Debates of June 6th, 2007

The Environment

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is pretending to take action, but he is favouring the oil sands by setting targets that are lower than their own standards.

He is pretending that he wants a global action plan that includes China and other developing countries, but he is also giving preferential treatment with intensity targets that set the global standard at zero.

When will the Prime Minister stop pretending? When will he stop manipulating the details and confusing Canadians?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to confuse Canadians, I think it is the Liberal Party.

I read here where the Liberal member for Don Valley West said that intensity based is not bad and in the National Post Liberals said of the intensity targets that they recognize that the Liberal leader's 2005 project green was based on intensity targets. The fact is we are moving forward on a plan that results in real reductions after years where there were none, and in fact they went up by 33%.

We also have a long term agreement with the European Union. France has reaffirmed it. We are now trying to involve other countries because if we care about the future, if we care about the environment for our children and for generations ahead, we need--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, in a speech to the Canadian German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, the Prime Minister clearly said that Canada would not meet the Kyoto protocol targets. He also said he planned to be a mediator at the G-8 meeting between the European Union, which is in favour of Kyoto, and the United States, which has not even ratified the protocol. But the Prime Minister himself does not respect Canada's signature on the Kyoto protocol.

How much credibility will he have among his European colleagues at the G-8 when it comes time to discuss the post-Kyoto phase?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of credibility right now because we have a plan after years of no plan when the Liberals formed the government. We have a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible to have an accord that says that in order to obtain the necessary substantial reductions. The EU and Canada recognize the need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by at least half by 2050. Canada is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60% to 70% with respect to 2006 levels. The EU concluded—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to 2006 levels, he said. The problem is that reductions under Kyoto are related to 1990 levels. That is the first admission that they do not want to respect the protocol.

Beyond the diplomatic dance around the G-8 meeting, French Prime Minister François Fillon and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have both deplored the fact that Canada has reneged on its signature of the Kyoto protocol.

How can the Prime Minister talk about phase two of Kyoto, when he does not even respect phase one? Does this not prove that the Prime Minister will have no credibility in the upcoming negotiations?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, we have plenty of credibility, because we are taking action now, after years of inaction. I would like to mention another article, which states, “The President of France and his Prime Minister, François Fillon, talked about Canada and France harmonizing their positions”. We all agree on the importance of fighting global warming.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister maintains that Canada's position on reducing greenhouse gases is similar to that of the European Union. That is simply not true, and the numbers prove it.

How can the Prime Minister make such fabricated statements when, in comparing the 2050 target proposed by Germany against the Canadian target, there is an average difference of more than 80 megatonnes?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that Canada is committed to a major reduction, a 20% absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

We are one of the leaders in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and we will also reduce pollution by 50% over the next eight years. That is massive. We are getting it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not know what it means to give direct answers to the questions asked of him.

The Prime Minister is asking for special status for Canada in order to continue to renege on Canada's commitment to Kyoto, which set a 6% reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels. It is interesting that the Prime Minister refuses to implement here in Canada what he is petitioning for internationally.

Why not offer Quebec, a Kyoto supporter, special status when it comes to the environment, which would allow it to reach the Kyoto targets?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I was with that member in Berlin just a couple of days ago. We arrived back yesterday. He knows well that Canada now has a reputation, a reputation that was tarnished by the former environment ministers.

This is what the media said about the Liberal leader:

...the Leader of the Opposition's “record as environment minister was abysmally bad, earning him a reputation as the Dr. Doolittle of climate change”.

This is what was said about our government:

Canada's strategy in the war on climate change is...a useful and workable policy that might, if it were adopted by other nations, help to control global warming more effectively....

The G-8 needs to listen to the Prime Minister.

The Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, last month the minister responsible for Atlantic Canada through ACOA said:

We will not throw a member out of caucus for voting his conscience. There will be no...firing on budget votes as we saw with the Liberal government.

Not only does the government break its promises to the people of Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, it breaks its promises to its own caucus members.

How can any Canadian have any faith or trust in the word of the government?

The member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley has it right, and he has been very dignified in expressing it. The government should apologize to the people of Atlantic Canada. When will that happen?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. government House leader.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That's the wrong Peter.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I know the hon. government House leader is tremendously popular with all hon. members but we must be able to hear the answer he is about to give. He has risen to answer and we will have a little order, please, so we can all hear the answer.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, they have somebody by that name answering the question.

Canada's new government has kept its commitment to Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador. They are getting 100% of what they were promised in the accord.

If the leader of the NDP believes in what was in the budget, if he believes it is important for us to have things like $225 million for the preservation of environmentally sensitive land, $1.5 billion for clean air and climate change to the provinces, $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway and $612 million to the provinces for the patient wait times guarantee, why did he vote against those last night and why is he against those things that Canadians want?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to hear an Atlantic minister, with a straight face, tell Atlantic Canadians that they are not getting a bad deal.

Last night's vote killed the Atlantic accord. Only one MP had the decency to vote against breaking the promise.

Is there one Atlantic minister with the guts to tell his constituents that he will do everything in his power to fix the mistake? Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs admit that last night his government broke a promise to Atlantic Canadians?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I know it is Wednesday but members would not want to waste time with excessive noise. The hon. government House leader has risen to answer what I believe was a question from the member for Halifax. I could hardly hear a word. We will now hear from the government House leader and will have a little order, please.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what the members from Atlantic Canada did. They fought hard for the best possible benefits for their province and the result was the following: For Nova Scotia, under the fiscal balance package, more than $2.4 billion and $1.3 billion for equalization; $130 million for offshore accord offsets; $639 million on the Canada health and social transfer; $277 million under the Canadian social transfer; $42.5 million for the environment; and there is more and more.

Those members are delivering for Nova Scotians and for Atlantic Canadians. They are standing up in the way the Liberal Party always refused to do.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when I first asked the member for Central Nova to honour the Atlantic accord he said that he would see the Province of Nova Scotia in court.

Last night one brave Conservative member voted in favour of Nova Scotia and was kicked out of that caucus.

On May 15, the minister said in the House:

We will not throw a member out of caucus.... There will be no whipping, flipping, hiring or firing on budget votes....

Is the minister from Nova Scotia misleading the House, or is he simply a buffoon or is he a misleading buffoon?