Debates of May 29th, 2007

The Environment

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition appreciates all the help he is getting with the question but he has the floor and we need to have some order.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative record has been to present a plan seven times worse than the one it killed.

Germany, the host country, wants the leaders to acknowledge what the science tells us to do, which is to ensure the temperature of the planet does not rise by more than 2° Celsius. The Bush administration opposes this target. Will the Prime Minister also oppose it or will he be part of the solution for once?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, this government will be working to ensure there is an effective international protocol that includes all nations with real targets for the period past 2012.

When we do it, we actually will be doing it ourselves, unlike the previous government.

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

Mr. Speaker, four months ago, the Prime Minister was asked whether Canada would participate in the next round of UN talks on a global action plan for global climate change. He said then that Canada would be there and that “this is a serious environmental problem that needs immediate action”.

Now it is the moment of truth. The U.S. is seeking to gut this call for action from the forthcoming G-8 declaration.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House today whether Canada will support a call by the G-8 for an urgent action plan or was the last declaration just empty rhetoric?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have been clear that Canada favours an effective international agreement that will include targets for everyone, especially targets for the major emitters of the planet, like the United States, China and India, and, if we do not have that, we will not have an effective international protocol.

Of course the government remains committed to participating in any international talks and that is what I told Ms. Brundtland when I talked to her recently.

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

Mr. Speaker, a UN report concluded that the global temperature rise must be limited to two degrees to avoid huge shortages of drinking water and the extinction of innumerable species.

The Minister of the Environment was very pleased with this report. But the United States is opposed to the two degree commitment contained in the G-8 declaration.

Will this government clearly support this commitment or will it continue to say one thing and do another?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government and the Prime Minister have always been very clear. We support a workable plan to reduce greenhouse gases in the world. An effective plan has to include countries in Europe. It has to include the United States. It has to include China and India. It also has to include Canada.

I notice the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is asking this question. He is the one who said, “We've done all the blah, blah, blah about the environment”. He said, “I think our party got into a mess on the environment”. However, this is my favourite. He said, “We didn't get it done”.

Option Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, at today's press conference, Judge Grenier acknowledged that his mandate regarding Option Canada was limited since his jurisdiction did not cover the actions of the federal government. Major grey areas still exist in the scandal surrounding Option Canada.

Will the Prime Minister immediately launch a public inquiry, similar to the one conducted by Justice Gomery into the sponsorship scandal, in order to complete the work and shed light on the offences committed under Quebec's Referendum Act?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these events occurred 12 years ago under the previous Liberal government.

One of the first things this government did was to cut funding to the Canadian Unity Council, which was Option Canada's source of funding. I think we have effectively investigated this matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, not at all. The Prime Minister is giving me the same answer the former prime minister did when he said he got rid of the sponsorships and there was no need for an inquiry. And yet, at the time, the current Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition and he, like me, was calling for a public inquiry into the sponsorships.

Will he now have the same courage and investigate things that happened, though it may have been 12 years ago? The sponsorships were also things of the past and look what happened. We want to know whether he has the same courage now.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the former government conducted an inquiry into these transfers. Quebec's chief electoral officer also conducted an investigation. The facts are known and the current government has a new policy.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois wants another referendum. If he wants another referendum then maybe he should run for the Parti Québécois leadership.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a few days before the 1995 referendum, thousands of Canadians came to supposedly declare their love for Quebeckers. It was called a love-in in Montreal. Judge Grenier said he was unable to determine exactly how much money was spent on that event.

Does the Prime Minister, who says he is all for transparency, agree that a public inquiry is needed to fully investigate all the actions of the federalists during the 1995 referendum?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister just explained to this House, that was an event that occurred 12 years ago.

Since then, we have been practising a form of open federalism. We have put an end to the Canadian Unity Council; we have agreed to recognize Quebeckers as a nation within Canada; we have resolved the fiscal imbalance; we have resolved the issue of UNESCO and we are continuing—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is open federalism that is not quite open enough to be transparent.

The report also reveals that two people who were being paid public money by the office of Jean Chrétien, the prime minister at the time, were not working for the Government of Canada, but for the No committee in offices rented by the No committee in the Côte-des-Neiges section of Montreal.

Will the Prime Minister finally agree to hold a public inquiry into the federal government's involvement in the 1995 campaign or will he be complicit in what happened?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election, Quebeckers were clear. Two thirds of Quebeckers elected members to the Quebec National Assembly who are opposed to holding a referendum.

We have to ask ourselves whether the duo now known to the general public in Quebec will also be against a referendum.

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the government tried to convince us that at the G-8 summit it would support the demands to reduce greenhouse gases by 2050. However, in order for Canada to meet its obligations, there are only two plans to ensure that the 2^o C global warming limit is not surpassed: our bill on climate change accountability, and Bill C-30, the amended clean air and climate change act.

Which of these two plans will the Prime Minister be taking with him to the G-8?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will be taking the Minister of the Environment's plan. I understand that the long term targets are stricter than the targets proposed for the G-8.

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts are otherwise. The proposal that the Prime Minister is suggesting he will take to the G-8 meeting will mean, as far as Canada is concerned, that it is all right if the global temperatures rise by more than 2° centigrade. Global scientists tell us that is not all right. It is not acceptable.

I know the Prime Minister will try to blame the Liberals, who kept their feet on the gas throughout the entire 13 years and caused part of the problem. My question is, will he do anything about it? Why is he trying to fool the G-8 leaders with his—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The right hon. the Prime Minister.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to blame the Liberals, since the leader of the NDP just did it for me.

The fact is, as I just said, the long term targets proposed by the Minister of the Environment for Canada are actually stricter than those being proposed at the G-8.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment's climate change plan does not cut it. An environmental group is suing the government, and the Pembina Institute is telling us that the emission reduction plan will not work, that it will not meet the targets and will not put an end to emission increases.

Will the minister immediately address the 20 shortcomings identified in his plan by the Pembina Institute?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to taking real action to help fight harmful greenhouse gas emissions. We are seeing huge effects of global warming in our country, things like the pine beetle in northern British Columbia and schools coming off their foundations. In Inuvik we see a lot of flooding and intemperate weather.

It is time for Canada's national government to finally act on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want to study it more. We do not want more international conferences. The government is rolling out a comprehensive plan that will see an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the wheels are completely off the environment minister's plan.

For the record, the Pembina Institute notes that the Liberal project green would have led to real reductions, nearly seven times greater than what is outlined in the Conservative sham.

Yesterday, the provinces weighed in, and their number one criticism is the lack of leadership on the part of the government and its failure to impose absolute emission reduction targets.

Will the minister end the intensity based rhetoric that killed his credibility and place hard caps on emissions for 2012 and beyond, which reflect the actual science of climate change?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have seen a little more Liberal math. The Liberals were great supporters of intensity based targets when they were in government. I can understand the concern of environmental groups about that. The leader of the Liberal Party came forward with a plan that saw a 12% intensity reduction. Somehow in Liberal math a Liberal 12% reduction is seven times better than a 33% Conservative intensity reduction.