House of Commons Hansard #93 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a well-informed, articulate and very educational speech for a lot of us who may not have had the wealth of experience that he has had in this area.
Having listened to the commentary from the Conservative colleagues, why does the member think it is that the Conservative government is dragging its heels on such an important issue for the world?
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question. I cannot divine what is in the minds of the Prime Minister and his ministers for example.
However, for all of his adult life, in all that he has written and all that he has done, the Prime Minister is personally opposed to multilateral responses to most issues. He does not believe in the United Nations or Canada's role within it. He does not believe, and had not believed until about two years ago, in the phenomena of climate change, rejecting the science and describing the only international agreement to deal with it as a socialist plot to transfer wealth from the north to the south. Can anyone Imagine that kind of talk in dealing with what we are dealing with?
It is very difficult to know why the government still has not tabled a plan. We anxiously await it so we can debate it and move this country forward.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the points my colleague made. My question is with respect to the timing of the bill and the timing of the legislation moving forward this fall on the eve, which I think is less than 60 days away now, of the Copenhagen round, the Copenhagen conference in which Canada will have a place. It is critical for the Canadian people, never mind the global community, to have Canada come forward with legislation like this that would actually put Canada on side and in line with where the rest of the world is moving, as opposed to the alternative option, as the member described in his comments, a Canadian government without a plan, without a set of real targets and without any notion of being able to play with the other kids in the sandbox to address and to fight dangerous climate change.
I am wondering if the member could speak to the timing of the motion as much as anything else.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the timing of this motion was agreed to at committee. The environment committee agreed that we would have a full, frank and open debate this fall about where we are in this country, and that committee is sitting as we speak in the House.
It is all about trying to figure out where we are going, not just in terms of our domestic response here in Canada, which Canadians want to see because they want to win this energy efficiency war competition, but they also want a better idea of where we are going.
Because the government does not have a plan, we agreed at committee to have this debate in the fall at the environment committee which is precisely what we are doing.
It is very important at the same time to take into consideration, as the member knows, what is happening around the world. I heard some discouraging things yesterday out of the Bangkok negotiation setting where the Chinese and the Americans may or may not be actually moving forward together. We need to see that happen.
However, my colleague is right, we do need a Canadian plan.
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Ottawa South if this is all about specific remedies or about hot air.
He said that the Prime Minister does not believe in multilateral forums, but this is a Prime Minister who has taken a lead in the G8, the G20 and in the United Nations pursuing values that I think the Liberal Party is famous for pursuing as well, for instance in dealing with the violation of human rights in Iran.
This is a government that has brought in specific targets of 20% reductions of greenhouse gases by 2020, the first mandated targets with measurable--
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to comment on the remarks of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley regarding the admissibility of the motion under debate today.
The difference between the motion the member referred to and this current motion is that the motion regarding Bill C-43 did not have language that would deem the bill reported back without amendment in the event the committee ignored the instruction. The motion regarding Bill C-43 was permissive in that the committee could ignore the instruction without consequence.
The motion we are debating today would make something happen, essentially time allocation, in the event the committee did not take action. That is very different from the example given by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the event of my colleague attempting to split hairs over the notion of what the consequence is for a time allocation, which was his first and most important point on this point of order, it is clear that the motion the Conservative members moved in 2005 allowed for the exact same thing to take place. Now he is going to go further down the excuse line to find another reason that we are not going to deal with a bill on climate change which his government has failed to move on. This is simply no longer tolerable to the Canadian people.
He should get over it and get on with it. We are moving forward on this issue and this debate. I encourage the member to enter the debate, offer up reasons or excuses for his government's lack of action on climate change, otherwise he should let the House get on with it.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague was entering into debate on my point of order rather than responding to my point of order.
We are not, as the member seems to suggest, splitting hairs. There are procedures and practices that we all follow in the House, Mr. Speaker, and you know that better than anyone being a Chair and Speaker. So to suggest that we are splitting hairs and that we should ignore some procedures and some practices but go to the larger picture of debate is inconsequential. It is irrelevant. There are procedures and practices that we are bound to follow. That is what makes this Parliament work.
The point of order I raised specifically deals with a point of order and a procedure that we need to follow. It refutes the member's original argument and that is not splitting hairs. That is merely pointing out the procedures and practices as set out in Marleau and Montpetit that we must, not should, but must follow in this place.
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley and my understanding is that a decision is being contemplated as we speak.
The member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country had asked the member for Ottawa South a question. I am not sure if he heard the rest of it, but if he would like to respond to that which he did hear, I would give him that opportunity now.
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I did catch about half the question but I stopped listening after half of it.
However, I would like to take a moment to remind the member that during the debates for the creation of the G20, his leader, the Prime Minister, ridiculed the notion of creating the G20. Just three weeks ago in Sault Ste. Marie, caught behind closed doors on a tape, ridiculed the notion that Canada would be an active player in the United Nations.
The problem is that on so many of these fronts, like international affairs, the Prime Minister is just pretending. We are not sure if it is Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. We are not sure which prime minister is standing up and speaking.
If the member has difficulty understanding why the Prime Minister may not be committed to multilateral processes, he should go back and read the speech he gave to the American council in 1997 when he told the most right wing Republican think-tank in the United States that the group was his inspiration and he intended to bring its values to bear in Canada.
Bill C-311--Climate Change Accountability ActRoutine Proceedings
Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta
Conservative
Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I want to spend some time on this particular issue. I have been in the House some period of time and have had the opportunity to look at the Ross Perot Liberals, their charts and graphs and their ability to talk a good talk but not walk a good walk.
I had the opportunity to see some budgets from this Conservative Prime Minister and some real tangible results, things like the Northwest Transmission Line in British Columbia that will take many diesel operators off the grid, and the Mayo B investment of some $71 million, by this federal government, through which five communities were taken off diesel. Tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases were taken out of the environment.
There are some real tangible investments that this government is making from coast to coast to combat climate change. That is why I asked the member opposite in particular what the Liberal government did in 13 years, and all he did was talk and point to graphs. Really, it did nothing tangible. That was what I witnessed and I think most Canadians recognize that this government and this Prime Minister are taking real steps toward combating climate change.
We have made a strong commitment; we have taken continued action and we have a plan for what we are going to do. We are taking steps. We are taking this aggressive action on combating climate change in three ways. We are doing it domestically, continentally in North America, and internationally.
Indeed, this government takes this issue very seriously and there has been a great deal of progress recently, especially in the most recent three and a half or four years that we have been in government, including regulatory action to address greenhouse gas emissions and working with the United States on a harmonized approach. Obviously we are one continent, and it is important that we harmonize with the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world.
Canada is also committed to being an active and constructive participant in Copenhagen and working toward a post-2012 agreement on global emissions reduction. This government has established a national target of an absolute 20%—that's right, an absolute 20%—reduction in greenhouse gases relative to 2006 levels. This we plan to do by 2020.
Over the longer term, it has set a target to reduce Canada's emissions 60% to 70% below 2006 levels by 2050. That is right, it is one of the most aggressive targets in the world, 60% to 70% below 2006 levels.
Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity sectors in the world and, as I mentioned at the beginning, we are moving forward even more aggressively to make sure clean energy in the electrical sector is even more rampant in Canada.
We have committed to further progress as well and have set a goal that by 2020, 90% of our electricity needs will come from non-emitting sources. For the first time, Canadians should be proud that there is a federal government, a Prime Minister and a Minister of the Environment who are moving forward with real tangible results that Canadians understand, results to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to combat climate change.
We have established targets that are consistent with scientific consensus and with the contributions Canada can and should make to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
By contrast, this bill, Bill C-311, would impose a 2020 emissions reduction target that goes far deeper, and we agree that it goes far deeper, than what is being contemplated by our closest ally and trading partner, and that, quite frankly, is not realistic. It is a target that would put our economic recovery from the recent global downturn, as well as our economy and Canadian jobs, at serious risk.
Indeed, it is hard to fathom how and why proponents of this legislation, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP, can continue to support it while conceding that they have never done any analysis of its potential impact on the Canadian economy, no analysis at all of how many jobs would be devastated by this proposal.
In the November 2008 Speech from the Throne, the government committed to working with the provincial governments and all of our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period. This is very important and we have committed to doing this.
The government is moving forward on these commitments, and we will bring forward a cap and trade system that will lead to significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. That is along with the other things we are doing.
The cap and trade system will cover all industrial sectors and will require mandatory emissions reductions. It will promote the development and the deployment of key technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that will be a very great key to reducing emissions.
As a first step, we have recently set out guidelines for a carbon offset market that will establish tradeable credits within the proposed cap and trade system. We are taking steps in a very short period of time. After 13 dark years of Liberal rule in this country, in which nothing was accomplished, this government, in a short period of time, has taken real steps, tangible steps that Canadians understand are exactly in accordance with Canadians' priorities to protect their jobs and at the same time save our environment.
We will set up a cap and trade system that reflects Canadian priorities and realities but that will also promote harmonization with the United States. We will phase in our approach over time ensuring the ability to adjust and adapt as the United States finalizes its approach.
We will continue to work closely with stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments on this issue. In fact, the Minister of the Environment recently completed a cross-country tour to meet provincial and territorial premiers and ministers to consult with them, to talk with them, and to understand their priorities on the development of the cap and trade system.
There are already areas where we are harmonizing with the new leadership direction of the United States. For example, the government is using its regulatory authorities to transform our auto industry, which is so important for jobs in Ontario and for families in Ontario, to meet the new challenges of the low carbon economy of the future.
About 80% of new vehicles manufactured in Canada by Canadians are exported to the United States, which creates a need for a standard. Regulation of tailpipe emissions, which cause a tremendous amount of the greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light trucks, will be consistent with the fuel efficiency regulations recently announced by President Obama, thereby ensuring a continuing North American standard for vehicles and continuing to ensure that Canadians will be employed.
It is important to remember, even as we move forward on a cap and trade system, that the government has also put in place a suite of ecoAction measures aimed at reducing emissions in the energy and transportation sector, which account for such a large part of emissions.
These investments are increasing the supply of renewable power, improving energy efficiency in homes and workplaces across the country, and reducing emissions from commercial transportation. These are real tangible steps that were never even contemplated by the former Liberal government, and were certainly not put in place.
Through Canada's economic recovery action plan, the government is investing in both Canada's economic and environmental future, including investments of $1 billion each in the clean energy fund and the green infrastructure fund, which I spoke of earlier, real tangible investments that get Canadians employed and at the same time save our environment.
The environmental commitments in this budget alone totalled $4 billion. These investments will play an important role in providing economic stimulus and keeping Canadians employed, as well as in reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. I am proud of these investments. We are doing the job that was not done by previous governments.
The Government of Canada knows that taking action on climate change is a global concern. We must work with our global partners. We will continue to work on a North American approach on climate change as well. We work with our partners and we work with the world at large because we know doing so is necessary.
The Prime Minister's recent visit to Washington marked further progress in harmonizing our efforts with those of the United States and the administration there. As we know, President Obama and the Prime Minister created a U.S.-Canada clean energy dialogue when the President first visited us in February. The dialogue actually covers three themes.
First, we will develop and deploy clean energy technologies, with a focus on carbon capture and storage. Second, we will expand clean energy research and development, which is so important for our future and is certainly part of the solution. Third, we will build a more efficient electricity grid based on clean and renewable energy generation, which is so important for Canada, especially to create jobs and maintain jobs and our great quality of life.
In Washington, a report to leaders was presented that outlined joint progress under the clean energy dialogue action plan. Indeed, under the action plan, both countries have identified the most promising opportunities to work together to accelerate the development and deployment of clean energy technologies as we move toward a clean energy future.
We want a clean energy future. However, we do not want to just talk about it; we want to actually do it.
In addition to the report to leaders, a set of projects was announced, which provides concrete examples of the on-the-ground action to deliver results that advance the goals of the clean energy dialogues.
In summary, significant progress is being made under the dialogue, and there will be additional progress to report over the coming years. We, on this side of the House in the Conservative government, are proud of this progress, because we are balancing and, at the same time, getting real tangible results through work.
Our North American partnership is not just limited to the United States. In fact, we are looking beyond the United States. We are working toward a common North American approach that would also include our Mexican neighbours to the south.
The recent North American leaders summit in August, attended by the Prime Minister, President Obama and President Calderón, marked significant progress in this development. At this meeting, agreement was reached to cooperate on a common North American approach to climate change, supported by agreement on a practical and outcome-based work program that actually sees real results and that will provide a strong foundation for these efforts.
Finally, a very important meeting is coming up in Copenhagen in the very near future. We are watching this with anticipation. It is the 15th conference of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will take place in December.
Throughout the negotiating process, Canada has been engaged in, and a constructive contributor to, the development of a new global post-2012 agreement.
We will continue to act on the basis of clearly established principles, including balancing environmental protection and economic prosperity; maintaining a long-term focus for generations and generations to come, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren; focusing on funding, developing and deploying clean technologies, which we believe are part of the solution; engaging and seeking commitments from both developed and developing countries, which are very important, especially with the rise of China, India and other countries across the globe that are actually causing a large part of the emissions issue; and, finally, playing a constructive role at international and continental tables.
In conclusion, the Government of Canada, this Conservative government, is responding to the challenge presented by climate change and responding to the needs and demands of Canadians. We are implementing a very robust agenda, one like this country has never seen before from any federal government. It will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. It will protect jobs and it will save our environment.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear the member opposite talk about the robust and rigorous plan that the Conservative government has put forward.
My question then is why the Conservatives are opposed to this motion to simply separate Bill C-311 to look at one section that they would obviously love to be part of, to simply release their plan, to reassure Canadians, to reassure industry, to let them know, to let everyone know what the targets are in this great plan they have. That is the motion we are discussing here today, and that is what I would like to hear the hon. member respond to.
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, it is just like the Liberal Party--and I know this member is new to this place and I have not had an opportunity to listen to him speak often or to listen to his thoughts. With the Liberals there is more talk, more talk about motions, more talk about getting results instead of getting results.
We are on the ground. We are establishing electricity grids across this country. We are ensuring we have new technologies. We are establishing standards for tailpipe emissions. We are actually getting the job done.
I do not know why that member cannot just get on board with this government and get the results that Canadians are demanding, because we are getting it done. We can see it in the Mayo B investment in the Yukon Territories, where we took five communities off diesel and actually saved thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year. We are actually getting results. We are saving taxpayer dollars at the same time, for example, $8 million in transportation costs a year just in the Yukon.
We are getting results for Canadians, and Canadians want us to continue to do that. I do not know why members continue to throw motions around instead of just coming on board and helping us with the plan that Canadians demand.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked why New Democrats have consistently forced this issue with the previous government and now again in this Parliament. The answer is that the consequences of unmitigated climate change are disastrous for the global community and for Canada in particular. The government is sitting on a number of reports from natural resources that talk about the effect of climate change particularly on our far north. As the sea ice melts in the Antarctic, the effects are felt the strongest in the northern hemisphere, particularly in the Arctic.
My colleague talked about results on the ground. We know that the fund the government set up to enable wind energy has been completely exhausted. There was a small brief period of wind energy investment across Canada. The investment climate was not as good as what the U.S. and Europe were offering, but Canada was starting to move closer to what those countries were offering. The Canadian wind industry was moving forward on a huge suite of announcements. Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and that member's own province of Alberta were moving forward as well. We have now come to realize that the fund has been completely exhausted well before the intended date and there are no more dollars in the fund.
Does he understand as a businessman himself the uncertainty his own government has created in that critical industry will be anathema to Canada matching the other countries that are moving forward? Every critical number shows this. Every way we cut and slice this, the developed countries are far surpassing Canada's own investment ratio. They are far surpassing Canada in terms of the renewable energy we are putting on line.
On the specific topic of the funds available to the wind industry to allow it to build the generation capacity this country requires, would the member agree that the funds have been depleted at the federal level, or can he reassure us otherwise?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for supporting this government and for having confidence in our Prime Minister so that we can continue the great environmental investments that we are making.
I would like to talk about the green infrastructure fund. I do not know where the member is getting his information, but I have talked to wind energy providers in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. There are huge plans to move forward with wind energy in this country. There is even talk of wind energy in the north.
The green infrastructure fund is mandated specifically to deal with wind energy and other forms of energy. That is exactly what happened when the Liberals were in charge. They talked about doing things but we are actually getting results. We are looking now at investing seriously in wind energy across the country. We are in discussions with wind energy providers to do just that.
If the member knows of some people that are not moving forward with wind energy but have that opportunity, I would invite him to talk to me specifically so I could approach those people and help them with their challenges and their investment opportunities.
I know firsthand that wind energy is part of the solution. Our government is moving forward to support wind energy in all parts of the country.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate our government's tangible actions on the ground to make a difference.
I would like to talk about the electricity grid. I agree with my colleague that it is going to be important for us. Eastern Canada has a tremendous amount of renewable power which, through a proper grid, can be used not only in eastern Canada but also potentially could be exported to other areas, including the U.S. northeast. There are great opportunities.
I was reading an article this morning about the struggle the U.S. is having with its climate change bills in Congress and in the Senate. The real challenge is if the U.S. will be able to get those bills passed. The member for Ottawa South was talking as though this were a no-brainer, but it is not.
Given the challenges and the importance of our working together as an international community, I would ask the member, what folly is in Bill C-311?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, we have to work with our partners. We cannot just be a lone voice out there.
Canada is responsible for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% of the total emissions in the world. Working by ourselves, having aggressive targets that quite frankly would destroy our economy, will not help anything. We will not make significant progress.
For the first time in a long time we have a Prime Minister who will actually work co-operatively with other leaders, who is respected by other leaders internationally for his moral stand and for his stand on the environment and for his announcements in relation to providing power to the United States, which means jobs as well.
We have to work on a continental solution and a world solution as well. We have to do it one at a time. We are working quickly and we are working in full cooperation with leaders of other countries. For the first time in a long time they have respect for our Prime Minister. They will listen and take guidance from our Prime Minister.
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Madam Speaker, part of the direction we have to take is to change people's attitudes about energy use and move people in a positive direction toward energy efficiency, all the good things to which the hon. member and his government have alluded. However, why in the last budget were all those dollars addressed toward the stimulation of the economy but there were no criteria regarding promoting green energy?
The other day I saw a sign regarding hot tub sales indicating that those who bought a hot tub could get the home renovation tax credit. How does that type of behaviour match up with any organized campaign on the part of the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.
It does help because what we do is encourage investment in new technology. Today, fridges are much more energy efficient than fridges that were made 10 years ago. Vehicles today, compared to 30 years ago, are far more efficient as far as tailpipe emissions are concerned.
Not only that but we on this side of the House believe that the environment and the economy can actually work together. In fact, a recent report indicated that environmental investment actually creates more jobs than other types of investments.
We on this side of the House believe that we can save the environment at the same time as we promote the economy, but it has to be managed properly. Fortunately, we have a set of ministers here and a Prime Minister who are not just excellent environmental stewards, but good economists. They will be able to manage the economy properly while at the same time saving the environment.
I am very proud of that record. I would ask the member to come on board, join us and help this government move forward on the priorities of Canadians.
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
For the past four years, the Conservative government has been saying all kinds of nice things and making all kinds of promises about the environment, and for the past four years, the Liberal Party and the other opposition parties have been wondering what the Conservatives' plan is. Where is the plan?
Instead of a plan, we get inconsequential proposals, announcements that never materialize, fancy words and promises to cooperate internationally, but no action. That is why today's discussion could yield some very good results.
This motion we are debating is excellent. We are not talking about the environment in general. We are not even talking about Bill C-311 in general. The motion very simply separates out from the body of Bill C-311 the clause that addresses the requirement of the government to set targets and to say where we want to be in our reduction of greenhouse gases in 2015, 2020 and 2025 so that we know what the plan is going to deliver.
This is not overly rigorous, because under the mandate, the plan will be reviewed, updated and reassessed every five years. We will ask if we made it, if it is the right thing and if we are going in the right direction. Right now, we are looking at a concrete plan. The Government of Canada should be pleased with this motion and pleased with the opportunity to share with the House and the people of Canada its plan on where we are going.
The Conservative government makes a lot of hay out of its supposedly ambitious target of a 20% reduction by 2020 from 2006 levels. We can debate whether that is actually an ambitious target or not, but at least there is a target and it intends to get there. We need the government to tell us where we are going to be halfway, too. We need the government to tell us where we are going to be in 2015 and how we are going to get to the targets that exist for 2050.
The idea that we need to respond aggressively to the realities of climate change is no longer up for debate. The only question is, with what clarity will we do that and within what framework?
I am very pleased today that the NDP demonstrated that it has been listening to the Liberal Party in the environment committee, on which I have the honour of sitting. As we have said, we need to talk about where we are going. We need to get a plan. We need to hear what the plan is from the Conservative government. We need to hear about the issues around what we are going to be negotiating in Copenhagen and what the position of the government is going to be. Yes, we need to hear that.
The NDP, the Liberals and the other parties may disagree on what exactly that position should be or which binding targets should be imposed upon the negotiators at Copenhagen, but to remove the non-contentious part of Bill C-311 and simply say that the government is proud of its plan, the government must bring forward that plan.
I would really like the Conservatives to give us some straight answers about where we are headed. What steps do they plan to take between now and 2050? What will Canada do to ensure that we take responsibility and fulfill our commitments to the international community?
Our industries need clear direction. They need to know what will be expected of them in the years to come. As a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I often talk to representatives of the oil and manufacturing industries. They want us—the Liberal Party—to tell them what our plan for them will be if we form the government one day. So I ask these industry representatives what the Conservative government has told them.
How has the Conservative government reached out to industry and said specifically, “This is where we need to go”? The answer time and time again is, the government has not.
What we are discussing today is an opportunity for the Conservatives to stand up and show us how strong their plan is, how great it is, where they want to go, and to give us targets that we can all aspire to and try to reach: industry, individuals, communities.
This is a good thing that we are talking about here. For the life of me, and perhaps I am still overly naive, I cannot understand why these Conservatives are opposing it. There is no question on the issue of climate change. We are all aware of the challenges. We just have not been able to get a sense from these Conservatives of how they are going to respond to those challenges.
Time and time again the opposition parties have tried to get those answers, first by bringing forward bills such as Bill C-311 that are demanding action. Now, by more modestly pulling out a piece of this bill, we are saying, “Okay, if the government does not want to give us action, at least give us an idea of the actions that it wants to take and where we are going to go. Give us something to reassure Canadians and to show Canadians that this Parliament is capable of addressing the grand issue of our time”.
How we get this right on the environment is going to direct the success or failure of us as a species in the 21st century. Still I hear lines like I heard about 10 minutes ago from the member opposite, where addressing the environment runs the risk of destroying our economy. I would like to think and to hope that in 2009 there is no longer any rhetoric around the fact that there has to be a choice between the environment and economy.
For so long now, the Conservatives and the Republicans have been saying that they cannot do anything about the environment because they have to deal with the economy, income and jobs. But we know that the critical thing is to combine these elements, to plan for both, to acknowledge that a healthy environment will support a strong economy and that a strong economy can and should contribute to a healthy environment. It is not magic. It is about investing intelligently in renewable energy and efficiency, about investing in the research, science, development and innovation that have always been Canada's strengths.
Unfortunately, we once again find ourselves in the position of having to beg the government to tell us its plan, to share its ideas with us, to tell us about its vision for the decades to come. That is not too much to ask.
We are asking for a little bit of clarity. We are asking the government to say, “This is what we want to reduce by 2015. This is where we want to be in 2020 and this is how we would like to get there by 2025”. We want to know if these targets can be adjusted if they are not ambitious enough or if they need to be more ambitious, if we need to deliver in a better sense.
That is the question we are talking about today. Will the government, that is so proud of its plan, so proud of the actions that it is supposedly bringing forward, share with us how those actions are going to result in targets for 2015 and so forth? Where is the plan? What is the plan? Can somebody please tell us?
Nicolas Dufour Bloc Repentigny, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for Papineau. I will admit that I was a little surprised and even confused about what he said.
I completely agree with part of his analysis, when he said that the Conservative government does absolutely nothing, has no plan, has no clue, and essentially has no interest in the environment.
The problem I see is that the only thing that the Liberals have ever proposed was a carbon tax. After that, they ran out of ideas. The Liberals did not give us a concrete plan, no tangible initiatives regarding their commitment to the environment. Need I remind members that it was under the Liberals that Canada had the highest increases in greenhouse gases?
I have a question for the member for Papineau. I am in no way questioning his support of environmental issues, but when I listen to him, I hear sovereignist rhetoric. Does he agree with the fact that Quebec must speak with one voice in Copenhagen, and that it must defend its own plan because Quebec is the only province in Canada to have a plan for the environment?
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member.
He raised a few points that I could completely take issue with, but I will focus instead on his question.
Quebec, which indeed has some great solutions for environmental problems—and I must congratulate the Charest government for bringing forward so many proposals in that regard—can share its solutions with the rest of Canada and the Canadian government. The values espoused by Quebeckers regarding the environment are not all that different from those espoused by all Canadians. As for being able to come together to say: here is our plan and here is how we differ from western reformists who do not represent our values and our reality; I completely agree that Canadian values must be conveyed by strong people from Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague opposite for his comments and speech. I found his comments regarding a plan quite interesting.
I would like to take him back about 12 years ago to Kyoto. The government of the time went to Kyoto to sign an international agreement on the back of a napkin without a plan. Even when it came to implementation, it did not even know what it was doing.
Then we get to 2006 and we have seen emissions rise that whole time. Therefore, there was absolutely no plan.
I find it a little bit rich to be lectured on the lack of a plan from the Liberals of that time.
The parliamentary secretary gave a long list of initiatives. We talked about transmission, the east-west grid and our renewable plan.
How does the member have any credibility in talking about a plan when the Liberals did not have a plan on Kyoto?
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I will take advantage of this moment, Madam Speaker, to remind the hon. members opposite that the Liberal Party in the 2008 election, in which I was elected, had an ambitious plan regarding the environment. It was not universally accepted and we find ourselves in opposition because of it. However, the idea that we had a plan at least is not something that I am going to disagree with. Right now we are continuing to be in opposition. The Conservatives are in government. It is not so bad that an opposition party has not revealed every detail of its plan. What is bad is that the government has not revealed any details of any plan.
Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC
Madam Speaker, this is a very important debate. It is an ongoing debate about how Canada will respond to one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century and beyond. It is also a debate about continued government inaction on the extraordinary challenge that we face as a nation and as a world.
I would like to go back, if I may, to 2005-06 since members of the government like to bring up that time period over and over again, a bit like a broken record.
I recall that in 2005, after extensive consultations with industry and environmental groups, the same environmental groups this time around which the Conservative government has left waiting in the reception area. We have a government that seems stubbornly committed to not having any kind of dialogue with Canada's environmental groups.
After extensive consultations with Canadian civil society, the Liberal government had a regulatory package waiting to be unveiled. That regulatory package would have helped Canada meet its Kyoto targets and, more importantly, would have helped Canada spur its economy toward the kinds of investments in green technologies that would be required not only to solve environmental problems but to provide jobs for Canadians. Right before the package was unveiled, the NDP, along with the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives pulled the plug on the Liberal government at that time.
There was a plan that was ready to go. It was a plan based on consultation. In the election campaign that ensued, we heard a lot of self-righteous talk from the Conservative opposition at the time saying, “Just wait and see. Once we take over the controls of the government, there will be action. We will achieve things and produce results”. Here we are four years later and there are still no climate change regulations.
The government has been somewhat fortunate that in the interim the United States elected a new president and now it can hide behind the president's climate change plan. Until the Congress of the United States puts together something on climate change, the current government will obviously not produce much on this issue.
It is very important that we act on this issue. The impact of climate change is vast. Even though we have a lot of scientific evidence, we still do not understand exactly how climate change will impact our water systems. We do not understand how climate change will impact our oceans. We have an idea, but there is still a lot of work to be done.
At this point, we should still move ahead. If the government will not move ahead, it is up to Parliament to force it to start laying out some greenhouse gas emissions objectives. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do that.
It is very unfortunate, as we know, that earlier this week there was an in camera meeting of the House of Commons environment committee on the subject of Bill C-311. The result of a vote in that in camera meeting was unveiled by the NDP in advance of when the report of that committee was tabled in the House, which obviously was a breach of trust.
It is very important that we learn to work together in trust because a committee of Parliament in this corner of the world—