Debates of June 19th, 2007

The Environment

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, despite the usual attempts at censorship, Professor Jaccard, the author of the C.D. Howe Institute report that I was talking about yesterday, was finally able to appear before the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

He confirmed what he said in the report, which was that the government's greenhouse gas reduction plan is so weak that it will not meet the targets and that emissions are likely to rise not just until 2012 or 2020, but until 2050.

Will the Prime Minister face the facts and join Professor Jaccard and other experts in acknowledging that his plan is doomed to fail?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, we have a plan to control and regulate greenhouse gases.

Obviously, there are different reports and perspectives. Now they are speculating about what will happen decades down the road. Nevertheless, I can assure my hon. colleague that the government will undertake consultations and consider all perspectives as it develops its regulatory program.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, all the experts are saying that this plan will fail.

The Prime Minister should have some familiarity with Professor Jaccard since he appointed him to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We know today from an access to information request that the government gave him sole-source contracts on the grounds that he is, and I quote the government, “one of Canada's preeminent policy advisors in the area of climate change and industrial policy”.

Why does the Prime Minister not agree with the experts that his plan is doomed to failure?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously a little bit ahead of himself in condemning a plan to failure before we even have actually tabled and put the regulations into place.

The government is in the midst of consultation. The government's targets are clear. This government has been clear that, unlike the previous government, it is not going to rely on voluntary targets. These will be mandatory targets and we will reach them.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the Prime Minister to stop distorting reality. I invite him to admit what is so obvious: that he killed the Liberal plan that had targets. According to the Pembina Institute, those targets were six to seven times more efficient than those in his plan.

He killed the Liberal plan. He cannot have invented a plan. If they speak about the Liberal plan that was six to seven times more effective than the Prime Minister's plan, it is because he killed the Liberal plan.

Can the Prime Minister stop distorting reality? Can he be honest with Canadians for once?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about the obvious and goes on to speculate about what may or may not happen in the decades to come, but we know for a fact what occurred over the past decade.

What occurred over the past decade was that the hon. member committed Canada to the toughest environmental targets in the world, then did nothing to achieve them.

When this government took office, we were 35% above the target and rising. There was no plan in place. Everyone knows that. It is time the Leader of the Opposition admitted it to the country and to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, for months Canadians have watched the government trumpet the targets of its so-called climate change plan. We have had the photo ops.

But last week the C.D. Howe Institute released the fourth independent report to conclude that this plan is a fraud. In response, a spokesperson for the environment minister says that it is premature to draw conclusions about the government's plan since it is still developing it.

Suddenly the government does not have a plan at all. Why is the environment minister engaged in premature self-congratulation instead of getting down to implementing a plan?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the reports produced by Marc Jaccard on climate change.

Here is what he had to say about the former Liberal government: “For 15 years” Liberal governments “have layered one greenhouse gas policy over another”, including the 1995 action plan, action plan 2000, the 2002 climate change plan, and project green. He said of the Liberal plan that “it consisted primarily of offering information and subsidies to encourage voluntary reductions in emissions”.

That is the member of Parliament who went right across this country saying that his own leader did not get the job done.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. We will have a little order. I would remind hon. members that it is Tuesday, not Wednesday. We will save some energy for tomorrow.

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore has the floor. We will have some order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has been in office for six months. We are tired of the show. We would like to see some action.

Internationally, the Prime Minister claims that we are reducing our emissions, but here at home, he has given us a plan that will allow emissions to rise for the next 40 years at least.

Has the time finally come to adopt a credible climate change plan with real absolute targets?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we strongly believe that absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are essential to combat global warming. That is why a central part of our plan is to see an absolute 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

We are coming forward with regulation on industry and we are going to take a very different approach than the talk of the Liberal Party. We believe in the fundamental principle that the polluter pays, something that the member's own leader abandoned when he was the minister of the environment.

Public Safety

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seven months ago and with much fanfare, the government announced a $10 million program to prevent crime among street gangs in Quebec. Since then, not a single cent has been paid to community organizations, because Public Safety Canada changed the criteria for the program along the way. Does this not smack of other Conservatives boondoggles, such as the summer jobs program and festival funding?

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that these community organizations will soon receive the money promised for their prevention projects?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in Montreal last November, I announced $10 million in funding for crime prevention projects in the Province of Quebec. I can assure the members of this House that projects totalling nearly $5 million have already been approved. Some organizations have even received the money already. Over the next few weeks, I will be announcing even more projects that have been approved for the Province of Quebec.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety's response shows his failure to take this seriously and is very telling. Yesterday, he thought all the money had already been distributed, and now he does not even realize that it is his fault that the agreement with Quebec is still not signed.

Does the Prime Minister agree that his minister's failure to take this seriously clearly proves that prevention is not a priority for the Conservatives?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, he is the one who must pay attention. He began by saying, during his first question, that there was no money. Thirty seconds later, he admitted the money was there.

It is very clear that the money is there and 22 projects have been approved. Some these projects have already received funding. Furthermore, with these 22 projects, Quebec has the highest number of projects approved of all the provinces of Canada.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the general consensus in Quebec is that prevention is key to fighting crime. This government does not believe in prevention, however. It is proving this once again by trying to eliminate the firearms registry.

Instead of getting rid of the registry, why does the government not get rid of the amnesty, which has not reduced management costs in the least and has turned the registry into a real sieve?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, every time I am in the Province of Quebec, I see that many people and local organizations support crime prevention programs, especially for reducing the youth crime rate and eliminating the firearms problem.

Why does the Bloc not support our proposal to impose mandatory sentences for people who commit crimes with a firearm?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it does not work, any more than the seven-year minimum sentence for importing marijuana did in the past.

The only logical choice for the government is to withdraw its Bill C-21, something being called for not only by victims' parents, but also by police, who still consider the registry to be an effective tool for prevention.

Will the Minister of Public Safety finally get out of his ideological bubble and withdraw the bill?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Bloc philosophy. If someone commits a crime with a firearm and we put them in prison, in our opinion they will not be able to commit another crime with a firearm. But the Bloc wants people who commit crimes with firearms to stay on the street and in our communities. We do not agree with that.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's half measure that was announced by the Minister of Public Safety is another reason why Canadians frankly are losing faith and trust in the Conservative government. What we need is a full public inquiry into the RCMP if we are going to get to the bottom of the problems there.

There is a malaise that has set in and the government is unwilling to do the right thing. The task force it has suggested will not have any power to subpoena. There will be no public hearings. There will be no televised hearings. Canadians will not know what is going on. In fact, the task force will not even report to Parliament.

These are things that a full inquiry could do, so why is the government afraid of exposing the truth about what is going on with the RCMP?

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, far from being afraid of the truth, the minister appointed Mr. Brown to study the RCMP and to look at the allegations. Mr. Brown produced a thorough, clear and very severe report on the state of the RCMP. He has recommended a series of important actions, with a task force on management as well as a further look at the police investigation, things that this government will in fact undertake.

This government has absolutely no fear of uncovering what may have gone on in the past, but what this government is committed to is working as quickly as possible to rebuild the national institution that is the RCMP.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see action, but they also want to get to the bottom of the whole story. That has been prevented by the approach taken by the government. What we need are objective solutions put together by an impartial judge, not some panel selected by the minister who is running the police force that needs the very reform that has to be investigated. This makes absolutely no sense.

What is the government afraid of? It can move on taking steps to make improvements that have been recommended while at the same time digging down deeply so that we can fundamentally transform this institution that is part of our history.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, this government is taking action and that action is sweeping. The government has recognized, for example, and the Brown report recognizes, the wrong that was done to whistleblowers, the recognition that has to be paid for what they did and the changes that have to be made.

We do not ask a judge how to improve the management. We do not ask a judge how to finish a police investigation. We are asking the appropriate people to do the appropriate work. We are getting on with fixing this institution in the interests of this country.

Equalization Formula

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, once more, two respected Newfoundlanders have provided clarity in this Atlantic accord betrayal. John Crosbie and Roland Martin said this today about the 2005 Liberal agreements: “The government of Canada intends to provide additional payments to the province”, offsetting reductions, “to retain the benefits of 100 per cent of its offshore resource revenues”.

They are arriving today to voice their displeasure with this government. Why is the Conservative government betraying this obligation and breaking its word on the Atlantic accords?