act.

Canadians know that the clean air act is nothing more than a political ploy. The fact is that the Liberal government had an eight year, $10 billion plan called project green. The Conservatives, in a zealous pursuit of their ideological rhetoric, cancelled everything.They have been in office now for more than one year and Canada still does not have a plan to reduce greenhouse gases or deal with climate change.

By abandoning the Kyoto protocol, the Conservatives have severely damaged our international reputation by ignoring international law and our international commitments to 168 other countries.

We cannot afford to waste another year playing politics with the environment. Canadians will not tolerate this kind of behaviour and will remember the Conservatives dithering on the most important challenge facing the planet.

I ask that instead of declaring war on the Kyoto protocol, the Prime Minister should focus his energy on working with the international community, working with other parties in this minority Parliament and working with Canadians to leave an environment legacy that generations of future Canadians will inherit.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my Liberal friend could answer some questions.

The member talked about a time of minority government in the House, but from 1993 to 2004 the Liberals had an absolute majority in the House. They could have done anything it wanted. They were unstoppable, other than the fact that they did not know how to move ahead.

We have a number of plans on which we clearly want to move ahead. We recognize that we are a minority government but we have already been able to move ahead on these plans. We have invested $1.6 billion in the ecoenergy renewable initiative over 14 years which will open up all forms of clean, renewable energy, such as wind, small scale hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal and tidal. It has the effect of adding up to 4,000 megawatts of new, clean electricity.

The same result would be had if a million cars were taken off the road in terms of us implementing this plan. The ecoenergy technology initiative, $230 million over four years, a total investment in S and T and energy related areas to $1.5 billion, and $300 million over four years in the energy efficiency initiative dealing with increasing energy efficiency in homes and buildings.

I wonder if the member opposite could help us by putting aside the rhetoric of who said what when. These plans are on the table now and we would like to move ahead on them. For some reason, which we do not understand, for the 11 years that the Liberals had an absolute majority they did nothing.

From the lessons of their failures, could the Liberals share with us what stopped them so that we can move ahead? Will they be supporting us in these initiatives?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for 11 years we had to clean up the Mulroney mess. The Conservatives left the country in a financial disaster. The former Liberal government had to first get that mess out of the way. This is another mess that the Conservative government will be putting this country into. It deleted the whole environment program and deleted $5.1 billion. Then the Minister of Natural Resources was proud of the fact that he put in place $2.1 billion.

The government has no credibility. The Prime Minister keeps calling Kyoto as being something of a socialist nature that is sucking funds out of the wealthy nations. Canadians do not believe the validity of the Conservative government.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would like to address several questions to my colleague. I am pleased to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. Does my colleague know what percentage of the experts who appeared before the committee told us that the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol could be achieved within the scheduled deadlines? It was less than 5%. In fact, none of the experts said that the timetables of the Kyoto Protocol that were signed by Mr. “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?” were realistic.

Commissioner Gélinas also judged that the efforts agreed to by the Liberals, again by Mr. “Do you think it is easy to make priorities?”, would have reduced emissions by a single tonne, while our objective is 270 tonnes.

More than 5,000 people will die this year because of the terrible quality of the air they breathe. Would the member please tell me how the purchase of credits from Russia will improve the situation for those 5,000 people?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I used to sit on the environment committee so I am very interested in hearing the misrepresentations again. Here go the members of the Conservative Party on the environment committee who could not even answer and said they were going to defer on this one when asked about climate change. When one does not believe in climate change or GHGs, how can one even have credibility?

In fact, Madam Gélinas, who was the commissioner, said that if we would follow the way we were going we would meet the 2015 targets. The Liberals had made arrangements with 735 large final emitters to ensure that they had statutory reductions. We had worked on the EnerGuide program. We had done all sorts of things, but the Conservatives want to delete it from the website and go to la-la land.