Debates of March 4th, 2009

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the member would like me to answer her question, I will do so, but she has to let me speak. This is a democracy and I have the right to say my piece.

Our government has taken action. Not only has it taken action, but we have been having discussions—the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been having discussions—with the people of Shannon since we were elected in 2006. Here on this side of the House, we are in a position to spend money because we are in power and we know what must be done. The Bloc has never spent one red penny for Quebec, since its inception. So they can spare me the rhetoric.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I stand tonight with regard to the issue of the environment and the fact that the government continues to say that it found religion and suddenly now they are concerned about climate change and that they have a plan. Clearly, they have not found religion and they have no plan.

In the three years that the Conservatives have been in office, they have not brought in one regulation to deal with the issue of climate change. In fact, when President Obama was here, we thought we heard from the third environment minister that somehow they were being tough on the environment, that they would have caps. They say that they will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by the year 2020 but they have no baseline.

The Conservatives ask what the Liberals did. In November, Environment Canada said that between 2003-08 emissions were actually down by 2.8%. The government does not mention that during our time we had the greenest budget in history, $10 billion in 2005, the most aggressive plan of the G8. The fact is that the government has not been serious on climate change. I do not even know if its members can even spell the word. It concerns me when the government talks about caps when it does not come clean on the baseline, on what it intends to do and on how it will achieve it.

It is all well and good to say that we want to have an agreement with the United States, but during the time when the United States had not signed Kyoto, 43 American states were very aggressive on the issue of climate change. The Conservatives, however, and the science deniers on that side of the House said that they did not even think that climate change was a real issue. They thought it was a socialist plot, as we all remember.

There really is a hard cap and trade system. In his very first budget, President Obama was very clear on caps and on what he would do in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, something the Conservative government has failed to enunciate. President Obama clearly indicated that his government might bring in $3 billion in revenue in dealing with the cap and trade.

As a member of GLOBE International G8+5, we have made a series of recommendations each year to the leaders of the G8. In response, the Prime Minister has not been very forthcoming in support, but suddenly he hears President Obama's footsteps and decides that maybe this could be an issue. Over 57% of Canadians said that even if we had to go into deeper debt, they would support strong action when it came to climate change.

However, again we have the failure of a real plan. The Conservatives announced cutbacks dealing with retrofits. The first thing they did was to cut back. They cut back with people doing energy work on their houses and environmental audits. People who were in the system were cut out simply because an announcement was made in the middle of the night saying that they were sorry but that they were not going to go ahead with that. That is not leadership.

It is not leadership to say that we will follow what everyone else does. Leadership is standing and saying that we will do this because it is the right thing to do for Canadians. It is good for health and it is good for our children and our grandchildren.

I know what I am talking about because I was parliamentary secretary to the former minister of the environment. Under his leadership, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, we were able to get the greenest budget in history because we had finance on board. We picked the allies around the cabinet table. I have not seen any allies supporting the current Minister of the Environment. Until the Conservatives do that, they cannot talk about caps when in fact they have no plan.

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

Madam Speaker, I thought that the hon. member would have at least read the plan but obviously he has not.

The fact is the government tracks cuts and increases in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. It is required to do so under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which we are a signatory. Canada is required to prepare and submit an annual national inventory of human induced greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks.

In fact, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions in 2006 declined, unlike the 13 long dark years under the previous Liberal government where emissions continued to climb year after year, a time when that member was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of the environment, a time that his leader describes as a time of creating an environmental mess.

Those times are over. Our government has taken important action on climate change. We have reaffirmed our 2020 target, which is more stringent than the U.S. target for 2020.

We are working with our U.S. counterparts, with President Obama, in pursuing a coordinated approach to the energy and environmental challenges that both of our countries face. In fact, the Minister of the Environment just returned from a three day, very successful, meeting with American officials.

President Obama's commitments on the environment create an opportunity to develop a North American regulatory regime and a level playing field that will alleviate past concerns about Canadian competitiveness.

We are proceeding to develop a regulatory system for industry that would not harm the Canadian industry, that is coordinated with other government policies, and that is harmonized with provincial policies.

In addition to moving forward with work on industrial emissions, we are taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other areas. We are regulating emissions from other sources, including phasing out inefficient, incandescent light bulbs, improving the energy efficiency of many commercial products, enhancing the fuel efficiency and reducing emissions from vehicles, and requiring at least 5% of renewable fuel content in gasoline by 2010, that is just a year away, as well as 2% in diesel and heating oil by 2012.

Along with these regulatory initiatives, our government is implementing a series of program spending measures to help achieve its 2020 emission reduction target, which I remind the member, is the toughest target in Canadian history.

Primarily directed at the energy and transportation sectors, they focus on increasing the supply of renewable power, making more efficient use of traditional power sources, and encouraging the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles.

In the 2009 budget the government committed to $1 billion over five years for the establishment of a new clean energy fund which would support clean energy research, development and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage. That member and I know that the world is counting on that. To GLOBE G8 + 5 the world said 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is counting on that technology. Canada, under this government, is providing that leadership along with the Obama administration.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the member believes the speech that was written for him by the department, but what he has said is clearly fiction.

There is no baseline to say 20% over by 2020. The fact is 11 independent analyses have concluded that the government's plan will not work. The government always says that we have not read the plan, but if there was a plan I would read it.

Has the member read Project Green? In 2005 it was the most aggressive plan of the G8. It was a plan that was actually going to do something, but unfortunately we had an election and now that do nothing group that came in said climate change is really not a priority.

The government says that emissions went up during our time. It is very interesting to note that the economy expanded like crazy. A lot of people were going to work, unlike now, where we have significant contraction in the economy.

We need to be dealing with the issue of the oil sands.The government has not done very much about this in terms of aggressive decisions.

The fact that President Obama has come up with a plan does not mean that what the U.S. is going to do is going to be the same as what we are going to do and the government should come clean and say that it is not.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, again, I encourage the member to read the plan and then he would know that the baseline is 20% reduction by 2020 at the 2006 level. We went together to Berlin and he heard the same messages that I heard loud and clear, that the world is counting on carbon capture and storage. It is a technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Together, with the Obama administration, Canada and the United States are working together. We are world leaders in that technology. With billions of dollars coming from this government and billions of dollars coming from the Obama administration, we are getting it done. Unfortunately, when that member had a chance, he did not get it done. What a shame.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment debate. These debates sometimes serve to provide some clarifications. On February 13, I asked a question of the government and my reply came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I got the impression he was not prepared for that question. With a concern for clarification, particularly for those involved, I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the question again in order to learn the government's position on it.

The question of February 13 was simple. I will reread it:

Mr. Speaker, the dismantling of ACE Aviation, the parent company of Air Canada and Aveos, does not respect the spirit of the Air Canada Public Participation Act regarding maintaining overhaul centres in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto.

What will the government do to ensure that ACE and its corporations comply with this act?

ACE Aviation, Air Canada and Aveos have complex structures. Subsidiaries have been created for maintenance. The company has been divided up and that means that not all of the parts of the consortium, not all of these affiliated companies that were created, are subject to the Air Canada Public Participation Act. This means that the overhaul and maintenance centres, which were protected by the Air Canada Public Participation Act, and which should be in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto, are no longer guaranteed to remain in these cities. This is very important because, for one, a large fleet of Boeing 767s belonging to Air Canada must be replaced. This was supposed to happen starting in 2010, but there will be a delay in the delivery of the new Boeing 787s. They are four years behind, so that will mean a lot more work for these overhaul and maintenance centres. It is important that Air Canada and its parent company, ACE Aviation, understand that they must comply with the Air Canada Public Participation Act and maintain these overhaul centres.

We are worried because, as everyone knows, the economy is not doing well. We need these centres because the Air Canada fleet is not being updated. When we see that the government is encouraging more foreign ownership in Air Canada, moving from 25% to 49%, it is important to ask questions. If there is additional foreign ownership, will the maintenance always be done in Canada? If there are new financial partners, will they not be tempted to have the maintenance done in the United States, for example?

Jobs in Canada are at stake. In the previous Parliament, the government introduced a bill that would require all new Air Canada and ACE Aviation components to comply with the Air Canada Public Participation Act. However, we have not seen the government introduce another bill during this new Parliament to guarantee this same protection for overhaul centres. Therefore, I am asking my question of the government again.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments from last month on this particular issue.

This is about protecting Canadians' jobs. Indeed, I would suggest that the member is reading selectively. I know he is an extremely hard-working member. He works very hard for his constituents and he knows the file, but I would suggest that this is about protecting Canadians' jobs.

In budget 2009, Canada's finance minister delivered an economic action plan that will support Canadians, stimulate the economy and create jobs.

I direct my colleague specifically to page 142 of the budget, where in no uncertain terms it is stated that our government will be delivering an additional $12 billion in urgent infrastructure stimulus in communities from coast to coast all around this country, including Quebec and his own riding.

Our investments will create jobs, hope and opportunity at a time when Canada needs it most because of the economic downturn that the world is facing at this stage.

Over the next two years, the government will provide a $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund, $2 billion to accelerate construction at Canadian colleges and universities, $1 billion to create a new green infrastructure fund and $500 million to support the construction of new community recreation facilities and make upgrades to existing facilities. These are things Canadians have been asking for, things that will improve Canadians' quality of life. That is what the government will do.

We will also be accelerating existing provincial and territorial based funding. We will be sending more money to them more quickly, providing millions of dollars to every province and territory quickly.

I direct the member opposite to page 143 of the same budget, which lists priority projects that have been identified by the federal government in consultation with our provincial partners, such as Quebec and other provinces, including Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, right across this great country, including the territories and municipalities. This includes upgrades to water and sewer systems across the province of Quebec, my hon. colleague's home province.

These are among the great measures of budget 2009, and they will help Canada emerge from this economic slowdown faster than any other country and stronger than ever before.

The member has voiced his concern in relation to the change from 25% to 49% and the increase in the limit on foreign ownership in Canadian airlines. This increase is necessary because it is all about the economic viability of the airlines and providing them with access to more capital from other countries while ensuring that these jobs remain in Canadian hands and the companies themselves remain in Canadian hands and Canadian control. The Canada Transportation Act, with which the member is familiar, will continue to ensure this as it is laid out.

This increase would also help Canadian carriers to attract more investment and capital and potentially allow them to lower their financing and operational costs. That is what it is all about: remaining competitive in a competitive environment, especially during these hard economic times. This will help Canadian airlines prosper and become very competitive economically across the world.

Raising foreign ownership limits to 49% would place the Canadian airline industry on a par with some of its international trading partners, such as the European Union and Australia. This approach is consistent with Canada's international trade obligations, and it is certainly in the best interest of Canadians.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thought my question was clear, but I will reword it.

Does the government plan to introduce a bill so that ACE Aviation, Air Canada and its Aveos subsidiaries comply with the Air Canada Public Participation Act, which provides that overhaul centres will be maintained in Montreal, Winnipeg and Toronto?

Will the government introduce a bill to require that Aveos and ACE Aviation comply with that section of the Air Canada Public Participation Act?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality at this stage is that the obligations of the Air Canada Public Participation Act have been met.

I am not certain as to any other legislation that is coming forward relating particularly to what the member has asked for, but I want to remind him, my hon. colleagues and all Canadians that this member and his party voted against our budget, a budget that is bringing economic stimulus to the country, that is bringing competitiveness to the airline industry and that is going to ensure thousands upon thousands of jobs for Canadians and make sure that we have a strong and robust airline industry in this country.

This is the budget that will do it. That member and his colleagues should have stood up for Canadians and voted for the budget.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)