House of Commons Hansard #101 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

3 p.m.

Liberal

Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader, in the usual tradition, could give the House an indication from the government as to what the program is expected to be for the balance of this week and through next week.

As I ask the question, which is the usual tradition on Thursday, I would like to congratulate the new House leader for the government and wish him well in his new responsibilities. I would ask him specifically, since there has been so much information leaked by the government about prospective budget dates, would he be in a position to clear up the confusion about when the government will table its budget this spring?

3:05 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fine words of welcome from the opposition House leader.

Today, of course, we will be continuing with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we will continue debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-31, the election integrity act amendments with which we are all familiar.

For Monday and Tuesday, we are intending to call Bill C-26 on payday loans, which is at third reading, Bill C-32 on impaired driving, Bill C-11, the transport act, and Bill C-33, the technical income tax bill.

On Wednesday we hope to begin debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-31, followed by Bill C-44 relating to human rights.

Thursday, February 8 shall be an allotted day. Next Friday we would like to begin debate on the anti-terrorism motion that would extend the application of certain sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act that are due to expire.

Finally, as members know, democratic reform is a priority for Canada's new government, and given that the Liberal leader has publicly expressed his support for term limits for senators, could the official opposition inform the House as to when it can expect the unelected, unaccountable Liberal senators who are delaying and obstructing that bill to give us a chance to consider it here in the House of Commons?

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:05 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, during question period, in the parry and thrust of debate, I believe that the heritage minister egregiously overstepped the line when she accused me of misleading the House. I would ask her to retract that, being that I take it very seriously when I bring forward facts to the House.

I would like to reiterate what I asked the minister, which was about the fact that the CTF was in crisis. Certainly that has been proven. I asked her because of the fact that the cable giants were publicly defying the terms of their licence. That is a fact.

I pointed out details that had come from her meeting. That has been reported in the industry, with the industry paper saying that its members came out of that meeting saying that the CTF was now dead, done and gone, and that they have a minister who is listening to their concerns.

Then I raised the question of how she has a historic antipathy toward the whole notion of production fund obligations. In 1993, she wrote in a CRTC dissenting declaration that while she was prepared to--

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Order, please. The hon. member may want to put all kinds of facts on the record, but points of order are not opportunities for debate.

The member has raised a point of order. He has said the minister used words that were incorrect in her answer by suggesting that the hon. member had misled the House. Now he is putting another set of facts here, which could go on for some time. I respect the fact that he may be interested in doing that, but there are ways he can do it. He can arrange for a late show, for example, in respect to the question he asked today, and have a much more extended debate on the subject then. In terms of the facts, that is exactly what he should do.

With respect to the statement the minister made that the hon. member misled the House, I point out to him that the Chair has never ruled, that I am aware of, that stating that a member has misled the House is out of order. “Deliberately”, yes, but members mislead the House for various reasons. Members may make a statement that is perfectly correct, but the person hearing it is perhaps not thinking straight, gets things mixed up, is misled, and therefore thinks the House has been misled because the person thinks everyone thinks like that member. Misleading the House has never been unparliamentary that I am aware of.

While I respect the hon. member's objection, I do not believe he has a valid point of order in that the minister, and I listened very carefully, did not say that he deliberately misled the House, which of course would have invoked all kinds of censure from the Chair. I respect the hon. member's view, but in the circumstances I do not believe he has a valid point of order.

We have another point of order, this one from the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, during the same response from the same minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, she quoted from a letter received from an Ontario minister, Minister Pupatello. Having quoted from that letter, the minister should be tabling that letter for the House, I believe, so that we can all read it at our leisure. I would invite the government House leader to make sure that happens forthwith.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am sure the hon. government House leader will take the point of order under advisement and return to the House in due course with his response.

Is the member for Eglinton—Lawrence also rising on a point of order?

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker. During question period, in an exchange between the government House leader and a member of the Bloc Québécois regarding the processes followed for making appointments, specifically with regard to citizenship court judges, I believe the government House leader is very interested in ensuring that the correct process attributed to us is actually identified, us being the former government.

The government House leader indicated that a former Liberal staffer vetted all appointments. The fact of the matter is that in order for someone to have become a candidate, he or she would have had to write an exam, submit to an oral examination, be brought into a list, go through a--

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderBusiness of the House

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I am sure the House is delighted to hear about this process, but it does not sound to me like a point of order. It sounds like an explication or explanation of what the minister was trying to say in his answer that is perhaps more detailed.

We recognize that in question period there are limits of 35 seconds on the answer, so the minister could not have gone on at length about the previous process if he had wanted to, not at the length that the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence is doing so now. Since it does not sound to me like a point of order, I think we will move to the next subject, which I hope will be orders of the day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Opposition Motion in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 6:30 p.m. on Monday, February 5, 2007.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Does the chief whip of the official opposition have the consent of the House to propose this motion at this time?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

Motion agreed to.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for kindly sharing his time with me.

The motion from the Liberal Party is divided into five broad statements. The first of these statements is that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity. In my opinion, the government should immediately recognize this statement and accept this as a fact. In addition to accepting it, the government has a duty to disseminate this message by all available means and to publicly promote in our schools and universities the message that our planet is changing as a result of human activity.

This government has the very important responsibility of alerting the public with the help of tools such as films, including, for example, the film by Al Gore, the former vice-president of the United States. It is readily available in all good video outlets. As the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed in his remarks, panel discussions and other activities surrounding this film also constitute a very significant factor that has to be considered. Scientists and upper-atmosphere chemical analysis confirm to a large degree that our planet is changing as a result of human activity.

The second main statement in the Liberal motion declares that the most serious ecological threat of our time is climate change caused by greenhouse gases. I do not need to remind members of the observations that have been made recently in the north, showing melting glaciers and the threat of higher sea levels. Let us also consider the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, along with the risk of losing certain wildlife species. In Canada, the species most at risk is the polar bear. That could result in a very significant ecological imbalance in our north and that imbalance could have repercussions on Canada’s fishery.

The third statement in the Liberal motion is that the government must reconfirm Canada’s commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto protocol. The Bloc Québécois is very clear on our approach. We want a territorial approach and that way, we know that Quebec can achieve its reduction objectives by targeting the biggest producers of greenhouse gases. Quebec does not need a reduction plan for its coal-fired generating stations. There are none in Quebec. Less than 3% of Quebec’s energy is produced with fossil fuels or nuclear power.

According to the latest government information, Quebec’s electricity is 97% hydro. In 2002, 60% of Canada’s electricity was hydro, thanks to the 97% share in Quebec. The second largest power source was coal.

The picture is different in the United States. Fifty per cent of its production is coal-generated, followed by nuclear at 20%, natural gas at 18%, and barely 7% for hydro.

Mexico too is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Taking together oil, which generates 40% of Mexico’s electricity, natural gas at 33%, and coal at 8%, we find that 81% of Mexico’s electrical production comes from fossil fuels, in comparison with only 12% from hydro.

These three countries therefore have different problems. The best way to reduce greenhouse gases differs, therefore, from one to the next. The same is true of Canada itself, since the provinces do not emit greenhouse gases in the same way.

We feel, therefore, that the sectoral instead of territorial solution proposed here, which the government wants to adopt, is inappropriate and unfair. It overlooks the polluter pays principle. Quebeckers have made wise choices. They did so in the past by investing massively in hydroelectricity.

The table illustrating the increase in greenhouse gases shows that Quebec saw its emissions rise by 6.6% between 1990 and 2003. This increase was due largely to the transportation sector. The increase here was 19.9% between 1990 and 2003. At the same time, industry cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6.8%. During this same period, the residential, commercial and industrial sectors also saw their emissions rise by 19%. These figures show very clearly what area Quebec should target in particular: transportation.

The Government of Quebec has included the transportation sector in the plan of action it has given us for 2006-2012. It focuses on achieving reductions in the transportation sector by promoting mass transit. The $328 million that the government is asking the federal government for is specifically for mass transit, commuter trains, improved subways and more priority traffic lanes. Urban transit and mass transit are very important in the Government of Quebec's plan of action.

The government is also addressing the automobile sector. It wants fleets of ecological vehicles for its staff, its government and its many ministries. It will move swiftly in this area over the next six years by investing in hybrid cars with low fuel consumption. The $328 million will be well used. The objectives are clearly focused and well outlined.

The Government of Quebec has a well-structured plan and its objectives are well known. They can be found in a document prepared in 2006 entitled, “Quebec Action Plan for Climate Change”. In order to reduce greenhouse gases it is very important to reduce fuel consumption in Quebec. The best way to do so is to promote mass transit.

Let us now talk about the credible plan that the government is asked to create. The former government had a green plan that had disastrous results, as we know, since it was based on voluntary programs. Environmental groups regularly propose credible plans to solve the problem of greenhouse gases.

Just look at the Coalition Québec-vert-Kyoto, which targets 11 very important elements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We also have proposals from the Climate Action Network, which identifies seven very specific points for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are even ordinary citizens sending us ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for their attention and I am prepared to answer their questions.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to indicate that one of the problems it has with all of this is that we are well beyond the targets of 1990, in fact a 6% reduction over 1990 levels, and that somehow nothing has been done to stop that and reverse it in some short term period.

The government itself, in its draft clean air plan, had set targets out to 2050 in achieving some sort of long term targets, so there seems to be a contradiction. The former government has been criticized for not making progress in the short term, when the government itself is not prepared to even make any progress until some 46 years out.

Would the member like to comment on the realistic approach, or maybe unrealistic approach, that the so-called new government has toward climate change solutions?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that question.

I would like to see the figures for the current government's action plan. The figures are clearly set out in Quebec's plan. We know what the Government of Quebec's plans are for transportation, industry, waste material and agriculture. It is this overall plan we are not seeing.

Quebec's plan, which is very well laid out, as I mentioned, also sets targets. The federal government's green plan has no targets. We are waiting for these targets, which will tell us where the government plans to direct its efforts.

Blame is laid on Canada or the policies of the previous Liberal government and people talk about a 30% to 35% increase, but we also need to look at the different provinces and where this 30% increase is coming from.

I explained earlier that the target in Quebec is 6% and that we can reach it or reduce emissions to 1990 levels and by a further 6%, which was the Kyoto target. But I think that the other provinces need to apologize and say where they are going to target their efforts.

We have heard a bit about Ontario's program, which will target coal-fired plants, but have we heard anything about greenhouse gas emission reductions by oil companies in the west?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, what has been most dispiriting in the House, and I think to all Canadians, is this. We are dealing with what polls show is the most important issue affecting Canadians, yet we are seeing a steady flow of diatribe and a lack of solutions coming from the Minister of the Environment.

With this most important issue, there are solutions the government can adopt based on existing technologies, and I will give two of them.

First, the most effective way of reducing the burning of fossil fuels and the production of greenhouse gases is how we build our homes and buildings. We can use existing technologies in fact to reduce, by up to 70%, the utilization of fossil fuels and how we heat buildings.

The second thing we can do, as an example, is have vehicular emission standards. We could remove vehicles that were built pre-1986, which produce 47 times the emissions of those built after 1996.

Does my hon. colleague not think that the government has an obligation and a responsibility in the House to articulate very specific solutions to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and the production of greenhouse gas emissions and that those are two solutions that would work?

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Marcel Lussier Bloc Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. I quoted a document earlier in my presentation. If the government wants tips on how to reduce oil consumption, I suggest that it refer to the document put out by the Government of Quebec, entitled “Quebec and Climate Change, A Challenge for the Future”. This report suggests many solutions, too many for me to list here. I suggest that people consult “Quebec and Climate Change, A Challenge for the Future”, dated October 16, 2006.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West.

I rise today proudly representing my constituents in Thornhill who wish to make their voices heard loudly on this compelling issue of our time. The residents of Thornhill want a sustainable environment, one where they can breathe clean air, where their children will have a healthy long life and ensure that their children's children have a healthy planet they can call home.

Like many of my constituents, I am deeply concerned that our environment is deteriorating at a rapid rate before our very eyes under the current minority Conservative government. By not charting a course that will put Canada in the lead, the Conservatives are abandoning our environment, the health and welfare of Canadians, the need to combat climate change and map out a strategy for the transition to clean energy, putting our future well-being and prosperity in jeopardy.

There is worldwide recognition, backed up with concrete scientific evidence and wisdom, that the climate is changing at a rapid rate as a result of human causes that require man made solutions. This is a global, borderless problem. The IPCC report, which is due to be released tomorrow in Paris, states “the warming of the climate is unequivocal”. A solution will require the efforts of all citizens of the globe and all countries to do their parts. This can only be done with strong leadership and multilateral action. Canada has an absolute obligation to future generations and to all citizens of the planet to make the fight against global warming a top priority.

Canadians are already feeling the effects of climate change as extreme weather has become the phrase of the 21st century. As each summer gets hotter, we see the number of severe storms and floods increase.

Global warming is a real and serious threat to our planet, which cannot be ignored. The Conservative government's role is to work on behalf of Canadians. It cannot afford to abandon Canada's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. What I do not understand is, with this knowledge, why does the Conservative government have its head stuck squarely in the sand, which has cost Canadians one full year of progress on this most pressing issue of our time?

Under programs set in place by the former Liberal government, we already had a made in Canada approach and a plan to ensure that future generations would enjoy clean air, water, land and energy. Project green, the climate fund, the partnership fund and the EnerGuide program were all made in Canada. We had a progressive, collaborative and multilateral approach to achieve our goals and worked hard toward meeting our commitments to the Kyoto protocol.

The former Liberal government signed on to Kyoto as a partner in a global commitment to take action on global warming and the environment. How can Canadians trust the Prime Minister to take charge of the environment when the very same Prime Minister has said that the science of climate change is “tentative and contradictory”. He ridiculed the Kyoto accord as nothing more than a “socialist scheme” and “environmental fraud”. It is comments like these that make the House, and in fact all Canadians, seriously question the credibility of any plan or hastily put together announcement put forward by the government on the environment.

It is time that the government gets the environmental policy out of reverse, put us back in first gear and reconfirm Canada's commitment to Kyoto. The clean air act has done nothing except undermine Canada's long-standing commitment to protecting our environment. The act allows for greenhouse gas emissions to rise until 2025, delaying action for decades, decades in which a firm commitment and action on environmental protection is critical to our planet and future generations.

Not only has the Conservative government called into question Canada's commitment to the environment on the world stage and caused international embarrassment with its isolationist approach, it has also cut important federal partnerships with the provinces and territories, increasingly narrowing our capacity to lead and diminishing our national potential. Last year the Prime Minister refused to honour a $538 million agreement between the governments of Canada and Ontario to shut down coal-fired electricity production plants. Further, the minority government refused to honour commitments in the partnership fund to fund climate change programs undertaken by provinces and municipalities, for example, resulting in a $328 million loss to the province of Quebec alone for its Kyoto plan.

The provinces want to effect change in the environment and so do Canadians. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring these clarion calls and sending successful programs to the cutting room floor? The proof is loud and clear in the Conservative's swift actions to arbitrarily gut 92% of the program funding for climate change programs based strictly on ideological reasons and not in what is in the best interests of Canadians.

The Conservatives cancelled and shut down successful climate change programs in Canada like the one tonne challenge, EnerGuide, the wind power production incentive and the renewable power production incentive and then, a year later, they turn around and reintroduce many of the same programs, watered down and wrapped with a big blue ribbon and try to pass them off as their own.

I know first-hand that the residents of Thornhill do not need to be woken up by polls to the importance and urgent need to take steps proactively to protect the environment. I have met with and have received letters and e-mails from Thornhill residents of all ages, backgrounds and professions. The message is consistently clear. They are calling for a federal government that will be responsible on climate change and the environment and not sit on the sidelines. Canada needs to be at the table internationally.

Canadians also want to know what they can do. The way they see it is that the more we can do now, the more their children and grandchildren will benefit down the road.

My constituents want a federal government that will take steps toward protecting their health, their safety and their infrastructure, the fate of all which rests squarely on a sustainable environment. Thornhill residents value deeply our quality of life like all Canadians. They want a more energy efficient and sustainable economy that will provide and ensure a better quality of life for themselves and for generations to come.

The previous government, under the leadership of the Liberals, did set in place a multifaceted foundation, a plan with a mission: to combat the damage done and prevent further damage from occurring through education, conservation and refocusing our need for energy through the development of renewable and clean energy sources and innovative technology.

The one tonne challenge provided funding to grassroots organizations in their efforts to educate and engage Canadians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to launch a national educational program and campaign to make Canadians more aware of our habits, our energy use and encourage, by virtue of that, our conservation.

In total, the previous Liberal government committed $4 billion in the 2005 budget for its climate change plan, which included expanding the one tonne challenge as well. Programs, like the EnerGuide for houses retrofit and the EnerGuide for low income households, were exactly the positive, cost effective, made in Canada energy efficiency programs the Conservatives themselves endorsed in the last campaign.

On hearing of the cancellation of these programs, the York Regional Municipality, among others, immediately passed a motion outlining the detrimental and far-reaching effect this decision would have in our community and our country. It requested the federal government to reconsider its faulty decision. For low income households that were struggling with the 60% rise in home energy costs between 1992 and 2005, this program achieved two important goals: conservation and real savings for Canadians who needed it most.

These programs were oversubscribed. The Liberals set in place a program that was well received. It was engaging Canadians who wanted to contribute and who wanted to be part of the solution of preserving our natural environment, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and offered them the great opportunity to save their hard-earned money by reducing their energy bills at the same time.

There is no logic in systematically dismantling programs and then resurrecting them a year later when the government realizes the horse has left the barn and it needs to quickly show some action.

The issue of climate change, as I have said before, is a borderless issue and one where strong leadership and a will for collective responsibility is a prerequisite for making progress on climate change. The Conservative government, with its ill- conceived clean air act, is abrogating its responsibility, just as it has demonstrated with its short-sighted cuts to other areas such as literacy and women's programs. It illustrates definitively a complete disconnect between Conservative members and the needs of Canadians.

We must fully honour our commitment to Kyoto. The Liberals have laid the groundwork and now we must move forward decisively. We must rejoin the battle on climate change, not retract. We must return to Kyoto. Reducing greenhouse emissions and cleaning up our global environment with our international partners together is critical to the future of our planet and to all of us. Instead of playing politics and focusing attacks on the opposition, the government should be attacking the issue head on.

There is no silver bullet and no single policy or program that will immediately solve the challenge we face in protecting our environment. We need to take action now, together. We must be fully committed partners. We must take action on all fronts in developing energy efficiency, encouraging and supporting innovation and renewable energy sources so that we and future generations can enjoy clean air, clean water and clean land.

We are global citizens and we must not turn our backs on our collective responsibility. Canada needs to recommit to fully honouring the principles and targets of the Kyoto protocol now in their entirety. The government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitment.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member on the issue of technology.

I hear time and time again that Ontario is shutting down its coal-fired plants. Ultimately, that was a promise made and another promise broken by the provincial Liberal government. It made that bed and it should sleep in it. I would like to ask the member a question about the silliness of such a suggestion because, obviously, that would require the Ontario government to simply purchase more power to replace the lost power from coal-fired plants in Michigan that produce even more pollution.

Technology exists and has existed for quite a while for clean coal which would reduce the pollutants by 90% but the federal Liberal government did not get the job done. Whatever will get votes is what the provincial Liberal government does.

In Ontario, on the hottest days when power usage is at its peak, the government sends out a brownout warning and factories shut down their consumption and fire up diesel generators to produce their own cogeneration. On the hottest days of the summer in Ontario the answer is to not to use technology but to shut down the coal-fired plants, which means using thousands of generators that pollute the air even worse.

Is the member aware of any other technology, for example, tidal turbine? This government put a tidal turbine in the ocean--

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

The hon. member for Thornhill.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Susan Kadis Liberal Thornhill, ON

Mr. Speaker, the government sent the wrong message to all industries. It sent the message of retraction, as I said before. Its naysayer attitude is undermining the capacity and the great drive of many as we speak now to develop this new technology. It is precisely because of the 13 years that the member's party was a government in waiting that it did not come up any clear alternatives to Kyoto rather than repackaging our ideas as its own.

It is one thing to build on improvement but it is another to do nothing at all and set the wrong tone. The government is sadly lacking in leadership and stewardship on this most important issue. It is very disingenuous for anyone from the Conservative government to talk about moving forward when all it has done is steadily move us backward and lost time.

Opposition Motion—The EnvironmentBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I remember taking part in an argument about how to move forward on the environment under the former government and the plan that the Liberal government was absolutely committed to then was voluntary emission standards for industry. It said, “We are very positive. We are working with industry. Voluntary emissions will get the job done”. Now of course we are 30% higher.

At the time I thought that voluntary emissions was sort of like voluntary drinking and driving regulations with the Liberals saying not to worry, they will be able to buy sobriety credits so that for people who get caught once driving drunk, they can buy a sobriety credit. That seems to me to be the emissions trading scheme that they were floating. No wonder people are cynical. We have seen this tossed around like a political football for years and nobody has moved forward.

We have an opportunity in this Parliament before the next election to come forward with something. Right now we have the clean air act, which I will say is probably the most useless act ever brought into the House in its entire history, but right now we have an opportunity, if all four parties agree, to get this passed and to put in the clear mandates and limits. We can actually get something done for the Canadian public.

As New Democrats, we are pushing to get this act in as soon as possible. I am asking the member if the Liberal Party will work with the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives to ensure we come out of this Parliament with something that we can take back to the Canadian public and say that we actually did something for a change instead of just talking about it.